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

by Bernard Goldberg and Ed Morrissey Bernard Goldberg

Book Overview

In his nearly thirty years at CBS News, Emmy Award-winner Bernard Goldberg earned a reputation as one of the preeminent reporters in the television news business. When he looked at his own industry,... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0895261901
• ISBN13: 9780895261908
• Release Date: November 2001
• Publisher: Regnery Publishing
• Length: 232 Pages
• Weight: 1.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 6.3" x 9.2"

Customer Reviews

media bias worse than thought...

Bernard Goldberg, a (former) longtime CBS reporter, argues that bias in the media is fundamental and pervasive. If what he says is true, you should distrust every nontrivial story from mainstream media. He provides evidence that liberal media have distorted issues on (1) Islam and terrorism, (2) the flat tax, (3) the homeless, (3) AIDS, (4) child care, and (5) men. He argues that liberal media distort the news because they have a liberal point of view (as reported by well-known surveys); news must now pay for itself; actors in news pieces must look like their primary audience-i.e., not black or Hispanic; and journalists' desire to change the world has resulted in advocacy journalism. Goldberg also provides an explanation of how liberal media distort the news. They (1) simplify an issue by leaving out facts, (2) select liberal points of views through interviewing, (3) ignore other points of view, and (4) make an issue mainstream by misapplying studies and facts. While this is not a scholarly work, anyone who knows how to operate Google should be able to verify his findings. To identify media bias yourself, ask these questions: Who gets quoted in stories? What's their point of view? Is the other side quoted? Are liberal and conservatives described differently? Where do the facts come from? Is this the whole story? Goldberg's prediction for the future of liberal media is not good. On his view, "the ship be sinking" for liberal media.

Confirms what we have suspected all along.

Although the charge of the media being "biased" is not a new one, still, this book is shocking. If the issue were simply "liberals vs. conservatives" this book may not have been all that necessary. But what Mr. Goldberg keenly points out, the story within the story if you will, is how de facto censorship is practiced by the mainstream/elite press. Among other egregious examples are: (1) News magazine shows kill stories that portray minorities in a bad light. (2) News magazine shows seek out whites because whites make up the majority of the audience, hence, "its all about ratings. (3)Reporters are notorious for asking "softball" questions to those with whom they share the same (leftist) political ideology. (4) The label "conservative," "conservative-extremist," and/or "right-wing conservative," are always used in conjunction with someone whose views are right-of-center. A Lexis-Nexus search reveals that similiar labels for "liberals" are virtually never used. Contrary to what some reviewers have opined, I don't think Mr. Goldberg is at all guilty of "sour grapes" or "disloyalty" to his former boss, "The Dan" Rather. Goldberg simply tells it like it is, and, unfortunately for "The Dan" the picture that is portrayed is of an anchorman who is venal, petty, thin-skinned, and a lot like the old Ted Baxter character on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, i.e. he has a massive, to-a-fault, ego. I say "BRAVO" to Mr. Goldberg for having the guts to tell it like it is. For the sake of sane, honest, and rational debate in the public forum of ideas something like this needed to be done. For too long the "Dans, Toms, and Peters" hegemony has gone unchallenged, and their contempt for anything and anyone outside the "New York-Washington Axis" has been ignored. Bias is a great read. Truly, the emperors at the networks have no clothes.

Exposing the obvious!!

Outstanding!!! For years I thought I was the only one who noticed certain groups and (or) politicians identified on the evening news as "conservative". But when's the last time you've heard any group (or politician) identified on the big 3 (ABC, NBC, and CBS) as liberal? Hmmm?Goldberg exposes the fundamental bias at the major networks. A bias not due to a certain type of ethnicity, or regionalism (some people might disagree with me on that), but bias in fundamental philosophy in how the world is. He articulately points out that most journalists don't have blue collar friends or friends outside of the big media centers (i.e. N.Y., L.A.). He correctly portrays most media members as out of touch. Actually, I wasn't going to write a review of this book because I felt that my thoughts had already been reflected by many others. But I came across a review that discussed Goldberg's recent appearance on the Phil Donahue show (on MSNBC). This reviewer felt that comedian/recovering drug addict/slander writer Al Franken somehow "exposed" the "lies" of Goldberg's book. Absolutely preposterous!! I saw the show myself and the only thing Al showed was he was a moron. The point of contention came when Al brought up a quote from Goldberg's book (in the chapter entitled: "Liberal Hate Speech") in which that John Chancellor (the former NBC news anchor, now deceased) said (about the situation in Russia in 1991) that ".......the problem is shortages......no one even mentioned communism today.....". Goldberg's reason for bringing this quote up is obvious: Chancellor was trying to say that Russia's current problems have absolutely nothing to do with 70 years of stagnation under communism!! Ridiculous! Al Franken thought that it was important that this comment was made in response to the (failed) revolt against Boris Yelstin, and that Goldberg didn't know what happened in Russia on that day. Irrelevant!! The point is: THEY HAVE SHORTAGES BECAUSE OF 70 YEARS OF COMMUNISM!!! CHANCELLOR WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT COMMUNISM HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!! Al also thought that it was mean-spirited of Goldberg to bring this up because Chancellor is dead. Is that Goldberg's fault? Actually there are many more notable quotables from the "liberal hate speech chapter" (like Julian Melveaux wishing Clarence Thomas an early death), detailing how vicious liberals can me if you disagree with them.

A Must Read for all

I just finished reading BIAS and I HIGHLY recommend it for people of all political persuasions. A couple things to note:1. It's a very engaging read -- well written and entertaining on top of infomative. 2. It's much more SUBSTANTIAL than I expected. I thought it would just be an anti-liberal gossip session but it had a LOT of MEAT in it that I think would be interesting to any AMERICAN, not just a conservative one.3. I've always sensed a liberal bias in the media, but thought that was just "spin" ...reporting the PART of the news that fit their agenda. I was sincerely shocked to learn of instances where they have FLAT OUT LIED to us.Great Book!

No New News Here

The bias of many major news organizations has been debated for many years. For the most part, liberal or conservative, objective news reporting is illusory. Yet the PR machines of these same organizations feel that the general public is not capable of seeing right through them. Goldberg's book, in my opinion, does a creditable job of further exposing the mechanics behind this bias. While there is no room to go into great detail, the book attacks ALL media bias; not just liberal (the recent Drudge Report articles seem to highlight just the liberal bias). Goldberg makes a good argument for reexamining the whole corporate structure of the news business. One can certainly infer that the profits would still be there without the bias.This reviewer has always liked the reporting of Mr. Goldberg, and this book certainly has brought out what I always suspected about him: that he tries to live up to the expectation of being objective. I would now be curious to see what happens to his career. According to reports, some of his colleagues were not pleased with this book. I highly recommend this book as food for thought in the high-tech news world that we now live in. Our news organizations need to differentiate between news reporting and editorials. Charles E. Brown