Rating: 
Summary: Three stars for the book plus one for courage.
Review: You will be forgiven if you visualize Andy Rooney as you read this book. The writing of Mr. Goldberg rings with the wit and sarcasm of his long-time buddy and I kept putting the face in the wrong place too. I hope I will be forgiven for being so in agreement with his basic thesis that I was only entertained by the book, not really educated. An entertaining little book it is, not as surprising in its revelations as it is devastating in its confirmations. It revolves around what can only be called a hatchet job done on an evening newscast (masquerading as a 'reality check' for the discriminating viewer) during the last presidential race. The Steve Forbes tax plan was the victim of this particular bit of undisguised vindictiveness from the arrogant left (masquerading as 'news', though I and millions saw it for what it was at the time and just blew it off - as usual). Mr. Goldberg saw it too and felt honour-bound to defend the remnant integrity of his profession against such blatant unprofessionalism. That is the uncritical view of his course of action, admittedly. A general reader would have no compelling reason to doubt, though an inveterate cynic would allege some alternate worst in such circumstances I'm sure. Goldberg's efforts to bring balance (let alone enlightenment) to his own kind, however, were stonewalled by those in control of network news at CBS; they really just didn't see the problem. Unwilling to capitulate on so fundamental an issue, an incisive piece of criticism targetting the offending 'hatchet job' was eventually crafted and sent to the print media by Bernard and that is where the threads began to unravel at CBS, unfortunately for him and his career, rather than for Rather. That would be Dan Rather, of course, or 'The Dan', as Goldgerg and apparently many others of that circle call him. Thus began the events, the pettyness, the vindictiveness, the isolation, the unspoken yet undisguised vendetta that culminated in Goldberg's leaving CBS and writing this book. A fair, if uncomfortable, reciprocation. We, the people, have been served and, as usual, the cost has been very high for someone. Inevitable, perhaps, that an employer should 'police' its own employees and require a certain fidelity. Unfortunate that this particular employer exhibited such a flawed understanding of its mandate, an understanding that evidences no change ... an understanding that may even put its existence in jeapardy. Not that Goldberg tells us anything about the political slanting of network news that we don't already know ... it's just that HE tells us. "He", remember, was an insider - one of 'them'! I am convinced that there must be many on the 'inside' who talk about these things as though it is a great conspiratorial joke (not what Goldberg proffers, mind you; he says they just think their thinking is rational and normal ... it's everyone else who is a bit strange, you know - in the red states) but anyone with a thought in their head can discern the bias daily. One would have to be politically inert to fail to notice, even in Canada! Sorry Bernard; I just don't believe they are really that dumb but you, after all, are (or were) in a position to know. To be frustrated and upset that they were finally outed by one of their own, without comprehending the whole affair, would indeed reveal a monumental level of ignorance to match the nightly arrogance. For the voyeuristic, this book of ready-made insights and anecdotes has its peep shows: 'The Dan' stories. Easy to visualize, now that it's in print, but to think of him "working the phones" to trash Connie Chung because she got more air time than he at the Oklahoma bombing is an acerbic, morsel! How petty and unworthy can our behaviours become? These revelations, Goldberg says, were the hardest parts of the book for him to write (because of the personal friendships involved). He certainly can be believed in that but I would bet his publisher had much to do with these particular inclusions. This touches the great sub-plot (perhaps the eternal verity) of the book and its ending was written long ago: you just can't make the boss look bad - no matter how deserved nor how impossible to prevent that may be. The lesson may also be that you have to have enough on him to send him up for a long time before this type of 'community service' will work. We all admire the courageous whistle blower and we certainly enjoy the dirty linen ... until it hits too close to home, of course, a lesson the CBS News establishment may learn from this eposide - or not. All of the revelations, of course, do nothing for the advancement of integrity in newscraft as long as 'they' remain in denial. The problem remains and will remain until the ratings take them all away ... and they will go, bewildered, into the night. "They" are the elites and "they" know what is appropriate to feed the society "they" wish to create - and, worse - feel they have the right to create and the higher calling to create. "They" are insufferable. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg, for your courage and your (higher) calling; may you rest in peace.
Rating: 
Summary: Lost opportunity
Review: The title for this book should have been "Bernard Goldberg's whine list" or "A biased view of bias in the media." This book could have been really good if it had attempted to show BOTH liberal and conservative media bias. (Or is conservative bias OK?) Goldberg is as out of touch with reality as he says Dan Rather is. A vast majority of women DO NOT work to push their family's income into six figures: They work to pay the bills, put food on the table, maybe buy a home and stay above the poverty level. What you did was stupid, Bernie. And now you're making money from it.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Shadow of a Doubt
Review: When I picked up Bias, I already believed that the network news was neither fair nor balanced, but after even a few short pages I was shocked. Goldberg's evidence is solid. In case after case he reports instances in which a bias is simply undeniable. For a taste of what is covered, Goldberg reports that the number of homeless people has been exaggerated from a factual 300,000-600,000 (measured by the government in the early 80s and 90s) to 3 million (in 1989), 5 million (in 1993) and eventually 19 million (estimated in 2000). In the least the American Public received a number 18 million shy of the truth. Rampant distortion such as this is documented additionally under the topics of aids, gender discrimination, and race discrimination (among others). The book isn't perfect and clearly repeats at times, rehashing the story of Goldberg's Wall Street Journal op-eds and Dan Rather's reactions unapologetically. The repetitions, however, do make a point. The real meat of the story lies in the topical chapters dealing directly with issues (e.g. homelessness). While not all possible topics are extensively discussed (e.g. abortion-related bias receives merely a passing reference), the instances that do get attention leave little room for doubt that the media is indeed biased. Incidentally, conservative bias (in talk radio) is mentioned but not examined. Since this is a book about TV news and his experiences in CBS, that is permissible.
Rating: 
Summary: An aptly titled book
Review: There's a certain poetic justice in Bernhard Godberg's lashing of the liberal national media elites in the same sort of biased and loaded style that he accuses his quarry of using. He makes some good points along the way, but I agree with other reviewers that there is a lot of repetition for such a thin book--and not a lot of documentation. But it's the tone of his rhetoric that really does him in as a source of even remotely objective inforamtion. He repeatedly and gratuitously refers to his ex-boss Dan Rather as "the Dan," an eggshell egomaniac who would rather read a Goldberg-sponsored ad in the NY Times that Rather "wears black stiletto do-me heals and red miniskirts behind the anchor desk" than hear of a bias problem in the media. (P. 29). Just as I know there must be another side of the story when I watch a liberally slanted evening news piece, I feel equally sure of the same thing regarding Golberg's first book, only it's coming from the other side.
Rating:
Summary: affirming the paranoia of neo-conservative aparatchiks
Review: Since 1992, American neo-conservatives have been fervently pushing an agenda (some might call it wish-fulfillment) of being persecuted by the godless American Left, capital "L." Well, if you fall into the camp of the rabid far-right and seek affirmation of your morally bankrupt fascist world view, by all means pick up a copy. It comes with a free copy Hooked On Phonics, which you'll probably need first.
Rating: 
Summary: Gauging the Accuracy of News Reports
Review: That someone wrote a book about the media's liberal bias is not surprising. That Bernard Goldberg did so is remarkable. Goldberg -- himself a liberal with nearly thirty years of experience at CBS News -- had often voiced his concern about liberal bias to network executives. After _CBS Evening News_ aired a blatantly slanted "Reality Check" report on February 8, 1996, Goldberg decided to take stronger measures. He submitted to the _Wall Street Journal_ an op-ed piece detailing the report's bias. The piece was published five days later. _Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News_ analyzes the bias that has developed in the news over the past several decades. In addition, the book reveals the personality of some media celebrities and executives. It seems impossible to completely extricate "the news" from the people who report it. Goldberg traces the problem of bias in the news back to _60 Minutes_, the pioneer of news magazines. In the early days of television, the networks viewed comedy, drama, and variety shows as their moneymakers. The news, however, was different. Once network executives discovered that even the news could be profitable, news programs began competing for ratings. Rather than simply reporting the news objectively, networks tried to ensure that the news would have entertainment value, that people would like what they saw and would tune in regularly. As Goldberg points out, many journalists selected that career in order to improve the world. Eventually, however, their compassion began to interfere with their objective reporting. They took on the work of activists. In order to motivate people to support causes -- perhaps financially -- they made the people who would benefit from that support look like the prospective donors. Thus, homelessness and AIDS were portrayed as problems of mainstream America. Facts were distorted; numbers were exaggerated. The ratings and the causes are only part of the problem, however. Goldberg is most alarmed that reporters and executives are not even aware of much of the bias in the news. No one at CBS News, for example, had seen any problem with the report that had sparked Goldberg's initial op-ed piece for the _Wall Street Journal_ -- even though a reporter had in the guise of a "Reality Check" ridiculed Presidential candidate Steve Forbes and his flat-tax proposal, using such words as "scheme," "elixir," and "wacky." In network newsrooms the middle of the road between liberals and conservatives is off center. Virtually everyone in the newsroom is a liberal. People are so insulated that they don't even know anyone whose opinions are different from theirs; they genuinely believe they represent the middle of the road. Goldberg cites the example of film critic Pauline Kael, who was astounded when Nixon was elected President in 1972. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" she said. Yet Nixon carried forty-nine states. Is it healthy for those who report our news to be so out of touch with the populace? Freedom of speech and of the press are among the highest ideals in our democracy. Even Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, valued newspapers (the principal news medium of his day) above government. If we are to be responsible citizens, we must be able to gauge the accuracy of news reports. _Bias_ provides information that will help us to raise necessary questions about the news -- what is reported and what is not -- in order to discern the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: All I can say about this book is that it's a great must read book. All my friends and I have all ready read it at least twice.
Rating:
Summary: Confirms your worst suspicions
Review: I stopped watching network news three years ago when it became very apparent that the newscasters were trapped in a very liberal democrat, very priviledged world and couldn't see past it. Any newscaster who makes millions of dollars a year, sends his kids to private school, asscociates with no one but celebrities and the wealthy, has nothing in common with mainstream America. Brokaw, Jennings, and the rest are anachronisms. If you want to find out what the main stories on the evening news will be, all you have to do is look at the New York Times front page that morning, and then call up the most liberal political action groups to get the slant on that days stories. That is all the big three do - regurgitate political correctness. Where is the journalism? How do they justify the big bucks they get paid? All of their sources come from groups like NOW - liberal, non-representative groups with few members. It seems to me that the big three do nothing but broadcast press releases from these groups. Goldberg shows how corrupt the networks are. For example, (a fact I noticed) as soon as a republican president gets into office, stories about homelessness rise in the media. As soon as a democrat gets in, those stories disappear. I remember how the NY Times said homelessness was careening out of control just 12 weeks (!) after Bush got into office. And all of the stories about homeless people featured laid off white collar workers instead of the alcoholics, drug addicts, and insane that make up the majority of the homeless. All of this would be laughable if I took it seriously. I don't. I get my news from other sources and leave these anachronistic liberal rich guys to propagandize a shrinking audience.
Rating:
Summary: The truth iz
Review: Now all of you conservative cry babies and media types grab your toilet paper and wipe your eyes and acept the truth..For years the media has been lying, denying, blackballing, misquoting, and misrepresenting the truth from the White house to the outhousees that existed in the Nations Capital along with the colored water faucets for years.Now here come somene with a stellar reputation telling the truth and YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT...Peter Jennings, interviewed me during the march on Washington, in 1960's and when asked what I thought would be the outcome of the march..I said and quote...Nothing if the media has any part in telling the story..Now as an Atty. have had my own battles with the media making efforts to put words in my mouth and then using the black community as its whipping boy..I am well read and will make every effort to enjoy this latest book of FACTS...GET over it..and get raal.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time
Review: I was very disappointed with this book. I'm an avid Rush Limbaugh listener and I have heard him often describe the liberal bias in the media. I looked forward to this book as an insider account of that bias. It turns out that about 1/2 to 2/3's of this book is a rehashing of an op-ed piece that Goldberg submitted to the WSJ. He spends more space in this book telling the reader why he should be considered a hero for all of the perceived damage he received for writing that piece than he does proving his case.
| 
