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

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

by Bernard Goldberg

Paperback(First Perennial Edition)

$18.75 View All Available Formats & Editions

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780060520847
Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers
Publication date: 02/04/2003
Edition description: First Perennial Edition
Pages: 256
Product dimensions: 5.31(w) x 8.00(h) x 0.57(d)

About the Author

Bernard Goldberg is the number one New York Times bestselling author of Bias, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, and Arrogance. He has won eight Emmy Awards for his work at CBS News and at HBO, where he now reports for the acclaimed program Real Sports. In 2006 he won the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award, the most prestigious of all broadcast journalism awards.

Date of Birth:

May 31, 1945

Place of Birth:

New York, NY

Read an Excerpt


"They Think You're a Traitor"

I have it on good authority that my liberal friends in the news media, who account for about 98 percent of all my friends in the news media, are planning a big party to congratulate me for writing this book. As I understand it, media stars like Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings will make speeches thanking me for actually saying what they either can't or won't. They'll thank me for saying that they really do slant the news in a leftward direction. They'll thank me for pointing out that, when criticized, they reflexively deny their bias while at the same time saying their critics are the ones who are really biased. They'll thank me for observing that in their opinion liberalism on a whole range of issues from abortion and affirmative action to the death penalty and gay rights is not really liberal at all, but merely reasonable and civilized. Finally, they'll thank me for agreeing with Roger Ailes of Fox News that the media divide Americans into two groups-moderates and right-wing nuts.

My sources also tell me that Rather, Brokaw, or Jennings-no one is sure which one yet-will publicly applaud me for alerting the networks that one reason they're all losing viewers by the truckload is that fewer and fewer Americans trust them anymore. He'll applaud, too, when I say that the media need to be more introspective, keep an open mind when critics point to specific examples of liberal bias, and systematically work to end slanted reporting. According to the information I've been able to gather, this wonderful event will take place at a fancy New York City hotel, at eight o'clock in the evening, on a Thursday, exactly three days after Hell freezes over.

Okay, maybe that's too harsh. Maybe, in a cheap attempt to be funny, I'm maligning and stereotyping the media elites as a bunch of powerful, arrogant, thin-skinned celebrity journalists who can dish it out, which they routinely do on their newscasts, but can't take it. Except I don't think so, for reasons I will come to shortly.

First let me say that this was a very difficult book to write. Not because I had trouble uncovering the evidence that there is in fact a tendency to slant the news in a liberal way. That part was easy. Just turn on your TV set and it's there. Not every night and not in every story, but it's there too often in too many stories, mostly about the big social and cultural issues of our time.

What made doing this book so hard was that I was writing about people I have known for many years, people who are, or once were, my friends. It's not easy telling you that Dan Rather, whom I have worked with and genuinely liked for most of my adult life, really is two very different people; and while one Dan is funny and generous, the other is ruthless and unforgiving. I would have preferred to write about strangers. It would have been a lot easier.

Nor is it easy to write about other friends at CBS News, including an important executive who told me that of course the networks tilt left-but also warned that if I ever shared that view with the outside world he would deny the conversation ever took place.

I think this is what they call a delicious irony. A news executive who can tell the truth about liberal bias in network news-but only if he thinks he can deny ever saying it! And these are the people who keep insisting that all they want to do is share the truth with the American people! It wasn't easy naming names, but I have. I kept thinking of how my colleagues treat cigarette, tire, oil, and other company executives in the media glare. The news business deserves the same hard look because it is even more important.

Fortunately, I was on the inside as a news correspondent for twenty-eight years, from 1972, when I joined CBS News as a twenty-six-year-old, until I left in the summer of 2000. So I know the business, and I know what they don't want the public to see.

Many of the people I spoke to, as sources, would not let me use their names, which is understandable. They simply have too much to lose. You can talk freely about many things when you work for the big network news operations, but liberal bias is not one of them. Take it from me, the liberals in the newsroom tend to frown on such things.

And there are a few things that are not in this book-information I picked up and confirmed but left out because writing about it would cause too much damage to people, some powerful, some not, even if I didn't use any names.

But much of what I heard didn't come from Deep Throat sources in parking garages at three o'clock in the morning, but from what the big network stars said on their own newscasts and in other big public arenas, for the world to hear.

When Peter Jennings, for example, was asked about liberal bias, on Larry King Live on May 15, 2001, he said, "I think bias is very largely in the eye of the beholder." This might offend the two or three conservative friends I have, but I think Peter is right, except that instead of saying "very largely" he should have left it as "sometimes in the eye of the beholder." Because it's true that some people who complain about liberal bias think Al Roker the weatherman is out to get conservatives just because he forecast rain on the Fourth of July. And some people who say they want the news without bias really mean they want it without liberal bias. Conservative bias would be just fine.

Some of Dan, Tom, and Peter's critics would think it fine if a story about affirmative action began, "Affirmative action, the program that no right-thinking American could possibly support, was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court today." But I wouldn't. Bias is bias.

It's important to know, too, that there isn't a well-orchestrated, vast left-wing conspiracy in America's newsrooms. The bitter truth, as we'll see, is arguably worse.

Even though I attack liberal bias, not liberal values, I will be portrayed by some of my old friends as a right-wing ideologue. Indeed, I've already faced this accusation. When I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in 1996 about liberal bias among the media elites, my professional life turned upside down. I became radioactive. People I had known and worked with for years stopped talking to me. When a New York Post reporter asked Rather about my op-ed, Rather replied that he would not be pressured by "political activists" with a "political agenda" "inside or outside" of CBS News. The "inside" part, I think, would be me.

Sadly, Dan doesn't think that any critic who utters the words "liberal bias" can be legitimate, even if that critic worked with Dan himself for two decades. Such a critic cannot possibly be well-meaning. To Dan, such a critic is Spiro Agnew reincarnated, spouting off about those nattering nabobs of negativism. Too bad. A little introspection could go a long way.

I know that no matter how many examples I give of liberal bias, no matter how carefully I try to explain how it happens, some will dismiss my book as the product of bad blood, of a "feud" between Dan Rather and me. How do I know this? Because that is exactly how Tom Brokaw characterized it when I wrote a second Wall Street Journal piece about liberal bias in May 2001.

In it I said that as hard as it may be to believe, I'm convinced that Dan and Tom and Peter "don't even know what liberal bias is." "The problem," I wrote, "is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world."

The very same morning the op-ed came out, Tom Brokaw was on C-SPAN promoting his new book, when Brian Lamb, the host, asked about my op-ed. Tom smiled and said he was "bemused" by the column, adding, "I know that he's [Goldberg's] had an ongoing feud with Dan; I wish he would confine it to that, frankly."

Here's a bulletin: in my entire life I have mentioned Dan Rather's name only once in a column, be it about liberal media bias or anything else. Five years earlier, when I wrote my first and only other piece about liberal bias, I did in fact talk about the "media elites," of which Dan surely is one. So counting that (and before this book), I have written exactly two times about Dan Rather and liberal bias-or, for that matter, about Dan Rather and any subject, period!

Two times! And that, to Tom Brokaw, constitutes a "feud," which strikes me as a convenient way to avoid an inconvenient subject that Tom and many of the other media stars don't especially like to talk about or, for that matter, think too deeply about.

I also suspect that, thanks to this book, I will hear my named linked to the words "disgruntled former employee" and "vindictive." While it's true I did leave CBS News when it became clear that Dan would "never" (his word) forgive me for writing about liberal bias in the news, let me state the following without any fear whatsoever that I might be wrong: Anyone who writes a book to be vindictive is almost certainly insane and at any moment could find himself standing before a judge who, acting well within the law, might sign official papers that could result in that "vindictive" person being committed to a secure facility for people with mental defects.

I don't know this from firsthand experience, but my guess is it would be easier to give birth to triplets than write a book, especially if you've never written one before. Staring at a blank page on a computer screen for hours and hours and hours is not the most efficient way to be vindictive. It seems to me that staring at the TV set for a couple of seconds and blowing a raspberry at the anchorman would take care of any vindictive feelings one might have.

So, does all of this lead to the inevitable conclusion that all the big-time media stars bat from the left side of the plate? Does it mean that there are no places in the media where the bent is undeniably conservative? Of course not! Talk radio in America is overwhelmingly right of center. And there are plenty of conservative syndicated newspaper columnists. There are "magazines of opinion" like the Weekly Standard and National Review. There's Fox News on cable TV, which isn't afraid to air intelligent conservative voices. And there's even John Stossel at ABC News, who routinely challenges the conventional liberal wisdom on all sorts of big issues. But, the best I can figure, John's just about the only one, which says a lot about the lack of diversity inside the network newsrooms. On February 15, 1996, two days after my op-ed on liberal bias came out in the Wall Street Journal, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote about the firestorm it was creating. "The author was not some conservative media critic, but Bernard Goldberg, the veteran CBS News correspondent. His poison-pen missive has angered longtime colleagues, from news division president Andrew Heyward and anchor Dan Rather on down." Kurtz quoted several dumbfounded CBS News people, one of whom suggested I resign, and ended his story with something I told him, more out of sadness than anything else. Journalists, I said, "admire people on the outside who come forward with unpopular views, who want to make something better. But if you're on the inside and you raise a serious question about the news, they don't embrace you. They don't admire you. They think you're a traitor." I am not a traitor, nor am I the enemy. And neither are the millions of Americans who agree with me. The enemy is arrogance. And I'm afraid it's on the other side of the camera.

Table of Contents

New Introduction to the Perennial Edition: "They Think You're a Traitor"1
1The News Mafia15
2Mugged by "The Dan"33
3"The Emperor Is Naked"47
4Identity Politics55
5How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness69
6Epidemic of Fear81
7"I Thought Our Job Was to Tell the Truth"103
8How About a Media That Reflects America?115
9Targeting Men137
10"Where Thieves and Pimps Run Free"151
11The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV169
12Liberal Hate-Speech185
13"The Ship Be Sinking"193
14Connecting the Dots ... to Terrorism201
Appendix AThe Editorials221
Appendix BThe Response231

What People are Saying About This

Harry Stein

Bias is a fearless and vitally important book. In exposing the bottomless intellectual corruption within his own industry, Bernard Goldberg does what so many in the mainstream press only pretend to do: he tells the truth without regard to personal consequences. Colleagues will surely accuse Goldberg of treachery, and worse. But it is he, not they, who upholds journalism's finest traditions.

Wiliam J. Bennett

The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for CBS News-an old-fashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be told.

John Leo

Bernie Goldberg is dead on. The astonishing distrust of the news media is rooted in the daily clash of worldviews between reporters and their readers and viewers. 'Bias is the elephant in the living room,' said one critic of the news business. After Bernie Goldberg's book, it will be harder not to notice the elephant.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News 4.1 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 82 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I had to read this book for a college class. Goldberg does a superb job exposing what most Americans suspected all along. Easy-read and he definitly opened my eyes to how bias the media can be. I take comfort in the fact that there are people out there who still believe in reporting the facts and allowing the general public to form their own opinions. Kudos to Goldberg for not being afraid to tell the truth, he¿s earned my respect.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Bernard Goldberg has written a book that should be required reading for all journalism students. He lays it on the line that the media are making suckers of us!
Guest More than 1 year ago
A very conservative friend of mine read this book and started trying to argue the points with me. Having not read the book at the time, I chose not to argue but to postpone the argument until I had read the book. All I have to say is that after reading it, there was no argument. What Bernard Shaw had to say was absolutely true. As much as I wish it weren't. I had never thought of the news in that perspective but when he makes his points.....there is really no disputing them. Conservatives really are branded, while liberals are not. For instance, in one of his many varied examples... Rush Limbaugh is continuosly identified as a 'conservative radio talk show host', while Rosie O'Donnell ( who is as far to the Left as Limbaugh is to the Right and is also is as outspoken as Limbaugh on issues ) is never introduced as the liberal talk show host. While I am not on the side of the conservatives, I have to admit, Bernard Shaw ( a liberal ) is right. There is a bias in the media and instead of denying it they should create a network ( as Fox News did ) embracing it.
Guest More than 1 year ago
You would think that a book exposing media bias would rely on journalistic objectivity to make its case. In the case of Bernie Goldberg's book, you would, however be wrong.

Bernie has an axe to grind with Dan Rather and CBS for responding poorly to behavior most corporate management would find objectionable (I think you can skip the first 50 pages of the book which focuses primarily on the feud and mentions ONE example of bias).

The book makes a better case for arguing that what we call news is driven by market share than it does for liberal bias. This book itself demonstrates strong bias.

Think about it - if you were in high school and needed to do a report on bias in the news, you'd start by defining bias and you'd find some way of measuring that bias on news programs. Your analysis of content based on your proposed measure would allow you to determine first whether the news was biased and second in which direction it was slanted. The book does not do this. It lists a handful of questionable examples that are hardly representative of broadcast or cable news in its entirety.

If you submitted this book as your paper on media bias, you'd be lucky to get a C+. Far from a persuasive argument on the subject, the author sounds like a whiny little boy focusing on a scant handful of examples. The leap from these to his conclusion is hardly logical in that his justification seems to be, 'We all know it's true.'

Personally, I think the media is biased. I think they do pieces that are liberally biased but I believe there are also conservatively biased pieces. In today's news, I think the conservative bias is having a much bigger negative impact on our society. But more than bias, I think broadcast and cable news are pretending to provide journalistic coverage of issues while selecting (and presenting) only those topics which they guess lead to higher viewership. Gone is the notion of educating the public. It's been replaced by entertaining the public.

'What Liberal Bias?' by Eric Alterman is a better read on the subject and it refutes some of the claims made by Bernie Goldberg. I recommend the Alterman book over this one.

If you read this book I encourage you to read it objectively and with an open mind. How should a bias argument be formed and what would be a persuasive analysis of that argument?

chichikov on LibraryThing 8 days ago
A short account of Goldberg being blackballed from the MSM because he grew more conservative.
mramos on LibraryThing 3 months ago
Bernard Goldberg is a liberal and an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist that worked for CBS for decades. This book is his expose of his fellow reporters' liberal bias that led to his own ostracism and rejection. Mr. Goldberg offers examples of how media interpretations of current events affect social climate of the country. This book is as timely as the Op-ed pieces Mr. Goldberg wrote when he was still on the CBS payroll. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not when reporting the news. Our news is supposed to be objective. If they wish to give their own opinions, they should be commentators. I agree with the other reviews that state that this book is a solid indictment of the mainstream media's bias. We should demand that all news media returns to reporting facts and focus on being fair, balanced and objective.
jpsnow on LibraryThing 3 months ago
More than anything else, Goldberg fights back full-throttle at "The Dan." His case that the media has a liberal bias is clear, and he tempers it appropriately with discussion of the underlying dynamics and the (perhaps even scarier fact) that such bias is mostly unconscious.
ague on LibraryThing 3 months ago
Interesting reading. I read it after Dan Rather had been dismissed from CBS news for poor journalism. The book was apparently written before then. It was very interesting that Bernard Goldberg came close to losing his pension because of criticizing CBS for having a liberal bias in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. This brought him the wrath of Dan Rather. Goldberg may have had the last laugh as Dan Rather was eventually fired for using a forged document against President George W. Bush on the CBS news. The main point: our hard news should be fair, balanced, and unbiased.
kkirkhoff on LibraryThing 3 months ago
Bernard Goldberg spent twenty-eight years as a reporter for CBS. His book shows how the media unintentionally impose a liberal bias when reporting the news. He is quick to point out that for non-social issues like plane crashes or September 11 the media does a superb job. The bias comes out in their coverage of social issues. Several reasons support this feeling.- A large majority of the press are Democrats compared with around 20% of the general population.- When getting opinions on various news stories, they consult known liberal groups, but no conservative groups.- They socialize and work with like-minded people, therefore, they view their stances as normal.Their bias comes out in a distortion of facts, how people are portrayed in the news, and words used to describe ideas that do not match their own. Politicians are labelled "conservative" or "right-wing", but none are labelled "liberal" or "left-wing". Various conservative/Republican platform planks are schemes or something that has a negative connotation.It was interesting how the media (60 Minutes in particular), who have no problem exposing corruption and questionable behavior, reacted with disdain, denial, and vindictiveness when Goldberg turns the tables. It was obvious to me that those who dish it out, can't take it.The topics that he feels are subjected to this bias are the homeless, AIDS, men, terrorism, and race. This was very interesting because he would make a point and counter it with a "what if" scenario. For instance, Katie Couric jokingly asks if a jilted bride considered castration as a suitable remedy for the groom. Goldberg counters that with "what if" Matt Lauer were interviewing a groom in a similar situation. What if Lauer had mentioned cutting off the bride's breasts as a remedy? All Hell would break loose. Women's groups would be calling for his abusive-violence-against-women's head.I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who rolls their eyes at the very thought of a media bias. It was eye-opening, and I'll never watch network news the same way again. Come to think of it, I never watch network news anyway. Oh well, no great loss.By the way, Bernard Goldberg has never voted for a Republican, and voted for Bill Clinton twice.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Don't buy this book! I bought it and couldn't put it down. Pretty much the entire world could have been destroyed and I would have kept reading it. Unbelievably absorbing. Finally all of the mystery of why the media is so biased makes sense. What I never realized is just how clever and pervasive they were at pushing their hidden agendas.
Radarinva More than 1 year ago
While this book is a few years old, it is still a seminal work documenting the insidious and institutional bias in the media. Bernard Goldberg describes what happens to anyone who dares point out that the media bias is real and is hurting the media. His point is demonstrated even more by current events and who and what the media covers (or ignores). For anyone who wonders how this country got into the mess it is in, Bias illustrates the media's roll in helping to cause it.
andover More than 1 year ago
This should be required reading for all high school students and again for all college students majoring in jouralism. What you will learn is that the media is out for their own agenda and somehow we as people have have allowed our information highway to be covered by left leaning liberals. Jouralism has become the black ice of our society.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
The really important point that so many people have overlooked about Bernard Goldberg¿s ¿Bias,¿ the interesting factoid that never seems to come under anyone¿s microscope is that when he wrote this book, Goldberg still considered himself a Liberal. In fact, even in the later book, ¿Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite,¿ after all the abuse he received at the hands of his powerful liberal ex-friends, Goldberg still considers traditional American Liberalism one of the great driving forces of 20th century politics. The book is more believable because it comes from a traditional Liberal. What Goldberg was giving us with this book is not one more rant on the evils of the Left by a conservative, but a Liberal¿s letter to his own camp on how they must shape up or vanish. The real message of this book is that the Left has ceased to attempt persuade anyone except those who are already converted, and Goldberg got a lesson about the truth of that message the day this book was published. What is more informative than anything in this book is the sad reality that instead of reading Goldberg¿s book and at least considering his criticisms, the Left first turned on Goldberg en masse and savaged him publicly, and then tried to ignore him in the hope he would go away. That he did not go away is a tribute to Goldberg¿s moral fiber. The Left's argument that Goldberg is merely a disgruntled ex-employee does not stand because of the resonance this book found in the American mainstream. If those of us here in ¿red state¿ country had not already felt and understood what Goldberg was talking about, we would not have bought the book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Are the major broadcast media fair and balanced in presenting the news and issues of the day as they claim to be? Or, does liberal bias really exist in the American media? The book entitled Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, by Bernard Goldberg, reports how CBS and the news industry habitually forget its main mission: objective and disinterested reporting. Goldberg, at the cost of his job as a news reporter at CBS for nearly thirty years, expresses the notion that liberal bias really exists and that the media distort the news, as the title of his book suggests. Again and again he saw that the media slanted the news to the left. For years, Goldberg appealed to reporters, producers, and network executives for more balanced reporting, but no one listened. The liberal bias continued. Now, in Bias, he attempts to expose what the news business is really like, showing how and why the media slant their coverage while persisting that they're just reporting the facts. The way that Goldberg sees it, on issues ranging from homelessness to AIDS to child day care, reporters have simply reiterated the propaganda of pressure groups they favor, never minding the honest reporting. Chapter five of his book, ¿How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness?describes how the reporters exaggerated the number of homeless to millions when in fact that number was only in thousands (page 72). Also, journalists ¿prettified?reality by showing ¿a very atypical, blond-haired and blue-eyed homeless family?(page 70) to establish a stronger identification with the audience and gain their support and sympathy (money) all under the control of the homeless lobby. He also stated that journalism omits inconvenient facts that might undermine the political agenda being promoted such as not mentioning the fact that 90 percent of the homeless are alcoholics, drug-addicts or are mentally ill. He wrote, ¿Meanwhile, the homeless lobby was putting the number of homeless in the millions¿Pump up the number of victims and we stand a better chance of getting more sympathy and support ?more money ?for our cause is what they correctly think,?(page 72) ¿And reporters are more than willing to go along and be yanked around by the homeless lobby.?(page 74) Later, in chapter six, ¿Epidemic of Fear? Goldberg makes the same argument again. The AIDS activists and gay lobby used the media to make AIDS seem like it was ¿everyone¿s disease?for sympathy ?and we know what sympathy really means ?from America. He stated, ¿But to do this (exaggerate the reality of AIDS in America), the activists needed their compassionate friends in the media. No Problem! It was the homeless story all over again. Tell the American people there were AIDS victims just like themselves ?if not right now, soon ?then maybe they would care enough to do something about the problem.?(pages 82-83) Not only the homeless lobbies and AIDS activists, but NOW (National Organization for Women) also has influenced how the news get reported. In chapter eleven, ¿The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV? he expressed that the reporters don¿t report the real big story ?the absence of mothers from American homes is having dire consequences because the latchkey children don¿t know how to take care of themselves. Also, he points out that there are many policies being made that would make it easier for working moms to continue working and spend less time with their children, ¿The feminist response to any `controversial?news about day care is to call for more federal laws and subsidies to improve the quality of day care,?Goldberg (page 180). Goldberg offers another reason why the media distort the news: to look compassionate. When dealing with the homeless issue, the media sided with the homeless lobby and helped out the needy. When dealing with the AIDS issue, the media sided with the victims of the disease. Another example that Bias presents is the Alabama chain gang story. The state of
Guest More than 1 year ago
I believe that Bernard Goldberg did a decent job on exposing the liberal bias that the media has. However, I do resent the length of the book. He repeats himself too much and dedicates about five pages of chapter 4 explaining how he is an 'old fashioned liberal.' It is unnecessary, especially since it follows a conversation he had w/ Rather (refer to pg. 34). In addition, he seems to be more than happy to take a few stabs at Rather and use up a couple more pages. I believe that he does make a point, but it becomes bogged down w/ all the unnecessary baggage.
Guest More than 1 year ago
There is bias in the news media, but unlike what some right-wingers propose, it has nothing to do with deliberate slanting. As Mr. Goldberg shows, the truth is far worse ... it's all unintentional. The news media is so left-winged that they consider liberal groups so 'mainstream' that they routinely use them and reference them as 'informed, learned sources.' On the rare occasions that right-of-liberal groups are referenced they are labeled as 'conservative', 'right-wing', or worse. Mr. Goldberg presents tons of evidence from numerous descriptions from transcripts to frequency of certain stories or types of stories in the media. I think the book runs a little long and the last half to a third basically continues the first half to two-thirds, just adding more concrete details. The audio edition also came with an interview with the author that added some fresh material, particularly dealing with feedback about this book. The only significant downside to the book is the way Mr. Goldberg several times mentions the fact that the TV news media takes its cues from the newspaper news (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) but then no suggestion is made about how to address that problem.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Being somewhat liberal myself, this book helped me to realize the extent of the liberal bias in the media. I always knew it was there, but never realized the extent to which this bias occurs until reading this book, and kudos to Goldberg for bringing it to light. That being said, I have some major issues with this work. First of all, his tone is whiny and sniveling. He goes out of his way to say that he may be perceived as a disgruntled ex-employee for writing this, then does nothing to prove otherwise (except a weak argument that he wouldn't have gone through the pain of writing a book if that were true. Huh?) That is EXACTLY how he SHOULD be perceived, especially based on his personal attacks on Dan Rather and other prominent members of the media. Secondly, most of the 'facts' he uses to support his thesis are merely quotes from his own or other people's opinions! Most come from op-ed pieces and hearsay. There are no hard statistics to support his argument. Either they don't exist at all, or he was too lazy to research them. Either way, he should be ashamed. Thirdly is the fact that Goldberg is a true literary lightweight (although I guess he can't be faulted for this since he really can't help it). His writing style, often pleading with the reader to see his point, is annoying, and he repeats himself frequently. Overall this book is nothing more than a desperate grab at a few bucks to support Bernard Goldberg's retirement. I became sure of this when I got to the end of the book and read through the appendix where his original op-ed pieces are printed. When I read them I realized that this book is nothing more than THOSE op-ed pieces spread thinly across 200 pages of pleadings, hearsay, opinions, and lame 'observations'. The only reason I gave the book 2 stars instead of 1 is that he does have a point and it made somewhat of an impression on me. It's too bad, however, that I wasted my time reading the whole book to come to this conclusion when I could have acquired the same information from reading his WSJ op-ed pieces in 5 minutes. Here's a piece of advice: If you're interested in this book, go to the bookstore, read the appendix to get all the info you'll need, then move on to something actually worth reading.
Guest More than 1 year ago
BIAS tells truths and exposes facts that many have suspected but never confirmed. Now we know - the mainstream media is hopelessly liberal and clueless about its left-wing thinking. Goldberg makes his case with style and wit.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This may or may not make you angry!IF you consider yourself educated, well read and informed, when read this book you will KNOW you are NOT!Do yourself a favor,read this!If you are a journalist,make a promise to yourself..Tell the TRUTH! If you lose your job, tell everyone why! Become independent and don't follow the 'rules'Question Everything!!!
Guest More than 1 year ago
If people are smart enough to think and assess information by themselves, we don't need this kind of book to teach us whether the media has conservative or liberal bias.