A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

Finally an admission from a liberal that there is bias in the media. From both conservative and liberal but more so on the liberal end. It really makes you think through what you are seeing reported on the news now days. I never trusted the way news is being reported before and now I understand why.

This book should be required reading for everyone from 10th grade up! It shows how, even with the best intentions, bias creeps into the media presentation of the news. More importantly, it clues you in to how the most insidious bias works--in the selection of what to include in the news broadcasts! If you think that broadcast news is unbiased, you must read this book!

Kudos to Mr. Goldberg having the guts to point out media liberal bias in a fair and balanced manner. This was a great read, articulate with sprinkles of Bernie's wit. Loved it and highly recommend this book.

Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" is a revealing look at the newspaper and television news industry. Goldberg, an industry insider for nearly thirty years before he wrote the op-ed that effectively ended his career at CBS News, tackles the topic of bias, specifically liberal bias, that is prevalent among the major networks and newspapers. Goldberg's op-ed, which ran in the Wall Street Journal on February 13, 1996, brings up the topic of bias in news, and specifically, that during a CBS newscast the week before, and correlates that bias to the continuing drop in viewers of the main network newscasts. Goldberg goes in depth about the media culture, and offers some startling observations. For example, the media elites are so absorbed in their own surroundings and with their own people, their liberal bias is so ingrained that they don't see it as a bias. Mr. CBS, Dan Rather, actually told Golberg he considered the New York Times a "middle of the road" newspaper. The best Rather quote of the book, however, is from the Tom Synder show a year before Goldberg's op-ed was published. Rather said "It's one of the great political myths, about press bias. Most reporters don't know if they're Republican or Democrat and vote every which way." Anyone who believes that needs to have their head examined. For example, 89% of journalists polled said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, an election in which Clinton received 43% of the overall vote. The numbers were similar for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

There are a million ways the media can slant news stories, and Goldberg examines some that he witnessed firsthand. The subtle ways the media alters their news coverage is demonstrated in the chapter, How Bill Clinton cured Homelessness. Stories about the "rising" numbers of homeless were abundant during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, then virtually disappeared during Clinton's two terms. But once George W. took office, they again started appearing. Also of interest is how the media will take for granted statistics that a liberal advocacy group will throw out and blindly repeat without challenge. And of course, the practice of labeling conservative spokesman as such in stories, but not doing the same for liberal and even left wing spokesman. Goldberg discusses how certain liberal groups will always get the benefit of the doubt concerning their views, while conservative groups will be constantly challenged and derided concerning theirs.

In my opinion, the reason for the vitriol aimed at Fox News from the mainstream media isn't because Fox News is as right wing as they suggest, it's because Fox News exposes the liberal slant of the mainstream media. I believe Fox is right of center, but not right-wing. I don't believe CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are left-wing, but definitely left of center. By labeling Fox "right-wing", the MSM is able to deflect their liberal bias.

One of the most interesting things in Goldberg's book is when he recounts the treatment he received after writing the op-ed. The news media, which projects this image of enlightenment treated him as a pariah and absolutely refused to debate the points he brought up. Instead, they attacked his character, accusing him of being a political activist with a right-wing agenda. Bias, and in fact, liberal bias is the worst kept secret in the news media, and they knew they couldn't dispute Goldberg on the facts, so they turned to character assassination. They knew they couldn't dispute his credentials, hell, he was one of them, so they had to do their best to destroy his credibility.

Although it's been a few years since Goldberg's book came out, the points he makes are more relevant than ever. Rather's forged document scandal from 2004 and his continued denial that the documents were forged (yes, he still maintains they're real) isn't only an indictment of Rather, it's a commentary on the whole mainstream media. Whether you've thought much of bias in the media or not, read the book and see what you think.

We have all known for sometime that the media was extremely bias on their reporting. But to hear it from a former insider is absolutely compelling. To see, first hand, how evil people like Dan "Blather" Rather, is a must. The book is well written and grasp your undivided attention. You want, want to put the book down since it is such a simple and to-the-point read... Try it... it is well worth it...

What greater validation of a pure point of view than when one puts his job on the line. I differ with him on several issues. But, on his overall premise, he is directly on point. And all these years later, Dan, Peter and Tom are mostly forgotten and what they have left behind is worse. ...but mostly irrelevant.

Definitely gives valuable insight into the unfortunate bias that occurs in modern day reporting. Somewhat repetitive, and gives the impression that the author had an axe to grind about his personal career path. Intersting insight regarding the personalities of well known reporters and news casters. Worthwhile. Eye opening.

This is really a great read about the "mainstream" media and its slanted reporting of the news. I just finished it and am looking forward to reading more from Mr. Goldberg. No wonder I no longer look at ABC, CBS, or NBC news! Long Live Fox News Channel and its fair and honest reporting!

Right wing, Left wing, Conservative, they are all in this book, but the writing is terrible which makes one become confused on who he is actually talking about at times. We all know the media distorts the news for their agenda, the question is, what is their hidden agenda? This book doesn't uncover that question. It is mainly about like I said, Right, Left, Conservative and other Aristocratic Bureaucrats. Boring!

Goldberg writes this expose' as if it is big news to everyone. I think the media left-leaning bias has long been known, not just by conservatives (~75% of all America?), but by the Left as well. Of course they go to great pains to hide this fact, since most Americans would dismiss them immediately, otherwise, and tune them out. To anyone capable of a little critical thought, however, it's still obvious. People have been complaining bitterly about the liberal media ever since I can remember, about 50 years now. What puzzles me is why it has it taken so long to get a balanced news network like Fox established.

Goldberg has written an entertaining story with a political twist, so much is sure. Reading it was a breeze and, quite frankly, fun. As for the more serious aspects of the book or the significance of its statements - I am not sure one can unequivocally recommend or dismiss it.
While I would consider msyelf more on the liberal end of the spectrum than Goldberg, I must admit that the points he makes in respect to the bias in news reporting or journalism altogether are worthwhile. He exemplifies his stance in a handful of chapters that each address one spin or another that have given me reason to think. While I can agree with most of his illustrations, I find his depiction of the media in the wake of 9/11 quite inaccurate, in effect I would contend the opposite of what he says.
Unfortunately he only attends to what he calls 'liberal' (I would prefer the term 'politically correct') bias in the media. I am sure it would not have been hard to produce a couple of cases which would have demonstrated the very same (though on a different station and a different guise) for the more conservative (or should I say 'right-wing') news-making instead of news-reporting. Instead he chooses to grind an axe with his former employer only.
Notwithstanding that he has something to say but that is it then. Besides that there are plenty of rants about this and that and in particular his bitterness about CNBC's response to the words he used in a piece in the Washington Post that he knew would dig his own career's grave. It is this piece which apparently set his decline in motion.
While he spends the better part of a chapter insisting the book is not about a personal beef with Dan Rather - nice try - it becomes quickly clear that much of it is really just that. After he has referred to Rather as 'The Dan' for the umpteenth time I got the drift.
Still, the book has something to say but more so it has a story about how he managed to get himself outed saying the wrong things about the wrong people.
Well, this is tough luck, Bernard. I would venture to say that the very same would have happened to you on the Fox networks would the roles have been reversed.
If you are looking for some light reading and mild inspiration - this is it. If you are looking for an in-depth analysis of the media get Noam Chomsky's 'Necessary Illusions' or some of the reports both authors cite in their books. Although I doubt Chomsky and Goldberg would agree on much of anything, both have something to say. This is not to imply that Goldberg can even begin to touch the analytical depth of other political authors, but then - it's only entertainment and I am sure the book's sales will pay for the mortgage now that he is out of a job.
Especially in the current political climate.

Outstanding book from a liberal who pulls the curtain back and exposes how our liberal media system really works. This book helps expose the truth that our media system is a propaganda machine that will not tolerate any dissension from the politically correct party line.

Buy it. This is an excellent book. Goldberg's insights and comments are as direct as a jab to the eye.
o He pulls no punches.
o He names names.
o He names companies.
o He describes the tactics used to present biased news.
o He describes how the NY Times sets the liberal agenda.
o He backs up his comments with concrete examples.
Further, he takes on the major "issues" of our times, showing how the media doesn't just tilt the news, but intentionally distorts the truth regarding:
o Homelessness
o AIDS
o Race
o Crime
o The war on men
o Feminism
o And more.
Mr. Goldberg, unlike the vast majority of the media, understands what fair and balanced news really means, and knows the difference between truth and indoctrination. He ends his book by providing the best advice possible:
"All I can do is what millions of Americans have been doing for years. I take one last look at my good friend Dan [Rather], blow him a good-bye kiss, aim my remote right at his eyeball ... and click the button marked 'off'". Worthwhile advice.
Mr. Goldberg, thanks for standing up for the truth against such overwhelming pressure and the inevitable character assassination that will follow.

Mr. Goldberg has some personal issues with CBS, including losing his job. Hardly an objective look at the topic of this book. Don't waste your time reading this one, obviously written because Mr. Goldberg has bills to pay.

This book should have been called "Bernard Golberg complains about his ex-boss and how he got fired".
I was expecting a book about how media *in general* creates bias and an atmosphere of fear in the interest of selling more media products.
I got a book about the underhanded ways of Dan Rather at CBS.
And a lot of bitching by a guy who got fired for going to the press with complaints about his company. The surprising thing to me is, how could Mr. Goldberg think he would NOT get fired after publishing a story dissing his company in a major newspaper!...

Great book. (...)The author would be considered a whistle blower if he wrote this book about the tobacco industry, the insurance industry or any other "60 Minutes" target that you could think of. The fact of the matter here is that he had the unmitigated gall to attack the attack dog. When that media attack dog bites back at Goldberg, it'll hurt. I don't envy his predicament, but I certainly admire his courage to speak bluntly and truthfully about the mainstream media's dirty little secret (although most people have been aware of the bias since before CBS rigged GM trucks to blow up on cue in order to expose their "weak" gas tanks). They will crucify him when they get a chance to. (...)
Is it any wonder that the Major network "news" organizations are loosing viewers at an alarming rate? Is it any surprise to anyone that Brokaw made a slip of the tongue when during the last election he was lamenting the fact that "we are loosing the election" when discussing Gore (gosh, I wonder who he supported). I usually don't watch any of the Major network news organization (or CNN for that matter) unless I want to be entertained by watching people make fools of themselves.
This book exposes the bias and the way that bias is brought into the news. He exposes the cunning, skillful and conniving manner in which they wheedle the bias into their news stories that they decide to broadcast.
Do yourself a big favor and buy this book to understand how the networks and CNN try to manipulate what we, the viewing public, should be thinking about and what news we should be hearing. (...) They have lost the notion that their sole function as a reporter is to tell us what happened, nothing more, nothing less.
Good work, Goldberg. This is a book I'm giving out as Christmas gifts. This is truly a gift that "keeps on giving" in that it gets the readers to think differently about the major news organizations and to watch the news with a cynical eye. By the way, it's much more entertaining to be cynical when watching Brokaw, Jennings and Rather et. al. They are really quite humorous when they are pompous. The more pompous they are, the funnier they become. (...)

An illustration of what an excellent reporter could do to wake people up. But it will do no good; news will continue to be biased. Without a paper and station dedicated to the elimination of partisanship, it will continue.

Make no mistake about it; Mr. Goldberg's intentions were good when he expressed his concerns about bias within the media. However, the type of reporting and journalism Mr. Goldberg would like to see exist in America is only a thought of the ideal. In reality, even the most righteous journalists will inevitably let certain personal biases influence their reporting in one way or another. The slant that is present may vary a great deal, but every journalist has a personal opinion about the topics they cover, and they make sure to express their feelings in subtle ways, as well as blatant ones. Glenn Beck certainly advertises the fact that he is a right-wing commentator. On the other end of the spectrum, Bill Maher routinely pounds Republican politicians. Both serve a purpose, and in my mind, negate each other. The same can be said about any liberal bias that may exist in television news canceling out the conservative bias that dominates talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity completely dominate the talk radio sector, and in today's time, have made some huge dents in any liberal bias that existed in television news as well. Ultimately, once Mr. Goldberg turned the magnifying glass upon liberals within the media, he forgot to attend to the conservative bias that not only exists, but is just as prominent as any perceived liberal bias within the big-three news networks.

Admittedly, Mr. Goldberg wrote "Bias" in 2002 which suggests to me that even he would like to change his thoughts on some issues today. I say this because Fox News was certainly on the rise in 2002, but it was an infant compared to the monster it grew to be in the following years. With Fox News being so biased and so powerful, I doubt that even Mr. Goldberg would feel the same about biased reporting today as he did in 2002. As evidence, in October 2009, Mr. Goldberg, working as a correspondent for Fox News, blasted the network for its conservative slant on "The O'Reilly Factor". If, indeed, a liberal bias existed or still exists today in network news, Fox News and talk radio have definitely balanced the scales, if not tipped them.

However, what is intriguing about Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" is that, at its heart, it is a plea to news networks to remove the lies and entertainment from news and return to the format of simply providing verified information. Now, in this area Mr. Goldberg and I agree completely. Where Goldberg loses me is when he adds a political tilt or view as to why our news has become a source of entertainment. His opinion seems to suggest that a liberal bias existed, and still exists, within most newsrooms and somehow spurred the evolution of news to entertainment. However, if one were to remove politics from the situation altogether, it would be much easier to blame monetary profits for the switch.

I understand the underlying claim made by Goldberg, but I also understand that Goldberg is speaking from his viewpoint. This is important, because, as I have acknowledged earlier, journalists have personal feelings about the subjects they cover, and majority will inevitably be biased in their reporting at some point or another. "Bias" is obviously biased in many aspects itself, but as earlier noted, it also has intelligent, thoughtful information. Goldberg makes the information extremely convoluted, though. It lies somewhere between his rants about AIDs coverage in the media and his printed views concerning working mothers. I understand that Goldberg finds everything he has written to be something worthy of legitimate concern, but what he seems to be ignorant of is the fact that many people just do not see the issues at hand through his vision. Therefore, just as he exhibits clear bias with his commentary in "Bias", journalists exhibit a bit of the same bias from their own viewpoints through their own platforms. My point here is simply that reporting and journalism will always rely, to some extent, on personal bias. While this is not ideal, it is reality.

Even as I write my own commentary on the subject of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias", my own biases come forward. I naturally view these issues from a liberal perspective, but I am also careful to be objective when thinking of what I have termed the "Goldberg Big Picture". This term refers to the fact that Goldberg would like to "clean-up" television news in all possible ways. To be clear, I support his efforts one hundred percent. However, my bias appears when I contend that liberals are not the cause of news turning into entertainment, nor are they the cause of a lack of coverage on issues from Goldberg's perspective. I contend that news has turned into entertainment simply because it makes money, and money doesn't care what political ideology you assume. I also contend that Goldberg's "Bias" is nothing more than a simple claim veiled in Republican or Libertarian ideologies combined with a hundred pages or so of Goldberg just expressing his opinion on a variety of subjects.

The main theme of the book seemed to switch towards the end. In the beginning, Goldberg seemed to blame liberals for almost everything wrong in the newsroom, and vaguely, but confidently, claimed that liberals were responsible for the entertainment news we have today. In the end, however, entertainment news seemed to be the only thing in Goldberg's crosshairs. It almost seemed as if we would agree on the subject if we were to have a private conversation. Consequently, it is my opinion that Goldberg and I agree on the "big picture", but disagree on the details of that picture.

In conclusion, Goldberg struck a chord with most network executives, but mainly with liberal ones. This is because in its simplistic form, "Bias" is only advocating cleaning up television news. Everything else stated by Goldberg within "Bias" is opinion oriented and does not pertain to his main argument. Therefore, "Bias", ironically, seems to be Bernard Goldberg's platform to explore his own biases. If Goldberg were to subtract his own political ideologies from his sentiments in the book, then it would truly be a true, in-depth analysis of media bias, and I would probably be inclined to agree with him. As it stands, Goldberg's thoughts in "Bias" seem to echo the fact that commentators will inevitably insert their own biases into many subjects despite the fact that they are sincere in their concerns.

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.

For all of the conservatives railing against media bias and slanting, take heart, a Media giant agrees with you.

Mr. Goldberg gives examples from his 30 years at the top of the heap in broadcasting news about all the media
sins that you won't read from any other newscasters, Mr. Goldberg richly illustrates the giant egos and the giant
media sins and their far left leaning posing as professionals who are anything but. I say that we owe a huge debt
of gratitude to Mr. Goldberg who got fired for exposing the media and how they slant the news.

This book is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING for conservatives.

The reviewer is the author of the Kindle book entitled: Sex Education for Adults Secrets
to Amazing Sex and Happily Ever After Too

Bernard Goldberg's Bias starts with a harsh, over-the-top comparison of the major TV news outlets to the gangsters of the Godfather movies. He says that he was given a set of cement footwear for breaking their code of silence and talking publicly about inside secrets that many in the business are aware of, but simply agree not to discuss.

While this comparison is undoubtedly hyperbole (he has had, as far as I know, no attempts on his life) his treatment after he dared accuse his own colleagues of a clear and consistent liberal bias is completely out of proportion, especially considering the media's pride in defending freedom of speech.

Continuing a stand that began with a Wall Street Journal editorial in February of 1996, Goldberg describes the pervasive and generally unconscious liberal bias in the major TV news networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The pernicious nature of this bias, he says, is largely due to the sheltered circles the media elites travel in; they rarely encounter people who don't share their political views, and thus soon grow to think that their views are simply what all reasonable intelligent people believe.

Goldberg gives a detailed account of the results of this bias in several areas. The problem of homelessness was drastically exaggerated during the Reagan era, as well as being "prettified" for the consumption of the average viewer. If you rely unquestioningly accept the word of the Big Three, homelessness magically disappeared during Clinton's presidency, only to suddenly reappear when the Bush was elected in 2000. AIDS in America never reached anything like the epidemic proportions the major networks would have had us believe. To those not in clearly defined high risk groups (hemophiliacs, IV drug users, gays) it simply was not a threat. But this was not the picture we were repeatedly presented with.

More intellectual dishonesty can be found in the media's selection and presentation of valid targets. Men, and especially white men, can be demonized and persecuted with an unholy venom. Natlie Angier of the New York Times can even question whether we today even need men, whether the sex, as a whole, is "worth the trouble", and instead of being regarded as a vicious lunatic is considered reasonable and intelligent. Is 50% of our species "necessary" and "worth the trouble"? If this kind of question were applied to any other group, the writer would instantly become a pariah in liberal circles.

Along similar lines, politicians, scholars, and other public figures are not given a balanced presentation, even in a simple introduction. Any Republican politician is consistently introduced as "conservative so-and-so from Ohio." Any representative of a conservative think tank or activism group is clearly labeled as conservative when being introduced or even discussed. No such labeling appears necessary for liberals, though. It is as if those with liberal inclinations are simply people, while those with conservative views are some dangerous, alien creatures, and must be clearly labeled as such.

Regardless of the political inclinations, the reader should worry about the impact of such a clear and consistent liberal bias on the public debate. This narrowing of permissible viewpoints is, in the most meaningful sense, the direct opposite of liberalism, which, translated to common English, means simply "freedom".

A good book on business of TV network news. Clues you in on the how and why a major highly visible industry is dying or being reshaped. If you like to follow the big trends and get the emotions, color and flavor behind the scenes, for you this non fiction book is as juicy as it gets. From beginning to end the book is full of personal colorful experiences and tales on the rich and famous. The reading does not get any easier than this book. It is up to you to test the authors creditability by reevaluating what you see on the major networks after reading this book. If you don't read the book you will be less well equipped to handle the rapid changes taking place in the news business. Sometimes the most exciting scandals to watch are when industries or governments sit back and do nothing and the public rips them from limb to limb. This is such a scandal in the major networks. The book quotes a survey that the media is viewed as more liberal than half of registered democrats polled. To be out of touch with people that are not your customers would not be surprising, but to out of step with your most friendly customers shows a serious lack of management skills. You will never see TV news or major print media as unbiased again after reading this book. It will also help you understand why the media being left of center for the Democratic party alone is losing its economic base to alternative news outlets. From reading this book there would seem ample reason that the alternative media sources would grow in leaps and bounds at the expense of old traditional sources. That would be forecasting... a very risky business.
Bias in major television news and newspaper news has supercharged a dramatic migration of news consumers to cable, satellite, talk radio and the Internet. Major network news viewership has nearly fallen in half in the last 20 years. The fatigue of liberal bias in the old sources, TV and newspapers, over the last several decades is now being accelerated from the availability of new sources particularly the Internet for serious news consumers and the talk radio for those stranded in cars.
Bernard Goldberg in this book is nearly totally focused on the liberal bias of the television news programs and the lock step culture surrounding them. These superstar exotically paid TV performers are masking as knowledge processor workers. From reading the dramatic vivid examples he details, it would appear that the network news programs are unlikely to save themselves from the self created destructive forces that are at work constantly eroding its viewer base year after year.
Given the little change in top management at the news programs even after such striking declines in viewership, this may be the lull before the storm. The same old rich anchor personalities greet us each day. The top managements of companies that own the major networks have been afraid to intervene in news program policies except to surrender ground to the new competitors by reducing the amount of network news and reducing the resources available to news programs. This in turn reduces quality and quantity of news further driving away viewers.
The first amendment rights protect media of all types in regard to content. The anchor people and news program management seem to take the view that the first amendment will somehow save them from the realities of the market place for news. Since the nations founding there has never been much self restraint from news people damaging individuals and organization by biased coverage. Were it not for the power of the consumer to take an easy hike with the remote control there is no other constraint with management so asleep at the switch at the networks. The new sources for news are starting to turn the information market place into a more free wheeling environment where consumers can leave old sources and access news that is more to there liking. Today if you miss the evening news you can access it elsewhere. It is not just technological change, it is a industry wide culture in a death spiral. The people working at ABC, NBC and CBS are running off the customers by making a defective product.
The author shows how when it comes to public policy the TV network news attempts to shape the debate according to a liberal bias. The author describes reporters and editors as "total dunces when it comes to economics" page 217. It strikes this reviewer that the lack of economic knowledge is as equally bad as the liberal bias. It would be worthy of sequel to this book.

Bernard Goldberg was a respected veteran reporter for CBS. He had won an emmy seven times for his broadcast reporting and was considered a peer among the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings (at least considered a peer by viewers if not by Dan, Tom or Peter). In his book he steps forward to tell how reporting bias has interfered with truthful and honest reporting using specific examples. You'll note that I said he was a respected veteran reporter. After coming forward with an expose of the liberal bias in news reporting and how it is used to support the causes of various pressure groups instead of actually reporting news in an evenhanded manner, he was terminated from his employment. The only thing that I did not like about the book was the common thread that ran through all of it that sounded like a child ranting and raving about the local bully.... Dan said this, Peter said that, while it may be accurate, hearing the story once was enough without having it repeated again and again throughout the book. Mr. Goldberg's writing should rise above this like all the rest of the book. When it turned to actual examples of how the facts differed from the reporting in multiple situations it becomes a fascinating book. The examples are accurate and very detailed. You end up with the conviction that this is a timely book, from a respected source, providing compelling evidence of strong bias in news reporting today. I had the advantage of confirming Mr. Goldberg's accusations and depictions of the character of various high profile newscasters with a retired news producer from one of the big three networks. His comment? Right on the money.

BIAS by Bernard Goldberg is a must read. The book brings up so many important issues that are impossible to ignore, as some liberals may want to.
I am a 16 year old student, and I feel that what Bernard Goldberg says about the liberal media also applys to what I learn in school. Often, my teachers will teach things that are not entirely true, or told from a liberal view-point. Especially when it is something about AIDs or the war on terrorism, two issues that are important and should be told truthfully, but are also very sensitive to political correctness.
While reading BIAS I often felt that words like the "media" and the "news" cound be exchanged with "school", and words like "anchorman" could be interchanged with "teacher". What I am saying is that although this book is about liberal bias in the media, it also applys to many other things, such as school.
That is why I would reccommend this book. Becuase not only is bias just in the media, it is in so many other places like the work place and school. The book BIAS is a weapon. A weapon against liberal bias. If you read this book, you will be able to weild its ideas against the liberal bias in our entire society.
Although the ideas in Bias are wonderful, the book's writing is a little sloppy, and not always cohesive. I feel that Mr. Goldberg often says too much about certain topics and the reading gets a little repetitive. Even with these flaws, BIAS is a must read. Read it...NOW!

Most people today have fairly shallow personal philosophies; typically a hodge-podge of conflicting beliefs selected according to which best matches their preconceptions.

Shaping and installing such thoughts in hundreds of millions of people has been developed as something of an art form by modern U.S. media. Select which stories are news, which are not, determine the 'angle', then repeat, year-after-year. A miseducated public lacking strong intellectual and moral foundation is largely helpless.

30 years ago, who would have imagined Boy Scouts would be banned from schools that dispense condoms to children? Or that the nation would import from the 3rd world a nation the size of France in 10 years, setting up it's own eventual dissolution? And that criticizing such things is often considered a "hate crime".

How were right and wrong inverted in less than a generation? Ask people what thought process they used to arrive at these beliefs and you basically get incoherent sound bytes accepted only because they mirror the elite. Before TV, few people were exposed to beliefs of intellectuals. Now they are guinea pigs in their livings rooms for TV news folks dedicated to creating a new reality.

Modern leftism naturally has been the driver. It's opposition, Christian philosophy, considers people as spiritually designed in the image of God, then corrupted by their own free choice. Because of the existence of sin, Christians recognize human imagination and action is incapable of creating a perfect world -- Utopia -- with all of human history as evidence, if the secular still doesn't see it.

(Most of what the Left calls "the Right" are actually just NATIONALISTIC utopians who think the perfect world can be achieved via 'my race' or 'my nation'. By contrast, the Left are INTERNATIONAL utopians. So Left and Right have the same thought processes and assumptions, just different implementations. Modern political philosophy really boils down to Christians as compared to "everyone else", with Christians incorrectly being lumped in with the Right, since they oppose the Left and seek things like decentralization of power to prevent concentration of it in a single person or state that is intrinsically corrupt. This seems like nationalism, but has different intent.)

By contrast, the Left sees humans as mechanically derived chemical accidents; "sin" is an opinion, not reality. Anything wrong with the world is correctable if people could be educated to think "properly". Thus, the Left is naturally drawn to institutions concerned with shaping how other people think: education, entertainment, government, and of course the media.

Their goal, once there, is to alter how others think. The assumption is this will result in a perfect world. People who don't share their ideas are evil because they argue against what the Left thinks will create Utopia. "Who could oppose this beautiful world I can imagine and not be evil?" is what they think, never examining their basic presuppositions about reality. Inevitably, the Left is composed of a multitude of factions, each operating off an internal imagining of what is needed to create a perfect world -- diversity, socialism, radical environmentalism, personally selectable genders, absolute sexual freedom, etc.

So that's a little background on the Why's of the subject of bias as prelude to the book. If you can stomache any more on the topic of media bias after reading this book, I strongly recommend "The Gospel According to the New York Times : How the World's Most Powerful News Organization Shapes Your Mind and Values" by Proctor.

CBS largely gets its take on the news from the New York Times; the NYT tells them what's important and what the angle is. This then gets reflected back and forth on TV. While TV news maybe shallow and reflexive in it's bias, the NYT engages in an organized attack on opposing world-views, seeking to replace them with its own. Both books together will provide a powerful indictment of the devastatingly negative effect of these self-appointed definers of what is important.

Bias is Bernard Goldberg's shot at the mainstream media machine that chewed him up and spit him out after he came forward in a Wall Street Journal editorial and wrote what many already take for granted. What he wrote, that the mainstream news media is overwhelmingly liberal, is no new accusation, but what is unique is that Goldberg himself is a self-described liberal who worked 30 years in the heart of the CBS news department.
This book is interesting mainly for the story of how ruthless his friends at CBS were after he criticized their organization following one exceedingly vicious attack piece CBS news (supposedly just reporting the "news", remember) did in a nightly news feature on Steve Forbes and his presidential campaign of 1996. Even if Goldberg could be easily dismissed (which he cannot be) as having had some grudge as motivation for writing the editorial, the overreaction by his workmates and superiors at CBS would be simply comical, were it not so pathetic. Read the book, if only for this funny, yet sad, story.
After recounting the string of events that led to his willingness to write this book, Goldberg, who meets all the criterion for a self-labeled liberal (pro-choice, anti death penalty, pro tax, never voted for even one GOP presidential candidate), goes on to give some examples of where the media empire is liberal to a point now beyond its own control. Breaking the book into chapters for each topic, Goldberg gives examples he believes prove the media's leftward slant on issues such as homelessness, AIDS, terrorism, and crime.
If you believe there is a liberal bias in the mainstream news organizations, then you will simply love reading this book and it will give you lots of numbers, stories, and quotes for your argument. If you believe the major, broadcast networks are generally unbiased, or even have a conservative bias (although I've never really heard an argument for this contention), then this book will probably anger you, but read objectively it will give you a good summary of what your political opponents are alleging. Read the book, and it'll help you counter the arguments made by the man who will now be used frequently as the conservatives' greatest weapon.

Bias starts with a single incident. Bernard Goldberg is told by a friend that a report done on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather was a hatchet job. When he looks into the report, he finds that yes, the story was deliberately slanted against Steve Forbes' flat tax plan, which the reporter referred to as "wacky." The reporter dissected the idea behind the plan with the help of three economic experts, all of whom agreed it was a terrible idea. The experts weren't identified as liberals, and no mention was made of the fact that some economists (Milton Friedman for one) think the flat tax is a good idea, and workable. When Goldberg brought this up with people at CBS News, he was given the cold shoulder, so he wrote an editorial, and to compound his sin, published it on the Wall Street Journal's notoriously conservative editorial page. So far so good.
The abovementioned incident, and the firestorm the editorial created at his job, take up the first third of this book. We learn much about the author's dispute with Dan Rather, all of it gossip column style, with amusing anecdotes and quotes. Goldberg seems rather puzzled by the animosity that accompanies such arrogance and unrestricted power in one such as Dan Rather, as if he hasn't heard the old absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely quote. In spite of this, it is entertaining to read, if a bit of a tempest in a teapot.
The author then goes ahead and tells us what he saw in 28 years of media coverage of events, with emphasis on bias. Unfortunately, the answer is not that much, at least not that he can say. He does say he had to leave out several incidents because people could get fired if he were to repeat the occurrences or the things people said in response to them.
He does have *some* substance, though. He recounts several incidents and telling instances of pervasive bias that are illuminating, if hardly news to a conservative. He's not the first person to note that homelessness was exaggerated to make Ronald Reagan look bad, and certainly not the first to wonder where all those homeless people went when Clinton was elected. He also has a series of quotes from people in the media (or at least on TV) saying nasty things about Conservatives, and wonders out loud whether anyone could say any of that about a Liberal and remain on the air.
The book does have flaws, however. It has an insider's point of view, and perhaps takes too long making its point that Dan Rather is intolerant of criticism and dissent. The anecdote about Rather thinking that the New York Times editorial page is middle of the road is funny though. Goldberg says he didn't notice the bias in much of the time he was reporting, though, so the stories he tells give you the impression that this all happened recently. No mention, for instance, of the Checkers speech, and that era.
There is a tendency in many of the other reviews here to pan the book if you're a liberal, and praise it if you're a conservative. I don't think there's a single reviewer who identified him/herself as a liberal who had anything good to say about the book. To my mind, this means if you pick this book up, you've probably already made your mind up. That's a shame.

Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, the veteran CBS insider
who exposes how the media distort the news . . . he contends
that conservatives might well be right; i.e., that our nightly news is slanted to the left.
It definitely got me thinking, and that's one test of an excellent book . . . what I liked most about it was that Goldberg gave many examples . . . unfortunately, the author lost his job as a result of his courageous stand . . . so I guess you have to be careful about whom you mess with at CBS, particularly if his name is Dan Rather (a man who regards criticism of liberal bias as treason).
There were many memorable passages; among them:
Jennifer Greenstein, who wrote the piece, tells about a reporter at Gannett's GREENVILLE NEWS in South Carolina who spent hours hunting for a black person to include in a story about . . . Hanukkah food! Religious minorities don't count with Gannett. So the reporter had to find someone who was both Jewish and a racial minority. Too bad Sammy Davis Jr. is dead.
They love affirmative action, as long as their own kids get into Ivy League schools. They love handing out jobs based on racial preferences, as long as they get to keep theirs. It's a great deal: it's always somebody else who has to make the sacrifice--sometimes Asian-American kids, sometimes other white students who don't get into places like Harvard and Yale and Princeton--while the white liberal elites get to claim credit for being so decent, the saviors of black people in America.
While, thanks to the TV news, I know all sorts of things about the aforementioned Joey Buttafuco, I did not know that between
1979 and 1988 the suicide rate for girls aged ten to fourteen
rose 27 percent. And for boys it went up a frightening
71 percent. . . . Thanks to TV news, I knew that John Wayne
Bobbitt had surgery to attach his detached you-know-what,
but I didn't know that a sociologist named Arlie Russell Hochschild discovered that "a study of nearly five thousand eighth-graders and their parents found that children who were home alone for eleven or more hours a week were three times more likely than other children to abuse alcohol, tobacco or marijuana." To which [Mary] Eberstadt adds: "There is also the related question of what those hour of uninterrupted access to the violence and pornography of the Internet are doing to adolescents nationwide."

Goldberg's main point is that journalists don't intentionally set out to skew the news; liberal bias is insidious. So insulated are journalists from differing opinions, they feel their own liberal positions are the only reasonable, civilized, normal positions. They believe conservatives are racist, sexist Neanderthals. Because their worldview colors everything they do, journalistic bias is rampant and, at the same time, unacknowledged.
Books like Slander and Coloring the News make the same points, except Bias was first. It all started when a story on then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes's flat tax ran on CBS news, purportedly giving the readers the facts to make up their own minds. But all the experts shown were liberals (though not identified as such) and all were against the flat tax! The reporter even called the flat tax "wacky." Goldberg brought it up and nobody cared. Finally he sent an editorial to the Wall Street Journal.
He talks a lot about the reactions of his peers. Some of the journalists that ran to support him were John Stossel, Andy Rooney, and Bob Costas. Dan Rather, though, said he would never, ever forgive Goldberg. According to Rather, Goldberg is (suddenly) a right-wing kook with an agenda, the New York Times is middle-of-the-road, and most journalists don't know if they're Democrat or Republican. To Rather, bias doesn't exist.
Goldberg goes on to give other examples of bias. He tells how a TV journalist covering post-hurricane looting in a Caribbean country serendipitously taped looters being arrested, only to have the story spiked because the looters were black and it offended a black CBS staffer (although the cops were also black, as is 95% of the country). He relates a producer insisting a black man be called "African American" instead of black or the story wouldn't run--despite knowing that the victim was Jamaican, not American. The politically correct producer just wouldn't, couldn't, say the man was black.
By themselves, the harm in these decisions seems minimal, but they indicate a growing willingness for journalists to paint a PC picture instead of tell the truth.
He discusses the rigging of statistics by AIDS and homeless groups and how journalists think they are helping them by not questioning the numbers. Instead, their complicity only does harm by obfuscating the root problems.
Goldberg also deflates common feminist myths, like women earning 59 cents to the dollar for "equal" work. If that were true, corporate America would simply get rid of all men and hire women to do everything. He talks about the stories that won't get covered, namely anything negative about daycare or positive about men.
What distinguishes this from Slander is that Goldberg was a respected, connected network insider. After a biased story ran, he didn't just document it; he'd call the journalist and asked why he said this or that. He is more reasonable and seems to have actually made some impact with liberals, while Coulter only alienated them. He's not against liberal ideas per se, just liberal bias. Conservative bias would be just as wrong in an objective newsroom.
My complaints would be (1) comparing news coverage is not so simple. There are myriad reasons why a given story doesn't run. (2) Goldberg complains about network newspeople making male-bashing jokes. While his complaints are valid, I would hate to see men become another victim group, just another sacred cow who can't take a joke.
The audiobook is read by the author, and his training as a TV journalist prepared him well. He puts plenty of oomph into his voice, making emotions like anger, frustration, and astonishment obvious. And he knows how to pause while reading statistics. I was less impressed by the interview after the book, which only briefly discussed the ideas in Bias, instead focusing on other aspects of news like corporate interference and the length of the stories.
On the whole, this is well-written and powerful documentation of a massive problem with both individual and national importance. Bias is an exceptional book.

This telling disclosure of the liberal bias in news media comes from the inside, and that is why it stings so badly. The truth surrounding this issue is why CBS invited Goldberg to take a flying leap, and why he has never been asked by the major networks to discuss liberal media bias on the air. These facts alone prove his case.
Hard facts, like those presented in the AIDS section and the plight of the homeless, back up Goldberg's assertions. One example that Goldberg cites is the number of times stories on the homeless ran before Clinton was elected, then number of stories during the Clinton presidency (the issue seemingly disappeared, only to be resurrected when the younger Bush was elected). This is standard fare; however, it was nice to have concrete, objective numbers attached to the accusations. Goldberg documents his assertions well, and the facts surrounding liberal media bias are irrefutable.
Most troubling to me is the reality that major network news is infotainment-junk, and it is piped into millions of homes per day. Is there a reason why the American public knows more about Joey Buttafuco, Tonya Harding, and the JonBenet Ramsey case than real, pressing issues of the day, such as the growing societal consequences of absentee parents, social issues that devalue stay-at-home moms, and the real causes of radical Islamic hatred? Goldberg asserts that there is, as news has become entertainment, and the only factor that matters to news executives is not truth, but ratings.
Goldberg acted bravely and suffered the consequences of his honesty--losing friends and a career at CBS--by taking on an establishment that considers itself immune from criticism. I sincerely hope this movement continues to generate healthy discussions and profound change in the way we digest the information coming from 'trustworthy' sources.

"Bias" is Bernard Goldberg's best book. Once a CBS insider, Goldberg violated CBS' internal politics and chose to grind his axe in these pages. I'm glad he did. Goldberg chooses several key news stories from the 1990s and demonstrates how they were given a slanted portrayal by the television media. He never claims that anyone intentionally chose to distort the news. Rather, he claims that due to similar educational backgrounds and political affiliations most marquee-level TV reporters automatically view the world through a certain perspective which cannot help but influence their choice of words. This is the meaning of the word "bias" in the broadest sense, and this is what Goldberg addresses in his book.

As such, this is essential reading for anyone who cares about politics, journalism, or both. I've read it multiple times and find something new to enjoy in it each time. Back before the internet was in every home, this sort of bias went almost undetected and Goldberg deserves a lot of credit for writing this book and making a clear and unemotional case.

I don't know if it pays to dig deeper into Goldberg's canon, sadly. Despite his claims that he was in strong agreement with the liberal values of CBS, his post-"Bias" career has been staunchly in step with the equally biased Fox News and AM Talk Radio. As such, there's a sameness to his later writing (as well as the feeling that he is preaching toward the choir) that can't be found here. This doesn't diminish the power of this book at all; I mention it only as a caveat.

This book is a quick, worthwhile, and fun read. You'll also come back to it in the future, and it holds up very well to subsequent re-readings.

One of the most telling books of the last decade, Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" answers one of the most important questions of the last several decades: Does the mainstream media harbor a liberal bias? Goldberg's answer is yes. Is that liberal bias a well-planned conspiracy? Absolutely not.

As a thirty-year veteran of CBS news and the recipient of multiple accolades in his field, Bernard Goldberg is certainly in a position to know. The newsman's thesis is simple: members of the mainstream media congregate together, they attend the same parties, they stick to the same business circles. They also tend to harbor a liberal political view, and since differing viewpoints rarely enter into their social circles, when members of the media are confronted with a conservative viewpoint it seems far-right radical and off-the-wall. Goldberg's position makes perfect sense, and he backs up his claims with a number of personal anecdotes, behind-the-scenes stories, and personal research.

Goldberg exposes the method by which the mainstream media skews public perception. An example he uses is a CBS report by Eric Engberg on February 8, 1996. Engberg hosted a segment on the evening news titled "Reality Check" with presidential candidate Steve Forbes as its subject. The reporter began his segment, "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us." Scheme? Elixir? Goldberg goes on to cite the remainder of the report, "Then Engberg interviewed three different tax experts. Every single one of them opposed the flat tax. Every single one!" He explains that Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both Nobel Prize winners in economics liked Forbes' flat tax idea, but neither was mentioned in the report. And Goldberg explains that if Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with a similar flat tax idea, there is NO chance it would have been aired with the same slant and contemptuous tone.

If you haven't believed the claims that the mainstream television networks harbor a liberal bias, or if you've never even heard the accusation, then you should definitely read Bernard Goldberg's eye-opening expose "Bias". It will change the way you look at the evening news!

Britt Gillette
Author of "The Dittohead's Guide To Adult Beverages"

Bernard Goldberg notes that the mainstream news (ABC, CBS & NBC) all tend to love whistleblowers....So long as they're not media insider whistleblowers.
Throughout "Bias," Goldberg gives countless examples of media distortion and bias and wonders, where the Edward R Murrow doctrine of reporting the facts WITHOUT personal opinion or "our slant" went.
According to Mr. Goldberg, his fortunes at CBS changed drastically after he wrote an Op Ed piece, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing colleague Eric Engberg's dersion of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax plan. The same flat tax recently adopted by Russia, a nation that keeps moving further and further from its socialist roots.
Bernard Goldberg holds a mirror up to the mainstream media and it's not surprising that they don't much like what they see. The "Left-wing bias" charge has been around for decades and though some, like Dan Rather deny it, others, like Peter Jennings have, in recent years admitted that "conservative voices in the mainstream media are few and far between." I suspect that his confirming this charge is not what really angers his peers, it's his exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the media elites that has them as mad as a bunch of wet hornets.
He tells of news people seeking out blue eyed blondes when doing stories on Aids and homelessness because they fear that upper income whites (their target audience) won't relate to these stories if the faces are predominatly black, Hispanic or Asian.
...
Ironically enough, those same people who champion "diversity" seem to cringe when it comes to ideological diversity. Goldberg notes John Stossel as the lone Libertarian (and thus "right-of-center") voice on ABC News. This observation is made by a self-proclaimed "Kennedy Liberal," as Goldberg professes to favor both gay rights and abortion and says he voted against Ronald Reagan twice.
Bernard Goldberg mentions how one CBS producer casually referred to Gary Bauer of the Christian Coalition as "That little nut from that Christian group." He also noted that no one in that room would've dared call Jesse Jackson "That big nut from that black group," or Dov Hikind "That right-wing nut from that Jewish group." But we've all seen examples of that, even if we don't choose to notice it. Just look at how the mainstram media heaps praise upon the cackling likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson while ridiculing eleoquent and erudite black scholars like Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams. Black conservatives like Emanuel McLittle (of Destiny Magazine) and Ken Hamblin (Radio Talk Show Host) fare little better as they are routinely excoriated more roundly than are out and out racial haters like the late Khalid Mohammed and New Black Panther Party leader Quannel X.
"Bias" has given the media a gift of the mirror he holds up to it. Since the eighties AM Talk Radio has cut into the viewership of television news and with the advent of Cable news, specifically Fox News, the market share that ABC, CBS and NBC all enjoyed has markedly diminished. For those who insist that ideology has no part of this shift, consider that no Liberal Radio Talk Show Host has ever enjoyed the ratings success that their conservative counterparts have, and that MSNBC and CNN have recently both been scrambling for "conservative voices" - Alan Keyes has joined MSNBC and CNN stole Paula Zahn from Fox News early in 2002.
Bernard Goldberg's book is filled with tons of fascinating anecdotal tales and personal accounts of what goes on behind the scenes in network news. There are a few editorial glitches here and there, but the book itself is a riveting read that really delivers what it promises.

It is of course no surprise that the Network News has a liberal slant. You know it, I know it. We've all known about it for years. But what most Americans are not aware of is the full extent of the problem.
In Bias, Bernard Goldberg shows us over and over just how the Media does it. From subtle manipulations to outright dissemination of misinformation the Network Media adds a left handed touch to nearly every story they cover.
Mr. Goldberg, of course, has his own bias but he works hard to approach his subject from a neutral angle. He succeeds marvelously. It is only in the first chapter where a slight touch of bitterness over his misfortunes shows through. After that the book becomes a hard edged analysis of media misrepresentation. His opinions are backed by facts and statistics which you will never see on the evening news. His sources include everyone from the C.D.C. to the Census Bureau and his conclusions are based firmly in reality.
All in all, I found this book to be very enlightening. And remember, this is a book which the Media Giants really don't want you to read. What better endorsement can a book have?

That someone wrote a book about the media's liberal bias is not surprising. That Bernard Goldberg did so is remarkable.
Goldberg -- himself a liberal with nearly thirty years of experience at CBS News -- had often voiced his concern about liberal bias to network executives. After _CBS Evening News_ aired a blatantly slanted "Reality Check" report on February 8, 1996, Goldberg decided to take stronger measures. He submitted to the _Wall Street Journal_ an op-ed piece detailing the report's bias. The piece was published five days later.
_Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News_ analyzes the bias that has developed in the news over the past several decades. In addition, the book reveals the personality of some media celebrities and executives. It seems impossible to completely extricate "the news" from the people who report it.
Goldberg traces the problem of bias in the news back to _60 Minutes_, the pioneer of news magazines. In the early days of television, the networks viewed comedy, drama, and variety shows as their moneymakers. The news, however, was different. Once network executives discovered that even the news could be profitable, news programs began competing for ratings. Rather than simply reporting the news objectively, networks tried to ensure that the news would have entertainment value, that people would like what they saw and would tune in regularly.
As Goldberg points out, many journalists selected that career in order to improve the world. Eventually, however, their compassion began to interfere with their objective reporting. They took on the work of activists. In order to motivate people to support causes -- perhaps financially -- they made the people who would benefit from that support look like the prospective donors. Thus, homelessness and AIDS were portrayed as problems of mainstream America. Facts were distorted; numbers were exaggerated.
The ratings and the causes are only part of the problem, however. Goldberg is most alarmed that reporters and executives are not even aware of much of the bias in the news. No one at CBS News, for example, had seen any problem with the report that had sparked Goldberg's initial op-ed piece for the _Wall Street Journal_ -- even though a reporter had in the guise of a "Reality Check" ridiculed Presidential candidate Steve Forbes and his flat-tax proposal, using such words as "scheme," "elixir," and "wacky."
In network newsrooms the middle of the road between liberals and conservatives is off center. Virtually everyone in the newsroom is a liberal. People are so insulated that they don't even know anyone whose opinions are different from theirs; they genuinely believe they represent the middle of the road. Goldberg cites the example of film critic Pauline Kael, who was astounded when Nixon was elected President in 1972. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" she said. Yet Nixon carried forty-nine states. Is it healthy for those who report our news to be so out of touch with the populace?
Freedom of speech and of the press are among the highest ideals in our democracy. Even Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, valued newspapers (the principal news medium of his day) above government. If we are to be responsible citizens, we must be able to gauge the accuracy of news reports. _Bias_ provides information that will help us to raise necessary questions about the news -- what is reported and what is not -- in order to discern the truth.

Reading this book will help you become a better user of the media. You will become a better watcher of news programs and a more careful reader of newspapers and magazines of opinion. Mr. Goldberg does us a real service by taking us into the information industry with an insiders eyes and understanding. He writing style is simple and effective so the book is quite an easy and VERY interesting read.
However, if you are a Republican looking for confirmation of a left-wing conspiracy this isn't the book for you. Mr. Goldberg's point is much more subtle than that. He repeats several times in different ways that the news professionals do NOT purposefully go hard on the GOP and soft on the Democrats. What they do they do because they are blind to how far off the center they are.
In fairness, this is part of the human condition. Most of us have friends to the left of us and friends to the right of us so we can easily fall in the trap of thinking we are in the middle, that we are moderate, that we are mainstream. Almost none of us really are. One of the limitations of the human condition is our truncated experience and understanding of reality. We have to work very hard to extend our reference points beyond the range of our life's experiences and most people simply don't spend that much energy on that project.
This is the source of the liberal bias in the media, according to Mr. Goldberg (if I am reading him correctly). Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, the NY Times, and Washington Post (and others) BELIEVE they are mainstream and do not seek any evidence to the contrary. They simply believe all those Red States are way to the right and never stop to think that being in the middle means being in the middle of the WHOLE range of views and opinions and not just your own life's experiences or those of your associates.
Anyway, I think you will gain a lot from the book. The time investment won't be large and it will give you some good thinking material, if you care to use it that way, no matter if you are on the left or the right. You might really be in the middle not many people are really there. The math says so. Most of us are somewhere on a continuum to one side or the other, and we might be on different sides on different issues. It always helps to challenge yourself by seeking out serious views different than your own and wrestle with them. This book provides a healthy dose of that for both sides if they will read it thoughtfully rather than bringing their preconceptions to it and simply look for confirmation.

OK, we all know that the media is liberally biased. But every once in a while it's good to see someone confirm that fact, particularly if he is a member of the media himself, and a liberal to boot. Bernard Goldberg was a reporter for years at CBS when, in 1996, he wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal telling everyone that the media was liberally biased. Although we all knew that, Goldberg got the libs at CBS, particularly the sainted Dan Rather, rather upset.
BIAS doesn't start off too well. Mr. Goldberg is upset at "The Dan" (as he calls him) and apparently wants to settle some scores. His unfortunate comparisons of certain media big wigs to the mob aren't particularly helpful, but the book improves as it goes along. Goldberg discusses the liberal slant that the media presents many issues from, including homelessness, AIDS, day care, and "diversity." He provides the results of his research and also interesting anecdotal evidence from his own experience in reporting these stories that show just how liberal the media is. As Goldberg says, much of the bias in the media isn't deliberate. Just about everyone in the media is left of center, so stories are reported in such a way that makes the leftist view "normal" and the conservative view "controversial." But on some issues, such as reporting on day care and racial matters, the bias is so overwhelming that it must be a deliberate choice by reporters. For example, the media elites are particularly close to the feminists and certainly aren't going to discuss the dark side of parents shipping their children off to day care.
In addition to some of the gratuitous personal attacks, my other complaints about the book are the lack of footnotes and the at-times "gung ho" writing style.

Goldberg does a great job of bringing this issue out into the light. Although many liberals (if not most) can easily dismiss such assertions as 'right-wing lunacy', here we hear from an insider himself. For myself, this book is merely more documentation of my view that something stinks within the traditional news media outlets.
I used to love to watch the news, even as a kid I watched Peter Jennings almost every night. I loved being 'up' on what was going on in the world. But as a grew older-especially thru high school-I found myself increasingly cringing at some of the comments made by Jennings and others. Why did they phrase the argument THAT way? I would wonder. Why do they spend so much time on one aspect of the problem and little or none on the other aspects? And why do they do this while blathering on and on about equal time and treatment? Well, surprise, surprise, turns out the establishment in the news media tend to think in a rather monolithic way, and EVERYONE who doesn't see things that way is either an
a) extremist,
b) religious nut, or
c) an old time southern GOP racist or conspiracy nut.
You simply CANNOT have a brain and disagree with the higher-ups in the media!..I mean, the thought of independant thought to them is scary.
What is enlightening here is that Goldberg tells us HOW all of this is done. It's not so much a product of sinister closed-door meetings among executives, as it is a product of the mindset that is embraced, encouraged, maintained, and promoted within news organizations.
Kudos to Mr. Goldberg for dragging these organizations into the light (albeit kicking and screaming). An example of a great exchange in the book is Mr. Goldberg's quoting of famous New York Times film reviewer Pauline Kael who, after Nixon won the 1972 election stated:
"I can't understand how Nixon won. I mean, no one I KNOW voted for him." (emphasis added)
Mr Goldberg astutely replied, "Mrs. Kael, Nixon carried 49 states for God's sake! That's why he won!" (paraphrased). The point being, media liberals are so ensconsed in their own world, with those who think like them, that they actually begin to believe that the rest of the world thinks as they do.
This is not only an informative book, but it's also very entertaining and quite funny at times. Open your eyes folks, and see the endless wasteland before you that is network news.
Highly recommended.