Rating: 
Summary: Extraordinary Inside Look
Review: Plenty has been written about liberal media bias over the last decade, but what makes Mr. Goldberg's story so different is his status as an insider. He rightly points out that the media loves a whistle blower, as long as it's not one of their own.Many reviewers here have attempted to deflate this work by saying that he uses uncited sources, or third-party quotes, or that he his claiming some sort of conspiracy. Nothing is further from the truth. He names names with statements, and cites his studies. He also never once claims the bias is organized at any level... just the nature of the beast. If this is a work of fiction, let's see some libel suites or at least the threat of some. Mr. Goldberg was pilloried for asking one simple question: "Is it asking too much to present both sides of an issue?" That's it. He's opposed to any conservative bias just as much as the garden liberal variety. Much has been made of his "bitterness". Yes, he's a ticked off dude... and at times it does seem over the top. (Thus the deduction of one star.) But the fact is he tried to handle this issue several times at all levels of management at CBS and was flatly rebuffed each time. So he wrote the op-ed piece that started the whole ball of wax rolling. As a result of the WSJ piece his career was effectively ruined. It'd be ticked too. Some have asked "If it was so bad, why'd he work in network news for 30 years?" He was happy up until the last couple of years when he was banished to media "Siberia" for his unforgivable sin. From there he decided to ride it out, as he was so close to his pension. I knew of this book when it was published, but didn't have a real interest in it. But then I saw Bernard Goldberg on Tim Russert's TV program and was extremely pleased in the way he presented his ideas and sure didn't fit the charges being leveled at him by his detractors as being merely a "disgruntled hack". I then bought this book, and loved it.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias
Review: Bernard Goldberg adds a lot of false claims and a ton of sophistry to reinforce the myth which the Republicans have been busy for years promoting. ie: The right wing corporate media, the very media that is drooling no matter what stupidity is committed by the Bush administration, the media that has persecuted Al Gore, that has been deaf and blind in the face of the Supreme Court biggest crime in History against the Constitution, the madia that spent millions to drool ove Monica and Bill and hides the ENRON-Bush criminal entende...THIS ACCORDING TO THAT HONEST AUTHOR - is a media with a liberal bias. The B..S in his title is the only truth in the Book
Rating:
Summary: Trapped in the box
Review: Mr. Goldberg complains that journalists are quick to label conservatives as "right-wingers" and use "conservative" to describe politicians while not using "liberal." One small objection: actual, real life conservative politicians have turned "liberal" into a perjorative, much as many snidely refer to the "Democrat" party. An Oft-cited example from "Bias" is when Peter Jennings called certain Senators "right-wing" but neglected to call fairly left-wing Senators "left-wing," during coverage of the Impeachment trial. Of course this objection is fatuous, as the relevant news question is whether the Senate would actually remove Clinton from office - one could infer that more conservative Senators are more likely to vote to remove, as took place. The problem with the book is over-reliance on anecdotes, which reflects the "insider" nature of the book. A countervailing argument could be made (and often is) that the media simply ignore many progressive issues. For instance, I can't recall any TV coverage of the trend to turn correctional facilities over to private companies. Moreover, the TV news hardly covered the movement to lift ownership caps on number of stations and ownership of TV and newspapers in the same markets, lest people object to monopolization of news by Disney/Viacom/GE/News Corp/AOL Time Warner. An "insider" would not readily pick this up. The media tend to cover stories with slants that feed into prevailing consumer biases. Most people think of the Christian Coalition as right-wing nuts, and they are covered accordingly. Most Republicans (and all Democrats) thought the flat tax was nutty - it was covered accordingly. People thought that Gore was a liar and Bush a nice guy - covered accordingly. Nevermind reports that Bush mocked Karla Faye Tucker's pleas for clemency and was completely obvlious to the clear abuses of the death penalty in Texas, or that Gore's remark about the Internet was clearly taken out of context. The party line was: Bush=nice, Gore=liar. The media bias is that of a herd mentality. Credit to Goldberg for seeing this, but he's now simply following the herd mentality of rival right-wing talk radio and - where his complaints first aired - the Wall Street Journal editorial page...
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing New but Great Reading
Review: Bernard didn't break any new ground with this book but his personal experiences and hilarious wit make this a must read. If you are looking for a book about scandal and dark rooms where liberal bias discussions are being held look elsewhere. Bernard states, you will never look at your nightly news the same, he's almost right; you will never look at it again.
Rating:
Summary: The truth is spelled out in 'black & white'
Review: This is a great piece of literature. What everybody has known for years is spelled out word for word, with some great examples reiterating this truth.
Rating:
Summary: IT'S ABOUT TIME
Review: Finally someone in the media tells the truth. The true test will be if anyone does anything about it.Great reading.
Rating:
Summary: shut up dan
Review: It's nice to see someone take on the big stars of today's media.
I wonder what ever happened to the news, instead of someone's interpretation of the news. Wasn't Dan Rather a speaker at a DNC convention a few months ago?
Rating:
Summary: Most Important Quick-Read of the Year
Review: If you consider yourself a news conscious individual, to any extent, you should read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Bias may not be Pulitzer material but the message it conveys is of great importance. Contrary to the public relations campaign waged in opposition to this book, Goldberg sites more than political bias, he touches on subjects that transcend partisanship (Aids, Juvenile delinquency, ethnicity). Bias provides the reader with a common sense approach as to why the media is rot with favoritism, using statistics and examples as well as juicy inside details. At times, Goldberg goes a tad overboard with his own opinion and sometimes he'll savor the opportunity to take a swipe at his former employers, but the book's message (Media Bias Happens) is without a doubt the most important quick read of the year. Goldberg writes that he is an old fashion or a real liberal; someone commandeering to both sides of any issue. Unfortunately, in today's media, that type of person is not wanted.
Rating:
Summary: Important, but nothing new!
Review: Goldberg starts by indicating that writing the book was hard work. It shows. While it is an easy and short read, Mr Goldberg's not going to win a lot of awards for literary talent. Some of the language is rough and it is sometimes difficult to differenciate between what is quoted material and what is Goldberg's commentary. With respect to content, there really isn't a whole not of new ground covered. That liberal bias exists is so well known at this point the only ones denying it are those at the very top that would loose all credibility. What makes the book important is the source. Goldberg is a life long liberal democrat and a 28-year insider. Hence, instead of being a presumptive screed by a "right-winger", there is inside conversation and process revealed by a first person account. Also, the author proposes a reasonable theory for the existence of the bias and it's perpetuation. Goldberg's argument is basically that since most journalists are liberal and socially isolated from any conflicting views, the bias is natural and occurs unconsciously. While I can't deny that it is likely in some cases, it certainly doesn't explain the more overt bias that has been documented. He hints at the laziness of TV journalist and their lack of specific subject knowledge also playing a role in routinely accepting "evidence" from sources. The fact that the big three networks have essentially ignored the book and the issue even though it has been #1 on the NY Times bestseller list for 15 weeks pretty much tells the tale. To me, the most important issue raised in the book isn't even about bias. Goldberg gives a short account of his political views and states that he has been liberal all his adult life. He then states that now his former colleagues have taken to calling him a neo-conservative. This is in fact the essence of where the Reagan democrats came from. It is not that the right (though it is true that the old republican party was really just a party for rich and snotty democrats) has moved right, but that the left has moved so far left that the right looks further right from their perspective. To those who don't understand this, just look at the Federalists of the founding. This group including Jefferson and Madison would become the Democratic Party. Yet the modern Federalist Society (which espouses the same social and constitutional principles of the original federalists) are viewed by today's liberals as "right-wing extremists." This book is worth reading because its success may actually prompt a debate about the topic and real change in the news industry even if the debate remains internal to the industry itself.
Rating:
Summary: A difficult book. . .
Review: . . .which has the potential to anger both the Left AND the Right -- but which is hindered by the author's own obvious anger. Why should this book anger the Left? Goldberg has had the temerity to speak out about the elephant in the living room of American politics which most others choose to ignore. Yes, 'most' of the mainstream media 'does' operate from a Left to Far Left bias -- much more so than the average mainstream American (Democrat OR Republican). Why should this book anger the Right? Goldberg has clearly demonstrated what the Right has suspected for quite some time. However, he has done so in such a way that the value the Right could have derived from this book is minimized. Goldberg himself is operating from the perspective of a liberal -- in other words, he's not completely without bias himself. And the personal anger with which the book is written is enough to cause some readers to write the entire work off as unnecessarily subjective. However, for all of Goldberg's anger, what has really been incredible about this book is the anger of those from within the professional media circles. For me, this is very telling. The media bosses are not trying to refute the book; rather, they have been engaged in ad hominim attacks and character assassination attempts. This suggests to me that Goldberg is right far more often than he is wrong -- and that he is being crucified by his former allies for having the nerve to "come clean" about a subject recognized as true. A valuable book; a needed book; but a book with serious flaws which has limited its potential usefulness. 3.5 stars, rounded up.
| 
