Rating: 
Summary: A Must Read...
Review: An enjoyable, concise, and well designed book. Alterman asks the questions that have been avoided because of Bias. This is a must read for all who seek the truth and not popular discourse. It will help open minds of "liberals" and "conservatives", but the choice to change is still left to the individual. "Life is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see" - Beatles
Rating: 
Summary: What did feminism ever do to you? Part IV
Review: He does address abortion, but how can he not? It's a "foot soldiers" issue, as it were. (And though he might or might not want to discuss it, the right wing certainly does.) But in his discussion on the portrayal of the issue in the media (which he bases on one study), he can't grasp how abortion is a reproductive rights issue. (The right-wing groups that have targeted condoms and other forms of birth control certainly see it's relation to reproductive rights.) But I guess we give him points for attempting to address the issue.
No points are to be given for his portrayal of women. And it is in these sections that his lack of comprehension or sympathy to feminist issues are most apparent.
ON NAOMI WOLF AND GLORIA STEINEM
Two self-identified femists are mentioned in his book: Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf. Steinem pops up on page four when he lists Ann Coulter's (false) charges against her. That's it.
Naomi Wolf also gets a one page mention. Let's examine what Alterman has to say about Wolf::
"They mocked him [Gore], fairly, I suppose, for taking advice from the high-priced feminist writer/consultant Naomi Wolf about his earth-tone wardrobe."
Let's start with "high-priced." High-priced for a personal shopper/stylist? Is that it? And he concludes (or rather supposes) the mocking was fair.
It's at moments like these that I want to scream, "Alterman get your facts right or stop trying to help!"
This book, remember, is about media claims that are, in fact, incorrect. So you don't really expect to come across distorted myths in Alterman's writing. But there it is.
For those with longer memories, the false allegation that Wolf was in charge of Gore's personal wardrobe reminded us of 1972. That's when the journalist Bob Anson falsely reported that Gloria Steinem gave advice to George McGovern on what socks and shirts to wear. (Read Nora Ephrons essay "Miami" and you'll find out Anson apologized for the error but claimed it was the fault of someone else.)
Thirty years later, we get Alterman repeating a false rumor.
It may not be enough for him that Wolf denied this rumor. If it's not enough, he might want to check "The Daily Update: Howler History -- The Doctors Were In" on the February 7th, 2003 page of The Daily Howler where this rumor is once again refuted. (The Daily Howler gets three citations in What Liberal Media?)
Again, he does a book on media distortions and in it he perpuates a disproven, false (and sexist) rumor about Ms. Wolf.
ON SUSAN SONTAG THE "OBJECTIONABLE"
Susan Sontag gets a few mentions in the book as well. The one that caught my attention was this:
"While Susan Sontag wrote a short essay in the New Yorker that many people, including myself, found to be objectionable for its insensitivity to the victims of the attack, she never said she opposed the war."
At other places, Alterman refers to an interview in the online publication Salon. But here he's clearly referring to her writing in The New Yorker. I looked the essay up. It is indeed "short" -- it's a mere three paragraphs. And in it, Sontag doesn't comment on the victims (apparently her insensitivity). Her three paragraphs deal with the way the politicians and the media are speaking of 9-11 (her essay is dated September 24, 2001). She does question the use of "cowardly" to describe the hijackers -- as would many who study political science (as opposed to journalism). In my own political science classes (I was a poli-sci major) taught by conservative Bush & Reagan supporters words like "cowardly" would have been deemed inappropriate. (Words like "crazy," "insane," "delusional," etc. would have been used readily by the professors.) Coward is defined by Websters as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity" which doesn't seem to linguistically be appropriate to describe the hijackers of those planes. Cowardice itself is defined by Webster's as "lack of courage or resolution." Again, linguistically, Sontag is correct.
But no need for Alterman to set the record straight. (At three paragraphs, one wonders why he didn't seek permission to reprint the essay and let the reader decide on Sontag's statements. Instead he's willing to offer that he finds it objectionable -- but his objections only raise more questions. Is he referring to this essay or is he referring to her Salon interview -- which I haven't read?)
ON ANITA HILL
Don't expect to find any discussion of the "gender quake" in voting patterns on the national level that occurred in 1992 or any questions of whether this event resulted from the way the Senate and the media initially dismissed Anita Hill. (Wolf covered this in her 1993 book Fire With Fire. Probably Alterman was too busy picking out some male candidate's earth-tone suits to pick up Wolf's book.)
Instead, we get one citation. Where he stops for a moment to note ("shout out?"): ". . . David Brock's vicious and deceitful attack on Anita Hill, which he has since disowned ..." Yeah, that's one of the key points of Brock's Blinded By the Right. Brock spends many pages discussing both the Anita Hill articles and the book he wrote, why he wrote them, who "aided" him, etc.
We're in the midst of a paragraph on "analysis" of the people who embraced Brock's book (which was about Hill, but Alterman's already moved on). And this "analysis" -- as inadequate as it is -- falls apart further as Alterman supposes that those who wrote the favorable reviews weren't really "qualified" to judge Brock's writing (why?) or that they may have been motivated by a desire to support the "contrarian" (again, why?) or that they may have been trying to establish "street cred" (and again, why?).
Rating:
Summary: Freeper Alert!
Review: Looks like they're out to spam the reviews of a GREAT book with 1 star reviews.... P>By the way, I loved the book! It refutes every argument for the So-Called Liberal Media (SCLM). In fact, it flips the argument over by arguing there is a conservative/corporate bias present in most of "the Media." Although Alterman does point out that it is simplistic to argue that "the Media" is conservative or liberal.Just read the book. It's well written, researched, and fluid....
Rating:
Summary: Freeper Alert!
Review: ...By the way, I loved the book! It refutes every argument for the So-Called Liberal Media (SCLM). In fact, it flips the argument over by arguing there is a conservative/corporate bias present in most of "the Media." Although Alterman does point out that it is simplistic to argue that "the Media" is conservative or liberal. Just read the book. It's well written, researched, and fluid...
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Goldberg book
Review: Read Bernard Goldberg if you want an INSIDERS testimony to how the press works. Alterman has never been a part of the mainstream media so he relies on half-baked theories and circumlocutions to arrive at his conclusion. The conspiracies that Alterman hallucinates resemble the most absurd Rube Goldberg cartoon, while Bernard Goldberg's arguments and evidence are very straightforward. This book is trash.
Rating:
Summary: A reality check . . . finally!
Review: Liberal media?! Talk about right wing political correctness. Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" sets the record straight on the true state of "balance" in the corporate (and Republican) owned media. Alterman's writing is witty, informative, and fact-based. He makes an effort to be fair although there is little fairness in this topic. He's not a doormat as libruls are expected to be but his zingers don't match the vitriol spewed by some of his book's subjects. The book's conclusions cannot be disputed so the smear about Alterman's comment about St. Rush is being used to douse his credibility but it rings false. Alas I doubt that the book will receive wide distribution as the conservative screeds bloviating about the librul media are more prominently displayed in the average mega bookstore while Alterman's work is tossed off to an obscure table. But this is the age of the double standard, nest pas?
Rating: 
Summary: Not likely to win "converts" -- and that's a shame.
Review: In "What Liberal Media?," Eric Alterman has done a lot of research to counter a three-decade old "thesis" that seems accepted by middle-America, but not by most university professors and liberals living in our biggest cities. Yet I'm disturbed by Alterman's recent public appearances. They seem to create doubts about the man himself. As a former news director and reporter, and present-day media strategist by trade, I know credibility is fundamentally critical to win "converts." But Alterman doesn't have it. A columnist in one of America's most liberal publications, "The Nation," Alterman doesn't appear as convincing as Bernard Goldberg did, for example, at MSNBC this month, surrounded by a huge crowd of potentially hostile college students in Miami. Alterman's dismissal of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" is unconvincing. "Bias" was ground-breaking because: 1) it was written by a liberal Democrat who had insider information about his experiences with senior editors at CBS News, and, 2) it was filled with information, however anecdotal and regarded as "unscientific" by some, collected over three decades in the great city of New York. Alterman trashes Goldberg. But Goldberg's arguments were plausible and not as loony-sounding as Alterman tries to make. People in newsrooms DO NOT have a hidden agenda. Liberal bias occurs naturally when you're surrounded by like-minded peers striving to be "politically correct." Walter Cronkite is an avowed leftist. But you'd never know it if you watched him on TV. And that's how, Goldberg says, it should be. Alterman's ability to win converts, as Goldberg did, will depend on reactions from people who MATTER. If only liberals buy or read this, very little will be gained. It would be nice if a conservative said, "you know, wait a minute, Alterman has a point." That's what Goldberg did, casting seeds of doubt in liberals without ranting, which is what Alterman and Coulter do on opposite ends of the political spectrum! "Bias" was a memoir of frustrations, written by a liberal who feels journalism should offer balance to viewers who "live between Manhattan and Malibu." Goldberg torched his career in network news. Alterman, a liberal, preaches to a choir of liberals. Goldberg, a liberal, reached out to both liberals and conservatives, many who remain friends. In the end, Alterman is in the same position as Limbaugh, but less powerful; hence, his effort to win "converts" will prove futile. If Alterman accomplishes half of what Goldberg's "Bias" did, then "What Liberal Media?" will have longer shelf life and relevance. This is a good start to force the ocean liner into a U-turn. But Alterman needs other voices, ironically, conservative "insiders" who agree with him, to create momentum. He's worth reading, but despite many footnotes, his book lacks the necessary firepower that made "Bias" such a compelling "inside" read. Liberals had no choice but to take Goldberg's book seriously; only the mean-spirited dismissed it as musings from a disgruntled ex-employee. Conservatives, however, may pass on "What Liberal Media?" because of its "absolute" tone. And that would be a shame.
Rating: 
Summary: Alterman is Half Right
Review: Alterman's book is about half right. The notion that the media is controlled by a cabal of the liberal elite is rubbish, and quite obviously so. However, one should not be deceived into thinking that the media is either "biased" or "conserative": the mass media operates exactly as it is designed to, in the interests of big business, and not of "conservatives" in any real sense of the word. To read a more persuasive examination of how the institutional structure of the mass media--advertising, ownership, reliance on government sources, and aversion to "flak"--dissuades honest, meaninful reporting, and promotes obedient propagandizing in the name of corporate elites, read Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent," the ultimate classic debunking of the media's claims about itself, a book which has withstood all serious criticisms for a decade now, and does not like Alterman resort to name-calling of so-called conservative pundits. Coulter and co. don't deserve the attention of serious people. Alterman demeans himself by engaging with these apologists for state violence.
Rating:
Summary: Alterman exposes right wing BIG LIE
Review: Alterman cites a Tom Tommorow cartoon to help make his point. He asks his readers to "undergo a thought experiment". Paraphrasing... "Imagine an expansive network of left wing think tanks bankrolled by secretive left-wing finaciers seeking to advance a radical left-wing agenda. Then imagine blatantly left-wing cable news networks and op-ed pages that promote left-wing ideas relentlessly. Then imagine angry liberals debating these left-wing proposals with weak mealy-mouthed conservatives on the Sunday talk shows. Then imagine an entire universe of left-wing talk radio hosts spending endless hours hammering these left-wing notions into the heads of tens of millions of listeners." Of course if your are talking about right-wing media bias all the above is true, but a left-wing media bias? It is to laugh.
Rating:
Summary: Personal Bias, no fact.
Review: Though I was very interested to read this book after having read both "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg and "Slander" by Ann Coulter, I was dreadfully disappointed to find that this book offered little evidence to supports its contentions. More often than not, the author simply relies on a "She's too cute" or "He's too stupid" argument to indicate that particular opinions are invalid. He redefines liberalism as communism and defines conservatism as liberalism in order to say that particular pundits are conservative, and classifies someone as conservative if they have ever voted conservatively or said anything remotely conservative. This book is intentionally misleading, vindictive, and of little use to anyone who truly wishes to analyze the facts.
|
