Rating: 
Summary: Moderately interesting
Review: Written in an approachable, soap opera style, thereby avoiding the drudgery of more scholarly works on the subject of liberal bias in the news, "Bias" rocketed up the bestseller charts, eagerly snapped up by buyers that must never have considered that the media might be giving conservative thought short shrift.Despite all the hoopla and controversy surrounding the book, there is little new here. Goldberg was so entrenched in the leftist media slant that when - metaphorically - he realized that the earth orbits the sun after being told otherwise for years by his superiors and media siblings, only the most backward of us would be startled at his revelation. If you are a conservative, you already know 90% of what Goldberg trumpets as being so shocking. That the three big news anchors and the folks that back them lean left should surprise no one. The howls of derision offered up by the media concerning this book come off as more amusing than anything, since the depth of scandal here is so blatantly obvious to thinking people. Personally, as an arch-conservative, I found "Bias" ho-hum. Virtually nothing revealed came as a surprise. In fact, I knew more about some of the incidents than Goldberg. Still, the book has its amusing points. The stuck pig anchor of CBS gets repeatedly skewered so backhandedly by ex-chum Goldberg that every time the author attempts to prove that this book is not a direct slam at his former cohort, he instead proves otherwise. To condense all the biting compliments into one hyperbolic paraphrase would read something like this: "Dan is possibly the greatest man ever to breathe. This book is written in no way to impugn this fine man's reputation. Dan and I were such good friends that I even let him perform my son's bris. That he drank the blood of one of the CBS interns and tossed her lifeless corpse into the dumpster behind the studio is an incident we have all let slip from our memories. He truly is an American's American." The book is sprinkled with fun comments that have that sort of tone. It's not a hatchet job per se, but more like death by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, it still undermines the objectivity of the book. One gets the impression that this is the last we might hear from the author, since he falls prey to his own naïvete, a bleeding shark cannibalized by associates in the midst of a feeding frenzy. If you want a more inciteful and challenging book, Goldberg's "Bias" has a doppelganger of sorts in Anne Coulter's "Scandal", a far more enjoyable read and harder hitting to boot. Squarely in the conservative camp rather than a defector from the left, Coulter lets the leftists grind their own axes to use as their personal instruments of self-inflicted destruction, pointing out the lunkheadedness of the liberal viewpoints but simply quoting their own moronic words.
Rating: 
Summary: Great
Review: A wonderful book. I started reading thinking I was going to be bored, but it was great
Rating:
Summary: View from the Inside
Review: For those of us who have long detected a bias in the mainstream media, this book is refreshing. For people who haven't, it will be thought-provoking.
Goldberg points out-sometimes humourously, sometimes sadly-that the media's bias isn't necessarily a left-wing plot. It's just that people tend to see things from a particular point of view. And when you're a newsperson, your point of view may come through, whether you intend it or not.
All people have a tendency to assume others think like they do. What Goldberg points out is how that tendency shapes the way our news is given to us. An engrossing read.
Rating: 
Summary: Important message. Overly personal exposition.
Review: Bias is a very well-researched, well-documented book. Goldberg obviously was in a position to know about the extent of liberal bias in the media. Unfortunately, to a very real extent, the message gets lost in his abrasive, often polemical tone. His ideas are clearly important and well thought out. Why obscure them with childish problems with his co-workers? I think he would have succeeded in getting more readers to come around to his point of view if he had expressed it in a more erudite and professional manner. I'm afraid that in some ways, his tone has given critics more fuel to use against his position even if their stand isn't well-reasoned. His focus on petty, personal conflicts have certainly been used to trivialize his arguments and dismiss him as a "crank". In that sense, he's somewhat attenuated the momentum of the journey towards achieving balance in the media. If his tone were more professional and subdued, this book would have easily deserved 5 stars given the importance of what he has to say. Hopefully his next book won't involve so many personal attacks. One quick observation: The negative reviews of this book generally dismiss his observations completely without offering a single counter-example or reasoned argument. Isn't this one of the things he was accusing the media of...taking a position based on feelings or intrinsic bias rather than logic and facts?
Rating:
Summary: Good book but suffers from Goldberg's style
Review: Bernard Goldberg does a great job of showing the liberal bias of the mainstream media. He gives many examples from his work in the industry that are pretty hard for a liberal to deny. I really appreciated his explanation of what liberal bias media means and explains why reporters honestly believe they are not biased. It's a subtle bias which makes it even worse. Unfortunately, the book is tough to read at times because of Goldberg's angry writing. He came off as bitter more than reasonable. If you can look past the style this is an excellent book to read.
Rating:
Summary: Could be fuel for extremists, but intentions are good
Review: I believe Bernard believes what he says, but his comparisons of Dan Rather to the Dan, are alittle rediculous. Rather is an experience tested journalist with an over sized ego, but he is to be respected for his hard work in the business. I am afraid Goldberg's work may be fuel for people like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter how are making big bucks demonizing liberals. JM
Rating:
Summary: Right On
Review: An insider confirms what conservatives have known for years, and it will continue until enough people let the networks know that enough is enough. I watch the network channel news for local news only. It is up to the viewers to contact the networks and let them know that you are sick of them reporting the news that they want you to hear, and their biased way of presenting it.
Rating: 
Summary: sell out!
Review: One needs only to watch FOX news, CBS news, NBC news, or ABC news to see the blatant anti-liberalism in the media. It's plain and simple: the media funds the Republicans and so supports their agenda. Did you see ANYTHING about the half a million anti-Bush demonstrators in London? Not even the NYTimes covered it. Sadly, the only liberalism in the media is by independent progressive papers like the "progressive populist".
Rating:
Summary: Great book, couldn't put it down
Review: Fantastic book about the obvious. If you feel the media slants left, this more than reinforces the reasoning. If you feel the media is balanced, it's worth a read. Goldberg provides good evidence. His CBS background weights much of his analogies around his own experience at that network, so it often devolves into a proactive defense against a former employer. Understantable and not sour grapes, but ultimately too much emphasis on CBS. (Personally, I don't care what Dan Rather said about the author. He's not really an authority anyway, he's an anchor and an annoying one at that. Drop it. Move on.) I like his challenging of the way the mainstream media handles its coverage in a politically correct framework. (For example, prior to this book, I had never given a second thought to why the mainstream media's postured discussion of daycare and the trade-offs of the two-income family was so less balanced than that of my own acquaintences throughout the country.)
Rating:
Summary: Undebatably true, but not a literary masterpiece
Review: People's opinions of "Bias" seem to depend on whether or not they agree with Goldberg's basic thesis. But his thesis is hardly a "thesis" at all, since the liberal slant of major network news is obvious to any honest person who (like me) has been paying attention at all for the last 30-plus years. The unarguable truth of the author's basic point, however, doesn't necessarily make this a good book. In this case, the question is: Who will benefit from reading this book? Certainly, the chic Hollywood liberals and the self-important academic liberals will get nothing from it. Both groups are emotionally unable to accept the proposition that intelligent and non-bigoted people could have views different from their own. The honest liberals, as I noted above, are already fully aware that the major network news is slanted leftward. They're just happy about it! I think the people who will learn the most from this book are the cultural conservatives, especially the religious right. Far too many of those people truly believe that the liberal bias of the Washington - New York journalistic axis stems from a deliberate desire on the part of journalists to undercut traditional American values. And I fear that many of those people might read this book and see a validation of their conspiracy theories. But the book gives no support to those theories. Goldberg argues, correctly in my opinion and experience, that the major network journalists live in a closed world, in which everyone they know supports abortion on demand, gun control, and racially discriminatory policies (dubbed "affirmative action" by those who want to hide the true nature of those policies). Virtually no one of their acquaintance goes to church regularly or sends their children to a parochial school (although vast numbers of them have children in expensive, secular private schools). These people don't consciously slant the news in an effort to influence viewers toward their point of view. They sincerely regard the liberal side of almost all social controversies as the mainstream, reasonable side. People who differ with those views are out of the mainstream, anti-civil-rights, and extremists. Actually, it is not only liberals who suffer from this narrow vision of the world. Conservatives who spend virtually all their time with other people who (for example) consider the first day of hunting season to be a major holiday, and who spend almost all their social time with other people who believe every word of the Bible to be infallibly true, tend to be just as confused as Dan Rather is when someone suggests that another set of values and beliefs might be as valid as their own. The only difference is that Dan Rather has the power to broadcast his beliefs to millions of people every night. Goldberg's book, although slim (only 214 pages plus appendices), does a good job of examining a few issues in which responsible investigative journalism would have given us all a far more accurate picture of what was really going on in the country: the AIDS crisis, homelessness, and the uncritical heroine-worship of most broadcasters when it comes to "feminist" issues. But he would have had room for the examination of several other issues as well if he hadn't decided to make his book a score-settling exercise. It was useful to see the penalty exacted by the network news organizations when anyone tells the truth about their narrow vision, but I found myself a bit uncomfortable with the lengths to which Goldberg goes to let us know just how bad the "bad guys" are. Otherwise, an easy read, and a book that should have been written at least twenty years ago. The fact that it wasn't, just reinforces the author's point.
| 
