Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable.
Review: For many years, Bernard Goldberg was a well-respected correspondent at CBS News who had the ear of many top dogs at that agency - including Dan Rather. He enjoyed popularity and a good reputation for solid reporting ... but all that changed when one day he took issue with a news story broadcast by his own network during the 1996 Presidential campaign. The story, which purported to be an analysis of Steve Forbes' flat-tax plan, was actually a snotty liberal ad hominem attack disguised as a serious news piece.And this is where Goldberg parted ways with CBS. He wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal which was critical of his network's story, leading to an internecine firestorm. He ultimately paid a high price for his criticism when he was rushed into retirement by CBS. Bias is, in actuality, two books: one detailing the story of the original Steve Forbes news story which led to Goldberg's op-ed and the fallout from it, and one describing the problems Goldberg perceives with what he believes is a liberal slant to the news in general. Unlike many of Regnery's publications, _Bias_ isn't a sledgehammer-like conservative attack on liberal thoughts, institutions, or values. In fact, Goldberg takes special pains to note that he is an old-line labor liberal, raised in a blue-collar family and sympathetic to the "old" style of liberalism: the social safety net, the New Deal. Rather, Goldberg begins with a rather simple and appealing premise: no matter your political inclination, if you're going to be a journalist, you should check your bias at the door and be objective in your work. No more, no less. This is something upon which -- in theory, at least -- people of all political persuasions should be able to agree. Unlike many breathless anti-liberal-media works by blond-bombshell conserva-babe commentators, Goldberg takes an earthy, practical tone in his discussions. And he also speaks from a position of some experience with his many years in the news business. In a word, he's believable as he details the reasons he believes the media is biased and how it can (and should) be improved. Reading this book, one gets the feel of sitting down with "Bernie" in a bar at the end of the day as he rolls up his shirtsleeves, lights up a smoke, tips back a beer, and says, "See, lemme tell ya what's wrong with the news these days..." My only complaint with this book is that there's a hint of a personal vendetta or conflict with Dan Rather which leaches from the pages. It's nothing overwhelming, but it does cast a slight but unfortunate pall upon what's otherwise a most enjoyable read. Four stars for this reason. If you're interested in an insider's perspective on the media business and how an old-timer believes it's changed for the worse, pick up _Bias_. I don't think you'll be sorry.
Rating: 
Summary: Unbiased and Uninformed
Review: Lighten up Francis! Listen, I've been working in TV for 10 years at five different stations, and I only WISH journalists were politically biased. But that would assume they had any opinions at all and knew what they were talking about. This is the REAL problem in TV news, (less so, but also true to some extent in print journalism). Journalists are simply ill-informed about almost EVERYTHING! And when the reporters and anchors don't know what they're talking about, ideologues from all sides of the fence (liberal or conservative), will be convinced that the media is biased against them. Why does Goldberg seem to miss this fact? I would argue he doesn't... he alludes to the laziness and uninformed nature of news several times in this book, but he writes it off as some kind of knee-jerk liberalism. BALONEY! The real coverup in news is TV doesn't want to admit that newspeople, (especially the high-priced anchors who are often the least informed), are hopelessly ignorant despite the "smart" way they seem to read the teleprompter. Journalists know this truth about themselves, (they're ignorant, not dumb, and they know they should know more but think they don't have time to learn... I say: try beat reporting!), so they try to hide it by acting super arrogant about how smart they are all the time. This doesn't fool me, and Goldberg's book is another example of this real coverup. His conclusions in this book are the best joke of all: he talks about how THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL is the only real hope for TV news! FNC, the channel that openly admits it's trying to be more favorable to the right, (although still finds time for an avalanche of anti-family sex stories), is the savior?!? Please Bernie, if you're hunting for a new job, try brown-nosing in private!
Rating: 
Summary: A peek behind the media's facade
Review: It never occurred to me what went on behind the scenes in the news room until I heard about this book. It was not only fascinating but really opened up my eyes. This book was a quick read and very informative. This insiders story should be required reading for anyone going into journalism, doing research or watching the news on TV. You'll never watch the news the same way.
Rating:
Summary: Sadlly, those who need to read this won't
Review: Sadly, those who most need to read "Bias" won't--the men and women who call themselves journalists. It's a bit breathless, to be sure, but no one can seriously malign its accuracy nor the import and implications of Goldberg's expose.
Rating:
Summary: --Do yourself a favor and read Chomsky instead--
Review: OH!!! I get it now! This book explains everything! Why, for instance, the media refused to report on the atrocities committed by the Reagan administration in East Timor-- oh, and why the media hardly says anything about Dick Cheney's underhanded deals with Saddam Hussein-- oh and what about the fact that Bush Sr kept sending Saddam money even four days after the Gulf War. It's so strange, because until I had read this masterpiece of investigative reporting, the secrets of the manufacturing of consent had remained vague and conspiratorial. Give me a break. Read some Chomsky. I haven't heard what he said about this book yet, but I have an idea: if the media APPEARS to have a leftist bias (which, in fact, it doesn't have), then it's easier for the media to distort and manufacture consent. Do yourself another favor: read other sources for news. If you're worried about this alleged bias, try reading more independent presses. And one more thing: what about Fox News? The most blatantly right-wing news organization in the world, a news organization that elected George Bush (thanks to a cousin of his who works for Fox and was the first person in the country to call Florida for Bush). Is that a bias? Jesus, just the concept of this book-- and the fact that decent Americans buy into this deception makes me sick to my stomach.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting peek inside network newsrooms
Review: Bernard Goldberg's book is an interesting view of how liberal bias plays itself out inside newsrooms. His personal story is appropriately interrupted by documentation of this bias. It is refreshing to hear from someone who is himself a Democrat on how slanted things have gotten in network news. I especially liked Goldberg's chapter on the newest social crisis in America: mothers missing-in-action. An interesting and quick read for anyone seeking the truth about the pervasiveness of liberal views in our culture.
Rating:
Summary: Actually, pretty good.
Review: This book is very well-written. Although Mr. Goldberg spends the first couple of chapters in what, to me, amounts to no more than a soapbox diatribe aimed at Dan Rather, he does make some cogent arguments and some very surprising revelations in the latter part of the book. I was especially drawn to those chapters in which I consider my leanings to the liberal side of the equation. For instance, many of his revelations concerning the plight of the homeless were very enlightening. And it did cause me to ruminate on ther fact that although I encountered some "homeless" in my day to day wanderings, I can't think of one that didn't seem to be sober and alert. I think this is a book that should be read by everyone, but especially by those of my stripe, the open-minded liberal.
Rating:
Summary: Verification?
Review: Book Review of Bernald Goldberg's "Bias" (and in response to a reviewer who called the book "verification") Verification? A conservative author telling conservative readers that he believes the media is biased is verification? Noam Chomsky, has been arguing successfully for decades now of media bias as have many Progressives have been doing for decades. But he has received ZERO coverage from the mainstream press. It is incredible that people like Jerry Falwell can be on TV almost on a weekly basis but cannot find any time for this man or any other real Progressive voice. If you want your Goldberg, fine. But why won't the liberal media give Chomsky, Zinn, Said, Finkelstein, etc the SAME time that they gave to Goldberg? Of course, that will never do that, not even close, because the Chomsky's are virtually censored from the mainstream press while Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Fred Barnes, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Alan Keyes, Sean Hannity, E.D. Donahay, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, John Carlson, Laura Schelessinger, Mike Reagan, Michael Medved, Kirby Wilbur etc. interview Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Dinesh D'Souza, Peggy Noonan, Thomas Sowell etc.as they complain about the liberal media. Naturally, many conservatives will argue that these Progressives I mentioned are too extreme to be on TV. OK, so lets see what views are worthy enough to be on TV: Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." "We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling." (How sweet! Holy Ann would never engage in religious discrimination but would invade their countries and convert them to Christianity! How noble!) "We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack." ("We jus' need to go get um! Yee Haw! And convert'um too! Funny soundin' religion yall got there, yall dont need it no more") "The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them." (Is that you Satan? Just so you know, Coulter has a book out called "Slander-Liberal Lies against the Right", I am currently writing "Therapy anyone? - Quotes from Ann Coulter")
Jerry Falwell: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers." (So, Christian Jerry sees homosexuals vs. Christians as being the equivalent of pursuing charioteers vs. fleeing Israelites. Sigmund Freud would have fun with that one!) "I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" (I hope I live to see the day when Conan O'Brian does a "If they mated" with Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell, I think they would produce the Anti-Christ if given the chance.) Pat Robertson: "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
(Getting back to Coulter's book "Slander", why would any Liberal need to lie with these kinds of quotes you give us?) OK, the point is to show you how that THESE are the kinds of people that are on our television on a weekly basis while Progressives are virtually censored. To argue that the media is liberal means either you are so blinded by the right you cannot see reality or don't know what a real liberal/progressive is. America is the only Democratic country in the world where one would be hard pressed to name a single Socialist newspaper columnist, Television personality etc. We have the most the most Fundamentalists in the Western World , by far. Do you really think crazies like Falwell and Coulter would be given the light of day in Europe? Progressives are virtually censored aside from a couple tokens like Moore and Nader which pale in comparison to the amount of right wing Conservatives given daily television appareances as mentioned above. Do you realize that David Duke has received more television appareances than Chomsky, Zinn, Finkelstein, Said, Herman, Parenti, COMBINED? That should pretty much close out any argument of a left wing media.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic eye-opener
Review: Bias was an eye-opening account of how the media naturally produces news that appears to have a liberal-left tilt. He demonstrates how short term ratings driven news content selection, attempting to appear sensitive and politically correct and pure ignorance lead to unobjective news. Goldberg also argues that the newscasters honestly believe that they are being objective, but are often incapable of producing news that is fair and balanced. Much of the book also deals with Goldberg's personal experiences inside CBS after writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, where he went public for the first time with his concerns. He argues that while CBS encouraged whistle blowers, even holding them up as heroes when they were appearing on their news programs; the attitude to public debate about bias at CBS was not acceptable. While some of these parts appear to be more about Goldberg letting off steam with his frustrations, it does provide some fantastic insights into understanding the internal politics of newsrooms, and his case is very well argued. While Bernard Goldberg has not produced a perfect academic masterpiece in this book, this is clearly not the point. He has managed to put a voice to the true frustration that I, like so many other conservatives feel about the media. Even those who are liberal (Goldberg claims to be liberal himself) should read this book. Liberal's may not agree with Goldberg's prospective, but at the very least it will help them understand why conservatives feel so genuinely hostile about the objectivity of today's media.
Rating: 
Summary: what does "liberal" mean anyway?
Review: It's incredible that right-wingers can still whine about
the "liberal" media, absolutely breath-takingly
incredible. The media are ferociously and
aggressively middle-of-the-road status quo,
which is by its very definition a conservative
position. Think about it: how long would
corporate America continue to foot the bill if
the media were critical of them in any serious
way? Get real. A truly liberal media would
have already made our president-by-coup
the laughingstock that he is in the rest of
the world, like shooting fish in a barrel. Or, by the word "liberal", did you mean
"smug, venal, and xenophobic" ?
Well, in that case...
| 
