Rating: 
Summary: Bernard Goldberg is Brilliant (and Honest!!)
Review: This book is one of my all time favorites. Yes, I enjoy O'Reilly too, but this book hits the mark. It confirms all my impressions of Dan Rather (in particular) and how the big three networks run their newscasts. This book shows why more and more people are turning to programs like Fox News to get an unbiased account of the day's events. Like Goldberg says, Rather, Jennings & Brokaw really don't think they are blatant liberals...they think they truly are "middle of the road" reporters....so not true and Goldberg effectively points out numerous instances of their bias (and how these guys are so quick to point out when one of their guests is a "conservative", yet never use the term liberal when referring to the majority of their guests which are, in fact, blatant liberals). A great read that makes you wonder how the big three networks get away with the stuff they do. I'll take Fox News anyday ("We Report, You Decide")....Enjoy the book....it is a great read that you won't be able to put down!!
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts
Review: This book was simply outstanding from both content as well as readability. The author is very good. He turns the 60 Minutes microscope on CBS News and they don't like it at all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I will never watch prime time news again in the same light. Here's to success with the more balanced news from FOX.
Rating: 
Summary: Badly Written Thesis of What Most People Have Always Known
Review: The premise of liberal bias in TV journalisim has been recognized for many years. Goldberg's elaboration adds very little to the knowledge of this premise.No index and no footnotes enforce my belief that this book was more of a personal vendetta directed mostly at CBS News and others, rather then a professional documentation of an unfortunate condition. I personnally learned very little from this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth Turning Off the Television To Read
Review: The subject of Bias and its ultimate conclusion concerning that subject have been the focus of a lot of debate. Yet, it is clear that the book has made its mark with the reading public despite the controversy. This positive reaction is no surprise because there are many reasons why people would want to read this book. One of the main reasons why Bias is successful is that it is written in an entertaining style. Goldberg does an excellent job of mixing facts with anecdotes and gossip to convey his point. The result is a very easy to read book that doesn't misplace its message. Yet, just because Bias is entertaining doesn't mean that it lacks credibility. The fact that Goldberg worked within this industry for so long gives him impeccable credibility to discuss this subject. This credibility carries over to the book, making it more serious than it appears at first glance. Adding to the credibility is Goldberg's use of outside sources to back up his point. Goldberg cites media watchdog groups, newspapers, and even some of his former colleagues to substantiate his point. This level of substantiation only makes his argument more valid. Bias probably won't change the minds of anyone who feels strongly about the existence or lack of bias in mainstream news coverage. However, for those who never really thought about the matter, Goldberg has made a convincing statement on the issue. He clearly states his argument, supports it with solid documentation, and presents it in a manner that doesn't talk down to his readers. Given those qualities, it is no surprise that Goldberg has succeeded in finding a more receptive audience to his ideas than he found at CBS.
Rating: 
Summary: Libertarian Bias Is the Problem
Review: Yes, it happens to be true. The mainstream news media is biased as hell. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of bias Bernard Goldberg thinks it is. I actually agree with bits and pieces of Goldberg's case. For the record, I support what could be labeled "conservative" or "neoconservative" positions on foreign policy, affirmative action, and immigration. Goldberg insists that he only attacks "liberal bias, not liberal values." Fair enough. But by that same token, one can believe every line in the Republican platform and also understand that this book is one-sided, misleading and overcooked. The most celebrated evidence of liberal media bias is a 1992 poll showing that 89% of Beltway reporters voted for Bill Clinton, 7% for George Bush Sr., and 2% for Ross Perot -- as opposed to 43% for Clinton, 38% for Bush and 19% for Perot among the general public. These numbers are scandalous to Goldberg: "89 percent voted for Clinton. This is way beyond mere landslide numbers. The only politicians who get numbers like this are called Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein." He then cites poll numbers showing that the media elite supports a more liberal stance than the public on social issues such as abortion, school prayer and affirmative action. If 89% of reporters voted for Clinton, that must be an open and shut case for liberal bias, right? Not quite. The single most stunning aspect of that poll is not the high support for Clinton, but the microscopic support for Perot. They were more than twice as likely than the public to vote for Clinton, true, but they also were more than NINE TIMES less likely than the public to vote for Perot. On bread-and-butter economic issues, a damn powerful case can be made that Perot, not Clinton, was the most "liberal" candidate in the race. For example, Perot condemned the conservative dogma of free trade while Bush AND Clinton embraced it. If the media elite is as "liberal" across the board as Goldberg claims, then how does he account for the fact only 1 in 50 voted for Perot? Put another way, the media elite cast 96% of its votes for either of the two pro-free trade candidates. Notice that Goldberg fixates on social issues. He doesn't dwell on poll data showing that the media elite is more CONSERVATIVE than the public on economic issues. He glosses over the fact that the "liberal media" is less likely than the public to support a higher minimum wage, is less likely to support universal health insurance and, of course, is more likely to support free trade. Political Science 101: Social liberalism plus economic conservatism equals libertarianism, not liberalism. Populism, not conservatism, is what is truly verboten in the mainstream news media. From William Jennings Bryan to George Wallace to Pat Buchanan, American populism fuses social conservatism with economic liberalism or at least economic populism. NOTHING in that synthesis appeals to the secular, highly educated, upper-middle class and upper class libertarian elite that really runs the media and really runs this country. That is the larger historical and political insight that flew over Goldberg's head. As for the Steve Forbes flat tax controversy, a ground rule of political journalism is that criticism is especially serious when it comes from inside a politician's own party. Of course the media coverage got tougher as Republicans like Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan took potshots at the flat tax. Furthermore, it was not only Forbes's presidential rivals who were criticizing the flat tax; even Newt Gingrich expressed doubts in public. "There is absolutely no way," Goldberg howls, "that Engberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea." What? The same thing did happen to Hillary when she ran the Health Care Task Force. In the winter of 1994 Daniel P. Moynihan, a respected Senate Democrat, appeared on Meet The Press. During that interview he announced, "There is no health care crisis." With that single utterance, the tone of the media coverage grew more skeptical and hostile. It was open season against HillaryCare the minute a prominent Democrat criticized it -- just like it was open season against the flat tax the minute prominent Republicans criticized it. The media should be condemned in both cases for emphasizing politics over substance, and Engberg's flat-tax report in particular should be condemned for piling on. But the media's modus operandi explodes on Democrats as easily as on Republicans -- another crucial insight Goldberg misses. In the final analysis, Goldberg's anti-media tract is a half-truth. Social conservatives have a legitimate grievance against media bias. Economic conservatives, on the other hand, do protest too much. Libertarian media bias: Now that would be the topic of a worthwhile book.
Rating:
Summary: I get em all confused!
Review: Right wing, Left wing, Conservative, they are all in this book, but the writing is terrible which makes one become confused on who he is actually talking about at times. We all know the media distorts the news for their agenda, the question is, what is their hidden agenda? This book doesn't uncover that question. It is mainly about like I said, Right, Left, Conservative and other Aristocratic Bureaucrats. Boring!
Rating:
Summary: Missed Opportunity
Review: He'd right. He's wrong. He'd hopelessly muddled. Bernard Goldberg undermines his credentials as a journalist by writing a poorly researched and documented litany of complaints. (My bias: I am member of the media who agrees with his basic premise). He blasts "The Media" for not covering certain stories, and then uses the New York Times and Washtington Post as references for the stories being ignored. He argues blacks have too much influence with the networks and devotes an entire chapter to how blacks have little real representation on network television. It all comes across as rantings from a bitter man who got fired. That is unfortunate. The book is a missed opportunity.
Rating:
Summary: Biased Drivel
Review: Hmmmm. A book on biased reporting by someone with an overwhelming and obvious bias. With "Alice in Wonderland" logic and little factual support, the reader gets the point of this dreary book very quickly. Wouldn't convince a child of the author's point, but might stoke people predisposed to the author's conspiracy views.
Rating:
Summary: Bias? What Bias.
Review: I have to admit just seeing this book felt good, and that was before I even picked it up once! Liberal bias in the media is so patently obvious that it's almost unimaginable to me that there is any kind of debate about the topic at all. It's actually amusing to see the number of Media apologists logging on here to ridicule Goldberg's book...Folks! Can you in all sincerity(and with a straight face)actually claim that there is no leftward bias in the mainstream media? If you believe that then you probably also believe that the Israeli's were responsible for September 11(or the Bush administration),that the holocaust didn't happen,that Elvis is alive and well and living happily in Las Vegas and that Aliens ate my Buick! All of the carping about Goldberg's style doesn't change that simple fact and, fortunately the vast majority of Americans DO understand that. Who cares if Goldberg has an axe to grind, the simple exposure of this topic makes this book worth buying and reading!
Rating:
Summary: The media biased? What a shocker!
Review: Goldberg does a great job of bringing this issue out into the light. Although many liberals (if not most) can easily dismiss such assertions as 'right-wing lunacy', here we hear from an insider himself. For myself, this book is merely more documentation of my view that something stinks within the traditional news media outlets. I used to love to watch the news, even as a kid I watched Peter Jennings almost every night. I loved being 'up' on what was going on in the world. But as a grew older-especially thru high school-I found myself increasingly cringing at some of the comments made by Jennings and others. Why did they phrase the argument THAT way? I would wonder. Why do they spend so much time on one aspect of the problem and little or none on the other aspects? And why do they do this while blathering on and on about equal time and treatment? Well, surprise, surprise, turns out the establishment in the news media tend to think in a rather monolithic way, and EVERYONE who doesn't see things that way is either an a) extremist, b) religious nut, or c) an old time southern GOP racist or conspiracy nut. You simply CANNOT have a brain and disagree with the higher-ups in the media!..I mean, the thought of independant thought to them is scary. What is enlightening here is that Goldberg tells us HOW all of this is done. It's not so much a product of sinister closed-door meetings among executives, as it is a product of the mindset that is embraced, encouraged, maintained, and promoted within news organizations. Kudos to Mr. Goldberg for dragging these organizations into the light (albeit kicking and screaming). An example of a great exchange in the book is Mr. Goldberg's quoting of famous New York Times film reviewer Pauline Kael who, after Nixon won the 1972 election stated: "I can't understand how Nixon won. I mean, no one I KNOW voted for him." (emphasis added) Mr Goldberg astutely replied, "Mrs. Kael, Nixon carried 49 states for God's sake! That's why he won!" (paraphrased). The point being, media liberals are so ensconsed in their own world, with those who think like them, that they actually begin to believe that the rest of the world thinks as they do. This is not only an informative book, but it's also very entertaining and quite funny at times. Open your eyes folks, and see the endless wasteland before you that is network news. Highly recommended.
| 
