Customer Reviews

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

5 star:		(381)
4 star:		(195)
3 star:		(71)
2 star:		(63)
1 star:		(152)

 

 

This is a decent short course for anyone who is interested in learning how the "news business" operates these days. This book has taken a slam for its "conservative bias", so if you are still in doubt about the author's objectivity, I would highly recommend David Halberstam's The Powers That Be. David Halberstam could never be accused of having a politically conservative viewpoint, but he certainly echoes some of the same concerns about "media slant" of the news. They agree on one vital fact, there should be a clear cut delineation between news and editorial opinion that business mangement and advertising revenues shouldn't cross.

Here's my editorial opinion - it's become increasingly difficult to separate fact from opinion in the so called "main stream" media. Goldberg and Halberstam give anyone who isn't interested in being spoon fed a reasonable standard to question what's being presented as news.

I just finished reading BIAS and I HIGHLY recommend it for people of all political persuasions. A couple things to note:

1. It's a very engaging read -- well written and entertaining on top of infomative.

2. It's much more SUBSTANTIAL than I expected. I thought it would just be an anti-liberal gossip session but it had a LOT of MEAT in it that I think would be interesting to any AMERICAN, not just a conservative one.

3. I've always sensed a liberal bias in the media, but thought that was just "spin" ...reporting the PART of the news that fit their agenda. I was sincerely shocked to learn of instances where they have FLAT OUT LIED to us.

Great Book!

The bias of many major news organizations has been debated for many years. For the most part, liberal or conservative, objective news reporting is illusory. Yet the PR machines of these same organizations feel that the general public is not capable of seeing right through them.

Goldberg's book, in my opinion, does a creditable job of further exposing the mechanics behind this bias. While there is no room to go into great detail, the book attacks ALL media bias; not just liberal (the recent Drudge Report articles seem to highlight just the liberal bias).

Goldberg makes a good argument for reexamining the whole corporate structure of the news business. One can certainly infer that the profits would still be there without the bias.

This reviewer has always liked the reporting of Mr. Goldberg, and this book certainly has brought out what I always suspected about him: that he tries to live up to the expectation of being objective. I would now be curious to see what happens to his career. According to reports, some of his colleagues were not pleased with this book.

I highly recommend this book as food for thought in the high-tech news world that we now live in. Our news organizations need to differentiate between news reporting and editorials.

Charles E. Brown

According to Amazon.com standards, a Spotlight Review must adhere to these guidelines...

"Spotlight Reviews are based on how well the review was written and how helpful it was deemed by our customers. We surface them on the site so that you can get good information quickly. Spotlight Reviews are calculated on a daily basis for most items in our catalog with customer reviews."

So why are both reviews for this book (Bias by Bernard Goldberg) poorly written and unhelpful? Neither "reviewer" (a loosely-used term in this case) liked the book. To be fair (and unBIASed), this page should contain a positive and negative review, to cover both sides. Furthermore, even if both reviews simply must be negative, why would these two be chosen? 30% people thought the second review was helpful, while a whopping 4 OUT OF 24 PEOPLE found the first one helpful. So, in total, 27 out of 34 people found these "Spotlight Reviews" unhelpful.

I wouldn't normally bother with this sort of thing. I just found it rather ironic, considering the subject matter of the book itself (and the fact that neither argument makes any valid points, but rather uses emotion to {unsuccessfully} sway a potential buyer.)

Anyway. Concerning the book.

If you're chronically liberal, don't bother. Your immediate rage will ruin any chance you have of seeing any truth in Goldberg's argument.

If you're ultra conservative, save yourself some money. You'll likely agree with everything he says (or that you think he says) simply because he's speaking out against a form of liberalism.

If you're open-minded and can avoid both mindless aversion and mindless adherence, you can benefit and learn from some of the very valid points made in this book. Don't listen to the emotional ravings of either extreme. Decide for yourself, if you can handle it.

I'll confess that I didn't have to be sold on the claim that there's a liberal bias in the media. Thus Bernard Goldberg was reinforcing rather than challenging personal biases. Nevertheless, the book presents some interesting insights into how stories are covered, particularly the spread of AIDS, homelessness, and 9/11. Interestingly, a breed of racism among producers of TV news magazine shows (Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, etc.) is revealed quite convincingly in that the ultimate audience is a white one, and no blacks need be shown, especially during "sweeps week."

Goldberg's problem is with his own "woe is me" attitude that permeates the book, especially the first few chapters. He revels in the image of himself as the David versus the Goliath of CBS, Dan Rather, ABC, the New York Times, and nearly everyone else in the major news networks and papers. Whistleblowers (which Goldberg clearly sees himself as) are unfortunately driven by ego and a yearning for attention as much as by principle, and Goldberg is no exception.

It is a shame that his writing style for this book is overly informal, sarcastic, and checkered with unnecessary generalizations. A more scholarly, objective, and less "biased" style would have added tremendous credibility to this book. As it is, he gives his own critics plenty of cheap ammunition with which to shoot down his otherwise legitimate claims.

Although the charge of the media being "biased" is not a new one, still, this book is shocking.

If the issue were simply "liberals vs. conservatives" this book may not have been all that necessary. But what Mr. Goldberg keenly points out, the story within the story if you will, is how de facto censorship is practiced by the mainstream/elite press. Among other egregious examples are: (1) News magazine shows kill stories that portray minorities in a bad light. (2) News magazine shows seek out whites because whites make up the majority of the audience, hence, "its all about ratings. (3)Reporters are notorious for asking "softball" questions to those with whom they share the same (leftist) political ideology. (4) The label "conservative," "conservative-extremist," and/or "right-wing conservative," are always used in conjunction with someone whose views are right-of-center. A Lexis-Nexus search reveals that similiar labels for "liberals" are virtually never used.

Contrary to what some reviewers have opined, I don't think Mr. Goldberg is at all guilty of "sour grapes" or "disloyalty" to his former boss, "The Dan" Rather. Goldberg simply tells it like it is, and, unfortunately for "The Dan" the picture that is portrayed is of an anchorman who is venal, petty, thin-skinned, and a lot like the old Ted Baxter character on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, i.e. he has a massive, to-a-fault, ego.

I say "BRAVO" to Mr. Goldberg for having the guts to tell it like it is. For the sake of sane, honest, and rational debate in the public forum of ideas something like this needed to be done. For too long the "Dans, Toms, and Peters" hegemony has gone unchallenged, and their contempt for anything and anyone outside the "New York-Washington Axis" has been ignored.

Bias is a great read. Truly, the emperors at the networks have no clothes.

First and foremost, how you feel about this book is going to be almost 100% based on your political persuasion. If you're a Conservative, "you knew it all a long." If you're a Liberal, "he's a former employee with an ax to grind." In fact, both statements are probably true. As I read the negative reviews posted about this book it occurs to me that not one even makes a veiled attempt to defend the examples Goldberg writes about. The reason for this is they are all undefendable and true examples of liberal bias in the media. Goldberg's trouble with the bias, and the real point of the book, is that there isn't a vast left wing conspiracy but rather that the media is blind to its biases. This is an excellent and frightening point. However, I do agree with those that point out that he is unnecessarily over the top with his venom for Dan Rather. Goldberg should have let the evidence speak for itself. Goldberg's writing style is very conversational making this a quick and good read. All that said, if you are VERY Liberal and don't believe that media bias exists save your money and buy something else.

Media history will now be divided into two eras: B.B. (Before BIAS) and A.B. The book is searing indictment of the left leaning media, in a way they will never be able to deny (thus, the ad hominem attacks on the author).

The arrogance of people like Dan Rather and his ilk is documented for all to see. No one with an open mind will be able to watch these jokers again without seeing through their thin veil of "objectivity."

Everyone knows the networks and newspeople are, by and large, liberal. Only fools and prevaricators deny this. Now we have a bill of particulars that makes the case undeniable.

Want to know why news viewers are leaving CBS, NBC etc. in droves? Why Fox is flourishing? It's all here. These old guard cronies are toast. They are flailing in the wind. Good-bye and good riddance!

Thanks to the author for his courage. He's being savaged by the in the liberal press, which only proves his point.

The fact that the news media are dominated by liberals has been known by everyone for years. Now a former long-time CBS reporter shows how this overwhelming lack of ideological diversity ends up skewing the news. The media's liberal bias, as Goldberg defines it, is usually unintentional and the product of the fact that they do not associate with people of divergent political views.

This book shows how transparent and facile journalists' arguments are when they claim not to be biased. And unlike leftists who charge an imaginary conservative bias, Goldberg uses actual facts and numbers to back him up. Bias seals the case shut that groups such as the Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media and Ratherbiased.com have been building for years.

Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's BIAS became politicized even before it was out on the market. And it's a shame.

This is a WONDERFUL, important, thought-provoking book and a GREAT READ...no matter WHAT your political stance is. Before this book was even in the general public's hands conservative talk-show hosts glorified it while some liberals (and news figures) badmouthed or down played it. But the bottom line is: Goldberg is a gifted writer who writes with incredible bluntness and supports most allegations with specific names, facts and quotations.

Goldberg, the modern media's most high-profile whistleblower, became a non-person and was marginalized until he left CBS due to his sin: he wrote a blunt and thoughtful piece in the Wall Street Journal questioning the objectivity of CBS Evening News reporter Eric Engberg's Reality Check segment in which Engberg ridiculed presidential candidate Steve Forbe's flat-tax idea's "Number One Wackiest Flat Tax Promise."

There are two levels to this book. One, woven throughout, is the story of how due to his sin the CBS hierarchy, particularly his one-time friend Dan Rather, shunned him, kept him off the air, and was furious at him. He says one CBS bigwig warned him that the corporation would use "all the big guns in its arsenal against him" if he became too sympathetic. Rather was quoted as suggesting Goldberg, who was NOT a Republican, was trying to intimidate him and, Goldberg alleges, took a "take-no-prisoners" behind-the-scenes stance to undermine him. Even media types outside CBS were not happy with him leading him to conclude that media "elites", which want to report on everyone, don't want anyone to report on them.

The other level is more important: he gives specifics examples (names, quotes, specific stories) of deeply ingrained media bias. Some key ones:
--A CBS reporter in a conference call labelling former presidential candidate Gary Bauer "that little nut from the Christian Group." And no editors listening objected.
--How a CBS producer didn't want images of black prisoners on a chain gang story since it might make viewers think many prisoners were black (which they were)...and similar problems on showing black looters in the Virgin Islands.
--How news producers generally don't like to feature blacks in news stories since it means lower ratings.
--How homeless activists bloated statistics and downplayed the role of the mentally ill, alcoholic and drug-users among that population. How the homeless story is heavily reported when Republicans are in power, then suddenly dropped once a Demcrat takes office. He makes a persuasive case.
--How the news media went along with early contentions by AIDS activists that the horrorific disease put the entire heterosexual population at risk versus specific segments (homosexuals, drug users and those that have sex with them).
--How the word "controversial" often means the reporter/show does not agree with the person or issue to which it refers.
--How conservatives are labelled as such but liberals aren't.

This book has a wealth of SPECIFIC, FACTUAL information...all peppered with Goldberg's blunt reporting, hilarious zingers (too many to count here!), and searing sarcasm.

This should be required reading for anyone who is in or thinking about going into journalism. Ironically, the book's basic set-up is its FLAW. By being so blunt and taking on the issue head-on Goldberg runs the risk (as his appearances on talk shows prove) of being defined by others as being a disgruntled employee and conservative ideologue. He is truly NEITHER: due to his "crime" he ran into a buzz saw of office politics, sometimes subtle corporate retaliation, blatant efforts to discredit him and his motives -- and is clearly angry. But his ALLEGATIONS here are BACKED UP with SPECIFICS.

If nothing else, Goldberg shows how news organizations operate from a ground-level assumption -- a conventional political wisdom. ALL news outlets do (take it from a former reporter, like me): CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and Fox. In staking out his ground here, Goldberg does too. But unlike others Goldberg's message is "let's THINK about this and let's do SOMETHING to apply the same rules to everyone and be MORE objective." For that he became personna non grata in circles he criticizes, a hero to those who hate those circles -- but his message is a solid one and delivered with all the writing skill of a topflight pro.