What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Hardcover)

by Eric Alterman (Author) "ONLY A LIBERAL would be dumb enough to title a book, What Liberal Media?..." (more)
Key Phrases: liberal bias, liberal media, journal editorial page, New York Times, Washington Post, White House (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion. --John Moe

From Publishers Weekly
While the idea that a liberal bias pervades the mainstream media has been around for years, it gained new currency with the 2001 publication of Bernard Goldberg's Bias and its 2002 successor, Ann Coulter's Slander. Alterman (Sound & Fury; Who Speaks for America?; etc.) now seeks to debunk the notion and goes so far as to argue that bastions of alleged liberalism like the Washington Post and ABC News "have grown increasingly cowed by false complaints of liberal bias and hence, progressively more sympathetic to the most outlandish conservative complaints." He largely succeeds: whatever your politics, Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable form. His chapter on business journalism, for instance, is a thrill-ride through the excesses of late 1990s optimism and the subsequent crash in stock valuations and mood. But he also counters that while the economy was peaking, major media outlets virtually ignored traditional left-wing issues like labor rights, which had been neglected, and income inequality, which was growing. In contrast, he says, the media fawned over chief executives while almost totally failing to confront corporate fraudsters. Alterman also observes that the center of American politics has shifted to the right in the last several decades, which he attributes to efforts by conservative think tanks and their financial backers. Whether readers agree with Alterman or not, his writing on the business of opinion making is eye-opening. This book will be required reading for anyone in politics or journalism, or anyone curious about their complicated nexus.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 322 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (February 4, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465001769
• ISBN-13: 978-0465001767
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (260 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #536,737 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

34 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars It depends on what is "liberal", September 19, 2003

By	Thomas Stamper (Orlando, FL) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Liberal who knows that all conservatives are not evil!, July 1, 2003

By	James P Dahlberg (Morehead, KY United States) - See all my reviews

This is a surprisingly candid appraisal of the media's move to the right (following the country's rightward movement). While it is partly a polemic, it is hardly a direct response to Bernard Goldberg's overstated book, "Bias." An iconoclast, Alterman hardly hews the party line for the liberals. It is a good read for both conservatives and liberals as long as one retains a good skeptical ear. I liked it very much.

20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent examination of a difficult subject, September 9, 2003

By	Tom Moran (New York, NY United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Eric Alterman has set himself the unenviable task of being the guy with the shovel walking behind the elephants in the circus parade. The "elephants" in this case are right-wing writers such as Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter, both of whom have made names for themselves (and bestsellers) decrying what they claim is the leftist bias in what they like to call the "mainstream media."

Having worked in the "mainstream media" myself, I'm in a position to know that this position is ridiculous, and Alterman makes a strong case that the reverse is true -- that a well-funded and hysterical right-wing cabal have so terrorized the media that they display a conservative, rather than a liberal bias. Whether it's the contempt that they showed to Al Gore during the 2000 campaign (as opposed to the fawning coverage that Bush received from Frank Bruni in, of all places, The New York Times) or the non-coverage of Bush's financial misdeeds as opposed to the massive coverage of Clinton's non-existent "crimes" concerning Whitewater, the press has chosen to cravenly cave in to the Republican line.

"Unbeknownst to millions of Americans," writes Alterman near the end of this book, "who continue to believe that the media are genuinely liberal -- or that conservatives and liberals are engaged in a fair fight of relative equality -- liberals are fighting a near-hopeless battle in which they are enormously outmatched by most measures." If you've been watching Fox's "fair and balanced" coverage you might not believe this at first, but Alterman makes a strong and convincing case.

This is an important book that needs to be read. Because it's long and takes the time to thoroughly make its case (and in small type, yet), I doubt that one person will read this book for every ten who read Ann Coulter's imbecilic "Slander." But people need to read Alterman -- as they need also to read Joe Conason and Paul Krugman and Al Franken. As opposed to the flamethrowing rhetoric on the right, these people have the facts on their side. It's time you knew the facts.