Rating: 
Summary: As if more evidence was needed ...
Review: Most people today have fairly shallow personal philosophies; typically a hodge-podge of conflicting beliefs selected according to which best matches their preconceptions.Shaping and installing such thoughts in hundreds of millions of people has been developed as something of an art form by modern U.S. media. Select which stories are news, which are not, determine the 'angle', then repeat, year-after-year. A miseducated public lacking strong intellectual and moral foundation is largely helpless. 30 years ago, who would have imagined Boy Scouts would be banned from schools that dispense condoms to children? Or that the nation would import from the 3rd world a nation the size of France in 10 years, setting up it's own eventual dissolution? And that criticizing such things is often considered a "hate crime". How were right and wrong inverted in less than a generation? Ask people what thought process they used to arrive at these beliefs and you basically get incoherent sound bytes accepted only because they mirror the elite. Before TV, few people were exposed to beliefs of intellectuals. Now they are guinea pigs in their livings rooms for TV news folks dedicated to creating a new reality. Modern leftism naturally has been the driver. It's opposition, Christian philosophy, considers people as spiritually designed in the image of God, then corrupted by their own free choice. Because of the existence of sin, Christians recognize human imagination and action is incapable of creating a perfect world -- Utopia -- with all of human history as evidence, if the secular still doesn't see it. (Most of what the Left calls "the Right" are actually just NATIONALISTIC utopians who think the perfect world can be achieved via 'my race' or 'my nation'. By contrast, the Left are INTERNATIONAL utopians. So Left and Right have the same thought processes and assumptions, just different implementations. Modern political philosophy really boils down to Christians as compared to "everyone else", with Christians incorrectly being lumped in with the Right, since they oppose the Left and seek things like decentralization of power to prevent concentration of it in a single person or state that is intrinsically corrupt. This seems like nationalism, but has different intent.) By contrast, the Left sees humans as mechanically derived chemical accidents; "sin" is an opinion, not reality. Anything wrong with the world is correctable if people could be educated to think "properly". Thus, the Left is naturally drawn to institutions concerned with shaping how other people think: education, entertainment, government, and of course the media. Their goal, once there, is to alter how others think. The assumption is this will result in a perfect world. People who don't share their ideas are evil because they argue against what the Left thinks will create Utopia. "Who could oppose this beautiful world I can imagine and not be evil?" is what they think, never examining their basic presuppositions about reality. Inevitably, the Left is composed of a multitude of factions, each operating off an internal imagining of what is needed to create a perfect world -- diversity, socialism, radical environmentalism, personally selectable genders, absolute sexual freedom, etc. So that's a little background on the Why's of the subject of bias as prelude to the book. If you can stomache any more on the topic of media bias after reading this book, I strongly recommend "The Gospel According to the New York Times : How the World's Most Powerful News Organization Shapes Your Mind and Values" by Proctor. CBS largely gets its take on the news from the New York Times; the NYT tells them what's important and what the angle is. This then gets reflected back and forth on TV. While TV news maybe shallow and reflexive in it's bias, the NYT engages in an organized attack on opposing world-views, seeking to replace them with its own. Both books together will provide a powerful indictment of the devastatingly negative effect of these self-appointed definers of what is important.
Rating: 
Summary: Socialist Bias, Not Liberal
Review: There is definitely a socialist bias in most media reporting. Not necessarily a 'liberal' bias, as the views or opinions of neither Anarchist or Libertarians is ever taken into account. It's a shame that people with socialist leanings have captured the term 'liberal' for themselves over the years. Televison in general will always be biased as it trys to appeal to certain advertisers who wish to reach certain demographics. Money talks. Name all the televison shows that portray an 'average' USA family as living in a apartment or tenement. Except for the show 'Good Times' (which predates my birth) even the poorest or 'average' families are portrayed as home owners. Televison news and reporting may have a socialist bias, but the media in general has a socioeconomical bias that favors favors the views and lifestyles of the upper classes.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, the truth about media bias
Review: This book blows the lid off all the liberal media bias. It explains, in detail, why the media is so biased and their hatred of conservatism, or anything they consider "anti-liberal." The best part of the book is the verbatim quotations it lists from the media elite. Their bias comes shining through for all to see!! This is a great book for children to read to prevent them from being brainwashed by the media elite. Do yourself and your children a favor and read this book!
Rating: 
Summary: Yes Virginia, there is a liberal bias
Review: A scathing attack on the hypocrisy of "politically correct" media big shots, BIAS should be required reading for all students of journalism and broadcasting. Bernard Goldberg, veteran CBS TV correspondent, has shared an insider's opinion of media subjectivity that confirms many American's fears. The scary part, according to Goldberg, is that the "mainstream" media's objectivity has been so distorted for so long that the big players don't even realize their own subjectivity, and fledgling journalists see the opportunity to malign political and social foes as a reporter's birthright. While Mr. Goldberg's effort suffers from a bitter and imploring tone, who can blame him? After all, Goldberg has the motivation of a consummate professional scorned, and he seems to be begging the reader for support. Aside from the uneasy premise of "ratting out" your own, BIAS is and intriguing indictment of the arrogance of media hierarchy. Perhaps BIAS may become required reading for Ethics 101 classes at America's leading communications schools, but don't hold your breath. It's a safe bet that academia will treat Mr. Godlberg's depiction of media bias in the same manner as his peers do; subjectivity in the media is only a myth perpetuated by the insignificant opinions of a few child-like viewers. Read the book, and you can be the judge.
Rating:
Summary: We've all Suspected, Now we Know!
Review: I think every one of us has, at times, wondered at the adgenda of the modern media. The first incident that piqued my attention was during the (96?) Olympics held in Atlanta. The sensational news story at the time was that of a security guard who discovered a bomb and saved a bunch of people's lives. First the media made the man a hero, soon after it was reported that the man had set the bomb himself with the intention of garnering national attention. From hero to goat in less than a week, there was hardly a household in which the poor security guard wasn't vilified. The final instalment of the story, the one that cleared the man's name and established that he was a hero after all, came on the back page. It was obvious then that the media cared more about covering their own butt than removing the tarnish they had applied to a hero's good name. Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" gives us hundreds of examples of the media's abuse of power. Some more subtle than the story I have just recounted, others far more obvious. Page after page of this work will captivate, and I daresay, liberate you from the media smokescreen we have all become so accustomed to enduring. It is a powerful work and has opened my eyes more than any other novel besides Ben Jonjak's "Glorious Failure," another work that deals with the corruption of power. I highly guarantee both works and urge you to read them as much for their ability to provide self-empowerment as the sheer entertainment value of their artistic craftmanship.
Rating:
Summary: Poppycock and rubbish!
Review: I read the first half of this book and, as a person who leans toward the center of the political spectrum, I would have laughed if thihs book hadn't made me ill. The obvious misinformation made this book read like a Nazi or Soviet propoganda tool more than any informed, researched analysis of the American media. Lame lame lame. Shame shame shame. There are many more books on the media in America out there. Read any of them before this one!
Rating:
Summary: Not enough "inside" information
Review: Mr Goldberg as an "insider" could have given us much more inside information that the common viewers are not privy to. He has presented his perception of the mentality of the network executives very well, however most of the chapters illustrate observations that even an "outsider" could have made as easily.
The content would have been much more interesting had he used detailed anecdotes, conversations, memos etc, to make his case.
Rating: 
Summary: Some good points, but the author is misled by his anger
Review: I work at a bookstore and since I have an passionate interest in the media and its role in our democracy, I bought this book the day it came out (December 12th - I wonder how all the people before me can review this book??). As a liberal with some pretty liberal views who has voted Democrat or Green party since I turned 18, I will admit that the book quite frequently made me angry (I even thought about returning it). I am glad that I read it though because I now know exactly what conservatives see as liberal bias in the media. Mr. Goldberg's statement that most "media elites" don't even realize that their beliefs manifest themselves is probably very true. So is the statement that most "media elites" vote Democrat. These are not problem though. Most news stories are so harmless and focus on such "entertaining stories" that their bias cannot show itself. The big problem is the fact that the news is no longer newsworthy and won't cover a story if it won't interest the majority of viewers or may offend an advertiser. Will NBC ever run a story about General Electric? Will ABC ever run a negative story about Disney or the Anaheim Angels baseball team? The answer is NO! Mr. Goldberg sounds like he realizes this but decided to write instead about Dan Rather and company and their liberal bias. I applaud Mr. Goldberg's courage (I hope I would have the guts to speak out against friends to hold my beliefs) but I think that he fell into the trap, writing his book with the hopes of selling copies and not fully exposing the flaws with today's corporate media.
Rating:
Summary: HONESTY FOR A CHANGE
Review: Buy it. This is an excellent book. Goldberg's insights and comments are as direct as a jab to the eye. o He pulls no punches.
o He names names.
o He names companies.
o He describes the tactics used to present biased news.
o He describes how the NY Times sets the liberal agenda.
o He backs up his comments with concrete examples. Further, he takes on the major "issues" of our times, showing how the media doesn't just tilt the news, but intentionally distorts the truth regarding: o Homelessness
o AIDS
o Race
o Crime
o The war on men
o Feminism
o And more. Mr. Goldberg, unlike the vast majority of the media, understands what fair and balanced news really means, and knows the difference between truth and indoctrination. He ends his book by providing the best advice possible: "All I can do is what millions of Americans have been doing for years. I take one last look at my good friend Dan [Rather], blow him a good-bye kiss, aim my remote right at his eyeball ... and click the button marked 'off'". Worthwhile advice. Mr. Goldberg, thanks for standing up for the truth against such overwhelming pressure and the inevitable character assassination that will follow.
Rating:
Summary: It scratched an itch
Review: There have been times that I knew that the big three were tossing their liberal slant into stories but until I read 'Bias' there were other issues that I suspected of bias butcouldn't really put my finger on. Mr. Goldberg has exposed the media's dirty little secrets about news manipulation and turning the news into a money making venture. Mr. Goldberg shows repeatedly that the media 'spins' a story to fit their agenda. Mr. Goldberg is NOT a conservative, right wing person by his own admission, he is a liberal in many of his own ideas, but what he is seeking is 'balance.' He wants the media to give the public all the information so they can make an educated choices on all the issues. In short the media thinks the general public is just too (...)stupid to make good choices without their guidance. Mr. Goldberg only went public with this zinformation after repeated attempts to discuss these issues with the management of CBS News and after failing to get their attention decided to make a point by writing a op-ed in the WSJ. He is a brave man who lost his job trying to do the right thing.
| 
