Rating: 
Summary: Shaky Cross Between Memoir and Journalism
Review: It's not hard to figure out whether or not you'll like "Bias." Are you Conservative? Do you not get Fox News in your household? Yup, then this is your book. Bernard Goldberg, a fine TV journalist who particularly excels on HBO's "Real Sports," confirms all your worst fears. Yes, it's true! ABC, CBS, and NBC are out to get you, and your little dog, too! They'll phrase things in a way that's pure evil! They'll corrupt you and your children's minds if you watch too long, so beware! Or are you Liberal? Do you think Katie Couric is the world's most courageous journalist? Do you find "Access Hollywood" interviews to be truly in-depth? Think Phil Donahue is a paragon of objectivity? Then you'll think "Bias" is the worst book ever. All is does is complain about your favorite TV newspeople and personalities, and that's mean! Or are you like me, and could care less either way? If you are, then the glaring WRITING flaw of "Bias" comes to light only a few pages in. Is the book a memoir of Goldberg's observations on journalistic injustice? Or is it an objective journalistic piece itself? Turns out it wants to be both and ends up being neither. It's a rant book designed to create controversy, with Goldberg taking up a popular conservative viewpoint (that the mainstream media is horribly liberal and hateful of conservatives), and then trying to prove it through a series of personal experiences and/or statistical data. But it feels too vindictive. Goldberg slaps a nasty tag on his old superior, Dan Rather ("The Dan"), then rails against all the ways Rather distorted news reports to favor his own viewpoint. But it all has the feel of a get-back-at-your-boss revenge piece, and since no one with a resting pulse watches CBS News anyway, it's hard to see how it supports Goldberg's argument. Because Goldberg wants to tell his story and frame it within the context of a greater issue, the book strikes an uneasy balance that it can't withstand. Goldberg also asserts that many newsworthy stories go ignored by the media due to liberal bias, including the absence of mothers from the American household. Goldberg argues that this done so as not to offend a liberal target audience, but here's another idea why the media ignore it: it's boring, and it won't get ratings. Is that biased? Totally, but not in the way Goldberg wants you to believe. Media is distorted horribly by the influence of money and ego, but Goldberg doesn't explore all those avenues fully, and that makes it annoying. And so the book ends up being an argument against itself. If the media were super-liberal, would you need this big expose to prove it? Wouldn't it be readily apparent anyway? And if it were, wouldn't you automatically know that and change the channel? If it's liberal in hidden ways, then does it really matter? Many of his perceived slights (he takes great interest in how certain stories are worded) are either too small to ever notice or not worth noticing anyway. Seems hardly effective to begin with. In the end, "Bias" fails because it is designed to be predictable. Goldberg never plays the part of Devil's Advocate to counter his own viewpoint, and so the piece is, naturally, biased itself. There aren't many surprises; you know where he's heading. There are some sound observations in here - that journalists distort news for the sake of their own egos, that too often newscasters consider themselves or are considered above reproach, that hypocrites abound in the national media, that entertainment people try too often to be "newsy" - but they're overwhelmed by Goldberg's need to endorse a viewpoint lots of people readily love to agree with. How much more interesting would it have been for Goldberg to also expose right-leaning biases at Fox-owned media branches, in talk radio, and in the publishing world, and then figure out why no one can take a straight, objective viewpoint at all? Most folks wouldn't argue that broadcast network news tends to lean slightly to the left. But too often conservative pundits greatly exaggerate that slant in order to beat their own chests. They also perceive bias when their own viewpoint is not presented as much or in the way that they would like it. But that's not really bias. That's nitpicking. Either way, if you're a middle-of-the-road, normal Amercian, this book won't interest you. It does what it was designed to do, and that isn't a compliment.
Rating: 
Summary: Yet Another Indictment
Review: Let me first proudly admit to being a conservative on most important issues. I like conservative magazines, conservative radio hosts, and conservative editorials. Why? Because they reinforce my conservative worldview. BUT, one thing I don't want dished up conservative is the news. That I want straight, just the facts, and I'll decide for myself. Why? Because I am not a knee-jerk conservative. If an issue interests me, I like to examine that issue from many sides so that I can decide it for myself without some news anchor trying to steer my thoughts in any one particular direction.
That's where Bias comes in. I gave up network news and "mainstream" US news magazines years ago. I get most of my news from a slightly left of center English news magazine that has more US news in it than the three leading US news magazines combined. I gave all those US news sources up because their bias against conservative ideas and personalities is palpable. They don't report news, they concoct stories and feed them to a trusting public.
I recently read Ann Coulter's book on media bias and it was what one expected to hear from a partisan conservative. But I wanted to hear from a liberal, too, and Goldberg's book satisfied that desire. He certainly gives the thoughtful reader much to ponder.
OK, yes he does whine a little bit about his treatment at CBS after he outed some of its newspeople as less than even-handed.
I understand that no organization likes an in-house whistleblower, even an organization that makes heroes out of whistleblowers in the wider world. I also understand that employers expect unquestioning loyalty of their employees. But Goldberg did a service to the country in showing how the only kind of diversity tolerated where he worked was diversity of outward characteristics, not diversity of thought and spirit. He shows how millions have been led to think about AIDS, homelessness, and politics in general in ways that are grounded solely in emotion rather than in reason.
While reading, the open-minded reader will quickly see the truth in Goldberg's allegations. And he tries very hard not to over-dramatize. After all, he remains an instinctive liberal. His sense of fairplay has led him to demur on naming several sources whose careers would be hurt by being politically outed, and thats the only real drawback to the book. Hey, I want names, dates, and places!
The most interesting chapter to me was entitled Liberal Hate Speech.Just imagine the liberal network employee hate quotes about conservatives coming from the mouth of a conservative network employee about liberals and then think about how long the conservative would remain employed.
Imagine John Stossel praising Pinochet on national TV for bringing stability to Chile and commenting that Allende had deserved his fate. Imagine! Imagine Cal Thomas' newspaper column saying that it would be great had the Clintons and Tom Daschle been on the plane with Paul Wellstone or on the plane with Mel Carnahan. Imagine!
Liberals regularly praise Castro and minimize the brutality of his regime, usually remarking on their health care system. Never mind that there is no freedom in Cuba and that their vaunted health care is a sham. Federal Penitentiaries have great health care too, but who wants to live in one?
I could go on for pages, but I'll close here by recommending Bias to interested readers as yet another indictment of our major media's failure to provide fair and balanced coverage of important news events.
Rating: 
Summary: Through the Looking-Glass
Review: Media bias to the left? Amazing! Possibly, from Mussolini's point of view...
Rating:
Summary: A realistic view of the news
Review: The best thing about this book is that Bernard Goldberg admits to being a liberal. Only a liberal could credibly point the finger at his cohorts in the news business and draw away the curtain of denial that has been built up over the past several years. "There is no bias in the media" they said. Bernard Goldberg puts that statement to the test, and proves that it isn't true.
Rating: 
Summary: Progressives: Don't Write This Book Off
Review: As a non-conservative, I was extremely impressed by the thoughtfullness of parts of this book. That being said, my expectations of a 350 page right-wing diatribe set a decidedly low bar. BIAS's value, therefore, is not in Bernard Goldberg's shallow political incite nor the book's frequent one-liners (his sorry attempt at humor shows why he worked for CBS instead of Comedy Central), rather, it comes from the man's inside knowledge of the morally bankrupt way in which the newsmedia operates since its shift from journalism to entertanement For example, BIAS reveals a shocking trend in TV news toward
'whitewashing' stories. Goldberg explains the "Throw out a black face when a white one will do," matra with the phrase "It's the economy, Stupid." More specifically, it is mostly well off, educated, white people who watch the news. These rich white people pay the bills of the networks through advertising revenues and it is the belief of the network executives that these rich white people don't care about the suffering of black people or brown people, and will therefore not watch commercials following news stories about these people. This book has shocking insight on the news business that can be found nowhere else, period. Even if you disagree with some of Goldberg's right leaning conservative rant chapters - I know I do - you should not pass up the oppurtunity to read a truly unique and informative piece of commentary on today's money-driven approach to news.
Rating:
Summary: Personal Bias
Review: Mr. Goldberg complains about his treatment at CBS, and complains and complains. He complains that the media is biased, but he does not base his books on any evidence, other than his own opinion. The weight of the evidence contradicts Mr. Goldberg's thesis that our media is slanted leftward. Because of massive consolidation over the last 20 years, over 90% of the media (print, radio, television) is controlled by a handful of companies. This is a much bigger influence on what is or is not in the media, than the individual bias of the reporters, even the "super-stars." They are, after all, employees. I would refer people to the following sources for media evaluations that are based on weighing the evidence: 1. ...
2. Project Censored, 2002-2003 by Peter Phillips
3. Manufacture of Consent by Noam Chomsky.
Rating:
Summary: A year Later ---- It is still TRUE
Review: Goldberg has done this country a great favor. I reviewed this book on the 14th of December 2001. I have spent a year viewing the CBS news looking for the kinds of slights that Goldberg described. Has it had an effect? Yes perhaps, but of late I have begun to see the national news media (ex-Fox) begin to slip back into familiar habits. The Trent Lott situation is a great case in point. I care not to defend Lott because his record speaks for itself. But nowhere have I seen the balance in the national media about the democrats that support(ed) segregation (Sen Byrd) or that the Republican party is the party that emancipated the slaves. One more chance to get in a dig at the right without balance could not be passed up. Read and Reread this book to prevent the left for deciding on your behalf what is "best" for you to know and start watching Fox from time to time to add some balance to what you take in! Many people have already abandoned the network news for other outlets, look for this to continue until they shape up.
Rating:
Summary: Boring stuff by a Rush wannabe
Review: I agreed with some of his points but man this guy can't write. And most of the book is his crying about how CBS mistreated him. Like nothing was ever his fault. Yeah, it was liberal bias against him! Whine, whine, whine. There wasn't enough facts about what's wrong with the media and too much poor me. If you want a good book about media bias just read anything by Rush. This guy isn't the real thing.
Rating:
Summary: Big Disappointment
Review: As I have often thougth that there is bias in the media, I was looking forward to this book. Unfortunately, it left me disappointed for several reasons.
The first half of the book is devoted to Mr. Goldberg's description of his mistreatment at CBS. Fair enough, I understand that he is hurt and angry. But this all happened six years ago. He is carrying around a lot of resentment, and the book seems directed at the people who hurt him, not the general public. For example, he includes lists of questions he would have liked to have asked Dan Rather and other CBS executives, if they would only return his calls. He ends the book with an Appendix that includes letters from his friends, agreeign with his position. Again, I can understand his hurt, but a book probably isn't the best forum. Who among us hasn't been hurt, and wanted a chance to say all the things that couldn't be said, and say, "See? So-and-so agrees with me! See?" But a respected journalist should be above all that. I felt like I was on the inside of a personal dispute, and that should not have occupied half a book about media bias.
My second complaint is just a mild annoyance. When Mr. Goldberg refers to men in his book, he does so by their last names, like "Heyward". Hoever, he often refers to women by their first names, like "Sally". That's a personal pet peeve that wouldn't have even bothered me if it weren't for my thrid point:
Mr. Goldberg devotes a chapter to his book about the "problem" of working mothers, specifically those who are working "not for economic reasons". While earlier in the book he taunts his CBS colleagues for being elitists, and out of touch with mainstream America, Mr. Goldberg actually comes out and says he thinks mothers are working to buy luxury cars and clothes. Now who's out of touch?
He expresses his anger at the fact that most women do not see childraising as their foremost responsibility. No kidding, Mr. Goldberg. Most MEN don't feel that way, either. He goes on and on about the dangers of children spending time away from their MOTHERS but not once does he mention the importance of FATHERS. Now who's biased? He was mad that a bigger deal wasn't made of a female professional who said that she hoped one day her child would understand that her work was as important to her as food or air. But Mr. Goldberg is himself a father. How much of the time he spent writing this book, which is essentially a complaint about Dan Rather, could he have spent with his kids? Did his children understand that writing this book was as essential to him as food or air?
Overall, this book could have been very powerful. In between Mr. Goldberg's rantings and own personal bias, there was some thought-provoking material that should have been more deeply explored. Unfortunatley, most people will see this book as the tantrum of a spoiled child.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting read
Review: I found Bias an interesting look inside of the world of TV journalism, especially CBS. Goldberg gives the reader a glimpse of the bias many journalists show based on their own limited view of the world. We are told about how journalism has transformed from telling the story based on the facts to telling the story colored by the personal beliefs of the journalists. Instead of news reporting, we now get commentary disguised as news. What I really liked about the book are Goldberg's specific examples. He pulled out several important news stories and provided specific details of how the news stories have been spun into biased commentaries. I really liked the notes and bibliography that Goldberg provided, which allowed me to further research many of the high profile news stories we see. Especially interesting was his information on HIV and religious violence. From news coverage, I believed that HIV was a real worry for everyone, but Goldberg's detailed information helped me to see that the news world has ignored the facts and may be helping to spread the disease among the real at risk groups. In the same vein, I was under the impression that most religious groups were violent, but Goldberg showed how media distortion as lumped all religions together instead of focusing on the facts,... It is this extra bit where Goldberg takes popular news stories and shows the facts which have not been reported, that make the book worth reading.
|
