Collection
Description
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, however, he saw that the media far too often ignored their primary mission: to provide objective, disinterested reporting. Again and again he saw that the news slanted 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, breaking ranks and naming names, he reveals a corporate news culture in which the closed-mindedness is breathtaking and in which entertainment wins over hard news every time.
User reviews
LibraryThing member kkirkhoff
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
- 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.
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tuckerresearch
Bias is a good book, though it reveals noting particularly new to a conservative such as myself. I think Goldberg, no conservative himself, really has a heartfelt desire to point out the powerful bias that liberals do have when they report the news, especially concerning social issues. Sorry Mr.
But now to the meat of Bias itself. Goldberg's contention is not that mainstream reporters purposely try to take down Republicans and butress Democrats (although I would say that, and this book is pre-Rathergate), but that reporters are fairly liberal people who associate with other rather elitist liberals. The ideas they have are reinforced by the world they live in. Mix that with an unhealthy dose of political correctness and you understand why the media really does tilt leftward.
You get newspeople bemoaning the fact that footage of looting in Haiti only shows black people. Forget that Haiti is like 98 percent black. Then there is attempting to find black Jews to comment on Hanukkah or finding middle class whites to scare the main demographic on issues like AIDS, homelessness, and the like. The chapter on the disappearing homeless is instructive. All through the Reagan and first Bush eras there were hundreds of stories on the homeless. Why? Of course it was their evil free-market, small-government policies. At one point the otherwise stone-faced Charles Osgood claimed there were 19 million homeless people. What happened when Clinton took office? The "homelessness situation" (that's a reference to The Great White Hype) dropped off the map. There were few stories about them. You almost forgot about them. Did Clinton cure the homeless problem? No. Unfortunately, this kind of runs against the thesis Goldberg trots out again and again. He says it's not about parties, per se, it's about views on social issues. But what is this? This is definitely against one party and for another. If it was all about the social views there would always be homeless problem stories from touting how we need more government programs (a la latchkey kids).
But I digress. Goldberg has more ire for the weak-kneed, spineless folk at CBS. In fact it was a CBS story that unfairly trashed the Forbes flat tax idea in 1996 that sent him over the metaphorical top. Thus Rather gets a good deal of grief and, I hope every fair-minded person agrees, got his comeuppance in the end.
But again, conservatives will read this and go, "Aha! I knew it!" While liberals will be skeptical and probably dismiss it as some sort of Limbaugh/Hannity missive, if they even crack the spine. Maybe its fire will pick off a few so-called moderates. It could have used an index and been a bit less conversational (a problem I have with many books of this sort).
Show More
Goldberg, liberals don't want to hear it. "Progressives," as they now like to call themselves (can we say "Orwellian doublespeak"?) DO think that they are moderate, middle-of-the-road, common sense people. How can anyone think differently? Conservatives must be dupes, or, as they called Reagan, amiable dunces.But now to the meat of Bias itself. Goldberg's contention is not that mainstream reporters purposely try to take down Republicans and butress Democrats (although I would say that, and this book is pre-Rathergate), but that reporters are fairly liberal people who associate with other rather elitist liberals. The ideas they have are reinforced by the world they live in. Mix that with an unhealthy dose of political correctness and you understand why the media really does tilt leftward.
You get newspeople bemoaning the fact that footage of looting in Haiti only shows black people. Forget that Haiti is like 98 percent black. Then there is attempting to find black Jews to comment on Hanukkah or finding middle class whites to scare the main demographic on issues like AIDS, homelessness, and the like. The chapter on the disappearing homeless is instructive. All through the Reagan and first Bush eras there were hundreds of stories on the homeless. Why? Of course it was their evil free-market, small-government policies. At one point the otherwise stone-faced Charles Osgood claimed there were 19 million homeless people. What happened when Clinton took office? The "homelessness situation" (that's a reference to The Great White Hype) dropped off the map. There were few stories about them. You almost forgot about them. Did Clinton cure the homeless problem? No. Unfortunately, this kind of runs against the thesis Goldberg trots out again and again. He says it's not about parties, per se, it's about views on social issues. But what is this? This is definitely against one party and for another. If it was all about the social views there would always be homeless problem stories from touting how we need more government programs (a la latchkey kids).
But I digress. Goldberg has more ire for the weak-kneed, spineless folk at CBS. In fact it was a CBS story that unfairly trashed the Forbes flat tax idea in 1996 that sent him over the metaphorical top. Thus Rather gets a good deal of grief and, I hope every fair-minded person agrees, got his comeuppance in the end.
But again, conservatives will read this and go, "Aha! I knew it!" While liberals will be skeptical and probably dismiss it as some sort of Limbaugh/Hannity missive, if they even crack the spine. Maybe its fire will pick off a few so-called moderates. It could have used an index and been a bit less conversational (a problem I have with many books of this sort).
Show Less
LibraryThing member alexgieg
To have militant politics, militant judges and militant NGOs is bad enough, but to have militant journalists is simply ridiculous. Goldberg thus shows that liberals not only think wrong, they also do wrong, and worse, they do wrong where they shouldn't "do" anything at all. No wonder most americans
Show More
distrust Big Media... Show Less
LibraryThing member ague
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
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member mramos
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
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
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.
LibraryThing member chichikov
A short account of Goldberg being blackballed from the MSM because he grew more conservative.
LibraryThing member br77rino
For me, this was the first book to really lay out the bias in the news media. I consider it the godfather of the raft of such books that came out in the years immediately following it. It opened the floodgates and led the way to a conservative activism that in turn led to the tea parties.
LibraryThing member JCO123
Nothing Rush hasn't pointed out already, but now it's an ''insider'' saying it, so people are listening.
Publication
Regnery Publishing, Inc. (2002)
Original publication date
2002
ISBN
0895261901 / 9780895261908