Rating: 
Summary: Good read--balances many 'liberal' books.
Review: I agree with most of what Goldberg says, although some things are anecdotal or purposefully 'uncited' to protect people (I assume he means to protect those still working for CBS who want to speak but are afraid of repercussions, which is quite silly in the face of what he wants this book to do). It's a quick read, and an enjoyable balance to 'liberal' expose's like last years Blinded By The Right, even though that dealt with politics and Bias deals with news media.
I didn't like the constant use of exclamation points and italics throughout the book. It felt like Goldberg was shouting too much, and that makes things suspicious when one does that. I also kept wondering why this book focused so much on Dan Rather. Goldberg wholly admits that "The Dan" had him fired for speaking out, but it's petty to slam "The Dan" out of sour grapes.
Also, the constant attempt to 'label' everyone either liberal or conservative gets a little old. I'm sure there are quite a number of one-dimensional people in the news media who can be labeled as such, but I'm not sold that it's a majority and there's some pervasive clear-cut agenda by them.
Nonetheless, the 'liberal' slant to the newsmedia is obvious to anyone with a tv and it's interesting to see that someone from the 'inside', a journalist, is not allowed to report facts of industry self-investigation.
Rating:
Summary: Insider's view of CBS News
Review: Bias starts with a single incident. Bernard Goldberg is told by a friend that a report done on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather was a hatchet job. When he looks into the report, he finds that yes, the story was deliberately slanted against Steve Forbes' flat tax plan, which the reporter referred to as "wacky." The reporter dissected the idea behind the plan with the help of three economic experts, all of whom agreed it was a terrible idea. The experts weren't identified as liberals, and no mention was made of the fact that some economists (Milton Friedman for one) think the flat tax is a good idea, and workable. When Goldberg brought this up with people at CBS News, he was given the cold shoulder, so he wrote an editorial, and to compound his sin, published it on the Wall Street Journal's notoriously conservative editorial page. So far so good.The abovementioned incident, and the firestorm the editorial created at his job, take up the first third of this book. We learn much about the author's dispute with Dan Rather, all of it gossip column style, with amusing anecdotes and quotes. Goldberg seems rather puzzled by the animosity that accompanies such arrogance and unrestricted power in one such as Dan Rather, as if he hasn't heard the old absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely quote. In spite of this, it is entertaining to read, if a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The author then goes ahead and tells us what he saw in 28 years of media coverage of events, with emphasis on bias. Unfortunately, the answer is not that much, at least not that he can say. He does say he had to leave out several incidents because people could get fired if he were to repeat the occurrences or the things people said in response to them. He does have *some* substance, though. He recounts several incidents and telling instances of pervasive bias that are illuminating, if hardly news to a conservative. He's not the first person to note that homelessness was exaggerated to make Ronald Reagan look bad, and certainly not the first to wonder where all those homeless people went when Clinton was elected. He also has a series of quotes from people in the media (or at least on TV) saying nasty things about Conservatives, and wonders out loud whether anyone could say any of that about a Liberal and remain on the air. The book does have flaws, however. It has an insider's point of view, and perhaps takes too long making its point that Dan Rather is intolerant of criticism and dissent. The anecdote about Rather thinking that the New York Times editorial page is middle of the road is funny though. Goldberg says he didn't notice the bias in much of the time he was reporting, though, so the stories he tells give you the impression that this all happened recently. No mention, for instance, of the Checkers speech, and that era. There is a tendency in many of the other reviews here to pan the book if you're a liberal, and praise it if you're a conservative. I don't think there's a single reviewer who identified him/herself as a liberal who had anything good to say about the book. To my mind, this means if you pick this book up, you've probably already made your mind up. That's a shame.
Rating: 
Summary: Critical Thinking and Logic needs to be required for ALL!!!
Review: While this book, in part, may be true the bias is not always from those in the media themselves - especially rescently! Our media lately has fallen to not following up with questions we want answers to, has taken the government feed and spews whatever they want us to hear... Sound familiar? (If you ever studied histiry or lived in Nazi Germany, it should!) I recall when reporters were reporters and they asked questions, and would not let up until they got answers... when this was their job! As of late, however, the media has fallen to laziness, and not only flipped sides from leaning towards the left, now the right, but has been since the late 1990's read the wire feed, and regurgitate it... Reporters USED TO look at what it was those around the world were saying and doing and they would go there. IF a president didn;t answer a question, they got the answer, and would force a president to answer, even if by forcung it out by pressure from the press. Our reporters have become lazy, do not follow up, thus we are fed whatever the government and others in control and with enough money want us to think (unless we are wise enough to know better) Sure, there has always been bias in the news, but this has been both ways... In the 1970's, reporters did not let up on WaterGate! They reported and showed the war in Viet Nam (something that was totalyl missing in the Gulf War, along with the fact that many, many people came back very ill from that war, apparently from our own bioweapons, and yet it took a movie (that BTW was not very well publicized) called, "Thanks for a Grateful Nation" to get this fact out past C-SPAN viewers (sure it was on the news, but by and large was swept under the rug, and here we go again??? How many of our kids are going to get hurt or die from our own bioweapons this time???) Both those on the left and right need to wake up and see what is really going on! I have never seen so much propaganda in my life taken for so-called "truth" han with the Bush administration... Remember his ratings before and after 9/11??? Remember his dad's war, in which our men and women came home sick, but then they were denied treatment, told they were crazy, etc. even when many of them died? Come on America!!! WAKE UP!!! Critical Thinking and Logic classes (as well as perhaps comarative religion) need to be required of all reporters, and all Americans, least we be an integral part of another Hiltner-like regime. (Hitler - Europe, the Bush family - the Middle East & war contract companies, in the mean time destroying America & our freedoms - remember Politically Incorrect??? It was taken off the air because of a comment about cowardice in dropping bombs on baby formula factories... What ever happened to the 1st Ammendment? or are ALL our reporters afraid to tell the truth about anything anymore???) God help us if they are, and we don't do anything about it! Bias? Sure there is bias! There was in the McCarthy Era, through Water-Gate, Iran Contra, Panty-Gate and there has been from the Gulf War, and now more than ever! (and smoke screens like going after Martha Stewart - boy that was convenient huh? Made a nice distraction, not to mention aboput destroyed her life, but as long as it made Enron and such not look as bad, now who cares??? Well, I do!)
Rating: 
Summary: Exposing the obvious!!
Review: Outstanding!!! For years I thought I was the only one who noticed certain groups and (or) politicians identified on the evening news as "conservative". But when's the last time you've heard any group (or politician) identified on the big 3 (ABC, NBC, and CBS) as liberal? Hmmm?
Goldberg exposes the fundamental bias at the major networks. A bias not due to a certain type of ethnicity, or regionalism (some people might disagree with me on that), but bias in fundamental philosophy in how the world is. He articulately points out that most journalists don't have blue collar friends or friends outside of the big media centers (i.e. N.Y., L.A.). He correctly portrays most media members as out of touch.
Actually, I wasn't going to write a review of this book because I felt that my thoughts had already been reflected by many others. But I came across a review that discussed Goldberg's recent appearance on the Phil Donahue show (on MSNBC). This reviewer felt that comedian/recovering drug addict/slander writer Al Franken somehow "exposed" the "lies" of Goldberg's book. Absolutely preposterous!! I saw the show myself and the only thing Al showed was he was a moron. The point of contention came when Al brought up a quote from Goldberg's book (in the chapter entitled: "Liberal Hate Speech") in which that John Chancellor (the former NBC news anchor, now deceased) said (about the situation in Russia in 1991) that ".......the problem is shortages......no one even mentioned communism today.....". Goldberg's reason for bringing this quote up is obvious: Chancellor was trying to say that Russia's current problems have absolutely nothing to do with 70 years of stagnation under communism!! Ridiculous! Al Franken thought that it was important that this comment was made in response to the (failed) revolt against Boris Yelstin, and that Goldberg didn't know what happened in Russia on that day. Irrelevant!! The point is: THEY HAVE SHORTAGES BECAUSE OF 70 YEARS OF COMMUNISM!!! CHANCELLOR WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT COMMUNISM HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!! Al also thought that it was mean-spirited of Goldberg to bring this up because Chancellor is dead. Is that Goldberg's fault?
Actually there are many more notable quotables from the "liberal hate speech chapter" (like Julian Melveaux wishing Clarence Thomas an early death), detailing how vicious liberals can me if you disagree with them.
Rating: 
Summary: Correct message, execution could be better
Review: As someone who has studied media bias--and who, by the way, agrees with Goldberg's analysis 100%--this book was eye-opening only in a few aspects, but they were nonetheless striking. It was news to me that there is a party line among journalists: they are not to admit publicly that there is bias. Journalists can do hard-hitting exposes of all sorts of industries and government functions--just not of journalism itself. That will give any journalist a reputation as a vicious traitor. It was also interesting to learn of the brazen and straightforward racial bias based on desired for increased ratings (with white audiences). I doubt that is the sort of bias that people thought they'd be reading about--it's not political bias per se--but to my mind, the basic principle is the same. Namely, journalists are interested in advancing a liberal agenda and in making a profit while doing it, but what they are not, or not enough, interested in is simply stating the truth in a way that lets people make up their minds for themselves. In a way, this book reads more like an extended letter to sympathetic friends than an extended argument. It's a personal book. There's lots of qvetching and explanations of personal problems and encounters with colleagues. It's more or less structured by the story of Goldberg's public criticism of ABC News, and the fall-out of that. Now don't get me wrong: the bulk of the book does consist of general (very plausible) assertions and shocking instances of bias of various kinds, regarding race, homelessness, white men, crime, and other topics. If the latter is the "meat" of the book, and if that's what we should judge the book by, then the book isn't particularly special. The discussions are, while insightful and entertaining and made all the more interesting because they're given by an insider, not particularly incisive or thoughtful. That doesn't mean the book is a waste of time, by any means. Just that it could have been considerably better. The book also really needed another proofreader. I spotted a number of stylistic infelicities which gave me the impression that it was quickly written by Goldberg and then rushed off to the presses with little attention to copyediting. There is one thing I want to add, which doesn't so much concern the merits of the book as to how it is sold. Goldberg declares himself to be a liberal. But he does us an enormous favor by actually describing, for a couple of pages, exactly what his political views are, and what he means by "liberal," and based on that description, I think it's very clear he should be labelled a moderate. By calling himself a "liberal" he is simply making a rhetorical point, that thirty years ago, when he was fresh on the scene, his views were liberal. Sadly, they aren't any longer, as the Establishment has moved leftward. He hasn't changed, the people called "liberals" have, and he doesn't want to go along with that. I can sympathize (I don't think modern "liberals" deserve that name either), but it is a little disingenuous for Goldberg to insist on this so strenuously. I give the book three stars even though I agree 100% with the message. I strongly discourage the practice of rating books according to how much you agree with them. If this had not been written by Goldberg and the "meat" of the book were not put in the context of his personal experiences, which were interesting and enlightening to read about, it would get perhaps 2 stars from this reviewer. (Even though, again, I agree 100% with the message.) What makes the book stand out as much as it does is the fact that it's written by an insider--and this angle is well-exploited and Goldberg does a good job with it.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money on this propaganda
Review: If the corporate owned media supposedly has "liberal bias" then why are there so many commentators like O'Rielly, Rush Limbugh, Bob Grant, etc. If you still believe this lie, then why is it that we never hear in depth news in the following topics: Corporate Corruption, Homelessness, the real jobless rate, ecological destruction, governmental corruption, workers rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. PLEEEASSE! Goldberg can be counted amongst these exponents of right wing nonsense. His book goes to great lengths to try and prove his false point by using faulty logic, specious arguments, red herring data and generally bad or a total lack of research. This book is nothing more that conservative knee-jerk dribble that is written to sell books to dim witted dupes. Save your money and instead buy a subscription to magazines like EXTRA! if you want find out the real scoop on the state of corporate media.
Rating:
Summary: Another Biased book filled with lies
Review: As Al Franklin proved on Donahue when he confronted Goldberg with the many lies and false truths presented in this book (the transcripts can easily be found on the web); there is blatant skewing of facts and quotes taken out of context in this book. I wouldn't even use the pages of this book to pick up my dog's ....
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of our time
Review: If you want to keep your eyes firmly closed and believe that the government, military, churches, and corporations are all in a giant evil conspiracy than don't read this book. Go to your "free press" and whisper in your coffee shops about "the man". As someone who has been deeply involved in all the institutions above I know that these organizations couldn't form a conspiracy if they wanted to--they are too diffuse and incompetent! But I do know what I hear on the evening news and it's not "fair and objective". Goldberg has been on the inside. I think he knows a thing or two. As a member of the first generation who has had TV and mass media for their entire lives, I feel we underestimate the effect it has on every aspect of our existence. The way we conduct our day to day lives, the conversations we have, our opinions, how we try to raise our kids... all are deeply influenced by mass media. The power there is awesome, concentrated and unchecked. Say something on the airwaves or in print and it's true. This book is chilling. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece exposé
Review: Goldberg's main point is that journalists don't intentionally set out to skew the news; liberal bias is insidious. So insulated are journalists from differing opinions, they feel their own liberal positions are the only reasonable, civilized, normal positions. They believe conservatives are racist, sexist Neanderthals. Because their worldview colors everything they do, journalistic bias is rampant and, at the same time, unacknowledged. Books like Slander and Coloring the News make the same points, except Bias was first. It all started when a story on then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes's flat tax ran on CBS news, purportedly giving the readers the facts to make up their own minds. But all the experts shown were liberals (though not identified as such) and all were against the flat tax! The reporter even called the flat tax "wacky." Goldberg brought it up and nobody cared. Finally he sent an editorial to the Wall Street Journal. He talks a lot about the reactions of his peers. Some of the journalists that ran to support him were John Stossel, Andy Rooney, and Bob Costas. Dan Rather, though, said he would never, ever forgive Goldberg. According to Rather, Goldberg is (suddenly) a right-wing kook with an agenda, the New York Times is middle-of-the-road, and most journalists don't know if they're Democrat or Republican. To Rather, bias doesn't exist. Goldberg goes on to give other examples of bias. He tells how a TV journalist covering post-hurricane looting in a Caribbean country serendipitously taped looters being arrested, only to have the story spiked because the looters were black and it offended a black CBS staffer (although the cops were also black, as is 95% of the country). He relates a producer insisting a black man be called "African American" instead of black or the story wouldn't run--despite knowing that the victim was Jamaican, not American. The politically correct producer just wouldn't, couldn't, say the man was black. By themselves, the harm in these decisions seems minimal, but they indicate a growing willingness for journalists to paint a PC picture instead of tell the truth. He discusses the rigging of statistics by AIDS and homeless groups and how journalists think they are helping them by not questioning the numbers. Instead, their complicity only does harm by obfuscating the root problems. Goldberg also deflates common feminist myths, like women earning 59 cents to the dollar for "equal" work. If that were true, corporate America would simply get rid of all men and hire women to do everything. He talks about the stories that won't get covered, namely anything negative about daycare or positive about men. What distinguishes this from Slander is that Goldberg was a respected, connected network insider. After a biased story ran, he didn't just document it; he'd call the journalist and asked why he said this or that. He is more reasonable and seems to have actually made some impact with liberals, while Coulter only alienated them. He's not against liberal ideas per se, just liberal bias. Conservative bias would be just as wrong in an objective newsroom. My complaints would be (1) comparing news coverage is not so simple. There are myriad reasons why a given story doesn't run. (2) Goldberg complains about network newspeople making male-bashing jokes. While his complaints are valid, I would hate to see men become another victim group, just another sacred cow who can't take a joke. The audiobook is read by the author, and his training as a TV journalist prepared him well. He puts plenty of oomph into his voice, making emotions like anger, frustration, and astonishment obvious. And he knows how to pause while reading statistics. I was less impressed by the interview after the book, which only briefly discussed the ideas in Bias, instead focusing on other aspects of news like corporate interference and the length of the stories. On the whole, this is well-written and powerful documentation of a massive problem with both individual and national importance. Bias is an exceptional book.
Rating:
Summary: Bias, Indeed
Review: The only people who'll agree that the media still has a liberal bias are the ones who think that TV stations and newspapers owned by Fortune 500 companies are somehow staffed by radical Marxists. Please. The only true thing about this book is its title. Goldberg displays a tremendous bias of his own, and does an excellent job of distorting the news. If you truly think that Fox News is "fair and balanced" or that Rush Limbaugh gives reasoned accounts of today's news, then this book is for you. If you have a brain, however, steer clear.
|
