Rating: 
Summary: The liberals and leftists have verified my viewpoints
Review: Seeing that the liberals and leftists including mrbillv have been personally attacking me instead of explaining why my review was incorrect, they have showed my viewpoints to be accurate and true concerning Alterman's book "What liberal media".Standard operating procedure for liberals and leftists is to engage in character assassination of the messenger when they can't prove that his point is incorrect. Since January 2001, the liberals and leftists have been engaging in this strategy of character assassination of the President Bush and anybody conservative instead of disputing and proveing that their actions have been incorrect. Remember that your personal viewpoint shows whether the media is to the right or left. Most people in America think that the media is to the left because most Americans have moderate or conservative viewpoints. The leftist liberal fringe think the media is conservative because it's to the right of them. Of course 99% of America including Bill and Hillary Clinton is to the right of the leftist liberal fringe which includes Eric Alterman. The media is to the left, it's just not as far left as the leftist liberal fringe is. Even the ESTEEMED Walter Cronkite said that we have a liberal media in a recent interview. I trust the ESTEEMED Walter Cronkite more that I trust the leftist radical Eric Alterman. Eric Alterman showed his true agenda and viewpoints when he said that the ultra leftist rag "The Nation" is the only liberal media source in the United States. When Eric Alterman said "What liberal media", he should said that the liberal media isn't leftist and liberal enough for his leftist anti-american viewpoints. Yes, I did read the book and I saw the questionable footnotes and documentation. His footnotes and documentation don't stand up under scrutiny. This book along with other liberal writings practice the policy of cross polination concerning documenation. The idea of cross polination is that one liberal writer writes a book with questionable documentation and sources and then another liberal writer references the questionable book written by the other writer as being truthful and accurate. Therefore the cross polination continues and all of the questionable liberal books propagate based on questionable sources and documentation.
Rating: 
Summary: On the mark...
Review: Excellent debunking of the far right's claim that the media is liberal. I find it amusing that most of the detractors of this book not only haven't read it but are afraid to identify themselves while trying to skew the ratings system (you know who you are, reader from Kingsport, TN!). Recommendation to Amazon: you should limit reviews to one review from one person per item. If they have anything to add, prevent them from rating it again.
Rating:
Summary: Any idiot outside of NYC knows the liberals run the media
Review: Anybody who is familiar with Eric Alterman's conservative bashing and rantings from "The Nation" and "Altercation" on MSNBC.COM will be instantly familiar with this book. In a humorous vein, Eric Alterman claims the only liberal media in the country is the Leftist Altercation with it's anti-american viewpoints that supports anybody who disagrees with the United States, no matter what the subject. Saying the Nation is the only liberal rag in the United States, shows how far to the left of the liberals and almost every other American that Eric Alterman is. Eric's leanings are so far to the left that he makes Bill and Hillary Clinton look conservative. Most of Eric's writings are obviously filled with hate for George W. Bush. If the President said the sky was blue, Eric's column in "The Nation" or "Altercation" on MSNBC.com would say the sky was Red. Eric Alterman's writings and rantings show that he still carries a grudge over the 2000 election and this biases everything that he writes. Eric's rantings are so skewed to the left, that it's easy to see that his book is fired by his hatred for anything conservative and how he twists the facts to justify his point. Anybody who watches CNN, MSNBC, or any the major network broadcasts can obviously tell that the Liberals are in control of the networks and their broadcast agenda. Fox News is the only network that offers an honest and fair presentation of the news without the obvious liberal bias of the other media news shows. Also Eric forgets to tell us that Liberals are in control of most major newspapers in the United STates. It's obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper in the United States. Also MSNBC.com has a leftist bias. Eric Alterman's "Altercation" and Jill Nelson's op-ed pieces on MSNBC.com show just how liberal msnbc.com is in it's news reporting. Eric has no regard for the United States. He's typical of the liberals in Ann Coulter's book "Treason" that wish to destroy the United States from within. Eric has no regard for United States law unless it can be twisted to serve his politically correct and leftist anti-american agenda. Eric thinks he knows more about Constitutional law than the Supreme Court when he says that the Supreme Court was wrong and George W. Bush is the Commander in Theif. Eric forgets to tell us that the US Supreme Court stepped in to stop the Democratic controlled Florida Supreme Court from rewriting election law after the fact of the election to help Al Gore steal the election from George W. Bush. The Democratic controlled Florida Supreme court was guilty of changing the rules after the election has occured which violates Federal Election Law and the US Constitution. Eric also conveniently forgets to tell us that the President is determined by the electoral college and not the popular vote. It's in the constitution, yet he conveniently overlooks things that disagree with his leftist liberal and anti-american viewpoints. Eric Alterman's documentation standards practice the normal liberal method of cross polination. Cross pollination is when one liberal writes an article or book with no factual backing and then another liberal author references the book to back up his non-truthful claims. Very little of Eric's documenation for his book comes from the mainstream media or verifiable sources. Most of his documentation comes from unverifiable questionable sources in the liberal community. The footnotes and endnotes look real impressive if you don't question their validity or their sources. Most of his footnotes and endnotes come from nonverifable sources and have very little factual support behind them. Anybody who wasted their money on Eric's rantings deserves their money back.
Rating:
Summary: It's easy to verify and document when you know the result
Review: Eric Alterman's book is not based on open and unbiased research. When Eric Alterman wrote this book he had already decided the outcome. He then worked backwards to twist and manipulate facts to proof his thesis. All Eric Alterman accomplished with this book was to prove that he is proficient at manipulating and twisting facts to suit his leftist liberal anti-american regardless of the actual truth that we have a liberal media. This book is based on biased research and the twisting and manipulating of facts to justify the author's biased viewpoints. For fact based reading, Ann Coulter's book's Slander and Treason offer a fact based and unbiased view of the media and politics in America. Remember that your opinion of whether the media is to the left or right is based on your personal viewpoints. Seeing that Eric Alterman is way to the left of most liberals, he's going to think that the media is to the right. Eric is even to the left of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Seeing that Eric Alterman thinks that the only liberal media source is the leftist Nation, this should tell where his real viewpoints are and that he has a leftist anti-american agenda.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Excellent, Excellent
Review: Easy to read and well-documented, this book does a masterful job of spelling out just how ultra-conservative our media has become. Alterman debunks the works of Ann Coulter and the author of Bias with insight and solid research. He also takes us behind the scenes of the news room and talks about the influence of money on journalism today. This is a book that needed to be written and that should be read by more people. In fact, I think it should be required reading in high schools and colleges. If our democracy is to survive, people need to know that the so-called "news" today is often anything but and to think for themselves. Years ago I believed the conservative myth of the liberal media, so during the Clinton impeachment I went looking for the liberal media and couldn't find it. This books fills in much of the gap and explains why and how the media got so conservative. Well worth your time and money.Highly Recommended!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Alterman's "center" is left of left.....
Review: The primary point to remember when reading this book is that the author's definition of "liberal" is far left of the moderate Democrat viewpoint. Alterman mostlly proves his points rather effectively. His evidence is technically sound, and well documented. But it should be noted that Alterman had an agenda when writing this book. He already had his conclusion before conducting his research. So of course you'll understand when evidence that may be harmful to his view does not appear in this writing. This book makes it abundantly clear that Alterman believes most liberals are not liberal enough. As an independant conservative, it is difficult for me to understand how Alterman can say the Washington Post and New York times are not liberally slanted. But after reading this book I realize that Alterman's idea of a liberal slant is just to the right of Marxism. Alterman's assertions are predicated on the idea that the traditional icons of liberalism in the United States are not up to his standard of liberalism. (A point which he proves quite well...) Ironically, Alterman's failure to notice the extent of his own leftist views, coupled with his somewhat convincing evidence, actually helps prove the conservative viewpoint. The liberal press is alive and well in America.
Rating:
Summary: Wow! Has any of the negative reviewers even read the book?
Review: After reading this book, I will admit that it is more dry than Conason's "Big Lies" or Franken's "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" but the scope of the subject is covered very extensivley by Alterman and he should be applauded for this endeaver. That said, at least I read the thing. You "one-star detractors" out there need to get out more and actually read the books you trash. If you read it and didn't care for it or disagreed, let me know. But it's really difficult to wade through the trash to find real reviews.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Scholarly, but Interesting
Review: While I was hoping for a more scholarly approach to the question of media bias, I did find the book entertaining and interesting. As someone who studies the media, I am always interested in reading differing perpsectives on this question. Alterman's arguments are far more effective than the recent books by Goldberg and Coulter, but still lack the solid scholarly basis of authors such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Steven Earl Bennett, or Doris Graber.
Rating: 
Summary: It depends on what is "liberal"
Review: Instead of taking on the conservative critics directly, Alterman's book instead asks us to reconsider who and what we consider liberal. He does a fine job making his own case, but he seems to approach the material from a different set of premises than those who decry the bias. Alterman lists the areas of the media like talk radio that are dominated by conservatives. He then names all the famous conservative pundits on political shows. He also examines the number of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. He doesn't refute or even examine the conservative point that talk radio thrives simply because conservative ideas weren't getting play anywhere else. Alterman is also troubled that more TV pundits are conservative, and though I can name more conservative pundits too, Alterman goes further. He also lists Democratic pundits like Morton Kondracke and Christopher Mathews as conservatives. Cokie Roberts, the daughter of a Democratic House member, is a conservative. He even suggests that David Broder is a conservative. He quotes Broder quite thoroughly praising Reagan's approach while criticizing Clinton's. What he doesn't address is Broder's almost religious faith in the Federal Government and politicians to solve people's problems. I remember reading Broder's criticism of term limits. Broder couldn't imagine how anything would get done in Washington without a permanent political class to run things. But Broder criticized Clinton for his methods and that makes Broder conservative. He doesn't imagine that liberals like Broder were frustrated that an engaging President missed an opportunity to promote liberalism, because of his own character flaws. It's the same reason Broder might like Reagan's style, wishing a liberal could turn up with such good political instincts. Never once does Alterman quote Broder's praise of Reagan's tax cut or military buildup. He only shows Broder praising the politician. When it comes to economics, Alterman uses NAFTA as an example of how big media is economically conservative, but to attack NAFTA would have put the media to the left of Bill Clinton. What Alterman doesn't mention is that the media constantly derides supply side economics. The fact that every major news anchor and player in the media speaks of tax cuts in terms of what they cost is a great example of liberal bias. Ignoring that tax cuts spur growth and create a larger amount of revenue never gets any play either among the big fish. Not once after Reagan's tax cut in the 1980s did the government take in less tax revenue than the year prior. How often is that reported? The idea that taxes are actually the citizen's money is never explored on the big three networks either. The argument that these big corporations are controlling the mouths of the media is mentioned, but no where demonstrated in the book. Brent Bozell's Cyber Alert newsletter is packed everyday with 4-6 examples of Major Media hosts taking the liberal line and Alterman doesn't once address Jennings, Rather and Brokaw, Couric, or Gumbel. To him, the media is George Will's 15 minutes at the end of the George Stephonopolis show. He explores the Heritage Foundation and Talk Radio, but it would seem obvious to me that these entities exist and thrive because they are a counter to the everyday media as we know it. Would there be any reason to listen to Sean Hannity if Peter Jennings were saying the same things? Would we need a Heritage Foundation if the New York Times were espousing personal liberty over equality? Would we need George Will if George Stephanopolis hadn't spent his career working for Democrats? Regardless of the number of well-known conservative pundits, it must be apparent that they are labeled conservative because their presence is to counter the opinions coming from the "mainstream" person. Is the New York Time liberal to Alterman? No. The NATION magazine alone is liberal in America, Alterman concludes. That's like saying the John Birch magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN is the only conservative voice in America. His justification is that the whole continent of Europe is to the left of America and plenty of liberal magazines like the NATION thrive there. I would say that neither the NATION nor most of Europe is liberal. They are socialists, just like the NEW AMERICAN people are isolationists. Both magazines are fringe elements that are ignored and not influential among policy makers. If you spent a day reading both magazines, you wouldn't be surprised at how much they are opposed diametrically, but it might surprise you to find them in total agreement on trade issues and the like. They complete the circle, if you will, by being on the fringe. How many Democratic Party positions can you name that aren't supported by the mainstream press? I have trouble naming any. Alterman makes a good case that the media isn't totally socialist, but his refusal to engage the specific criticisms that come from conservatives must mean that he has yielded those points. If you believe the Democratic Party is conservative, then Alterman's thesis is correct. Alterman has laid out a good foundation that the media isn't liberal enough and I never tired of his examples and excellent writing, but until he spends some time answering Brent Bozell and conservative critics directly, he hasn't made the strongest case for his side.
Rating:
Summary: It's all right there in black and white!
Review: I agree that those that have given this book bad reviews have not read it and/or cannot stand to read the truth it contains. It is all here in black and white! Well documented, well researched FACT! Read it and weep!
| 
