Has anyone read it? I am halfway through it right now and it is very interesting. Does this carry any more weight with anyone over the Ann Coulter book? If not, why not? It is quite interesting that he (Goldberg) says and quotes some of the exact same things as Ann Coulter. She is much more venomous in her approach, but he is sure not easy on anyone. The man reminds me a fair amount of classicman. He is a classic liberal who sees a serious problem of bias in the media.

Most interesting is the fact that he says there is no conspiracy, and the people in the media don't have any idea that they are biased, which he says is even more dangerous.

Anyway, the first half reads like a soap opera about the inner workings at CBS news. It is obvious that you don't get in Dan Rather's way. Pretty sad to see how Bernard was treated because he wrote an op-ed piece about bias in 1996, but truly fascinating.

But, I suppose he is just a venomous tool of the Republican party who has never actually voted for one

I hear Goldberg is on MANY Media S#itlists after this book.

I think we intervied him on one of our shows several months back.

No one else has any thoughts? I talk about Ann Coulter and everyone who has never read the book chimes in, now I mention Bernard Goldberg, who says many of the exact same things Coulter said in her book, and no one says anything???

Oh, all right.

I sort of read through the book in a bookstore and wasn't very impressed. It read too much like petty scandal-mongering (a he-said, she-said -- ooh isn't that shocking!) thing to take it seriously. I suppose someone hungry for a vast liberal media conspiracy would've been pleased as punch, but anyone looking for something deeper should look elsewhere.

If Goldberg (who I don't think I've heard of before) isn't a conservative Republican, I'd be rather surprised. Most of the book seemed to pander to that specific group, and used many of the code-words and phrases that certain folks drool over ("liberal hate speech").

It's ironic that Goldberg incessantly complains about a bias in the media when it comes off that he's bitter because the media doesn't have the particular bias he believes it should.

And I haven't read Coulter's book. Maybe someday if a need a good laugh...

And I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I find both sides equally neurotic, petty, and useless.

I chimed in on Coulter after reading several chapters of her book and seeing 4 of her interviews on television. I honestly have never heard of Bernard Goldberg, nor have I heard him or read any of his writing, so I don't feel qualified to comment on his book.

I guess that is an interesting point in and of itself. Coulter was so sensationalistic that I just had to check out her book and see if she was as vapid and degenerative as she came across on television. If no one's responding to the thread maybe it's because they've never heard of this particular book. Maybe Mr. Goldberg needs to book himself on some television interview programs and cry for 20 minutes about how the whole world is out to get him.

Couldn't agree more.

As long as you gave it a thorough reading why not give it a review.

I did read the book and found it heavy handed especially so since I already felt the way Mr Goldberg does even before hearing about his book. He states his opinion, backs it up with anticdotal evidence and then keeps pounding at it over and over again until he has beat the idea into the ground. I found it to be a VERY dificult read only managing a chapter every few days. It is a one sided story but I'm sure Geraldo could write a similar book with equal and oposite points that would be just as dificult to read.

What always amazes me is why people are surpised when a liberal bias in the media is pointed out. It seem perfectly natural to me; it's like being suprised that most Accountants are conservatives. People are drawn to fields based on their interests and beliefs. It shouldn't be shocking that more liberal minded people are inclined to the arts including journalism while a conservative person might be more interested in the stability provided by the business world.

Then feel free to be very suprised. He considers himself a classic liberal, worked as a reporter for CBS News for 26 or 28 years (I forget), and has not voted for a Republican for President. Shocking, eh? Obviously he has an ax to grind



So if one claims (and backs up) that there is a liberal bias in the media (and around 70% of Americans recognize this) they are pandering? If one were to suggest that there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa would it be pandering? It seems just as obvious, though obviously not as dire. The difference is that people in Africa recognize that there is an epidemic while people in the media are blind to the fact that there is bias, though several admit it behind closed doors.



He doesn't believe that it should have any bias (in a perfect world) but at the very least should be up front about its own biases (horrible to think, huh?)

What amazes me is that the media refuses to recognize it. You recognize it, I recognize it, and you are absolutely correct (I think) about the profession attracting more liberal people. However, it should still be a subject that the media could look at and analyse themselves with. Does it not seem odd that among White House Corespondents, 89% voted for Gore? That makes them more of a voting block than almost any other minority group. That amazes me.

So why does the media refuse to look at it? Goldberg points out that it is taboo to bring it up. The media is allowed and expected to go through every other business with a fine tooth comb, but refuses to go through their own. When Goldberg asked to do a piece on it and interview Dan Rather and others, he had to agree not to ask certain questions. That isn't news, that's propaganda. He refused and didn't do the piece.

He's pro-choice, for affirmative action, and in favor of most of the other silly liberal ideas. But he dares to think that reporters should actually report and be nuetral. The network news programs are as much lobbyists as anyone else, but they claim (and Goldberg would argue that they genuinely believe it) to be nuetral.

I thought Goldberg put together a well-reasoned, nuanced explanation of media bias. He quite eloquently squashes the notion of the media acting as a cabal, which is what many on the far right claim. Many claim that the media are “pro Democrat” or “out to get Bush.” This extreme argument has always found me defending the media. He shows how the cause is much more subtle and hard to detect.

In essence, Goldberg says that the great majority of good journalists try to be fair, but that liberals in general are drawn to the profession and so their view of what is “moderate” is skewed. One of the best proofs of this is that Goldberg showed over and over how conservative public figures are always identified as “conservative” or “right wing” but “liberal” or “far left” is almost never used. Since the book’s publication I have actually noticed this happening less so I think that fair-minded journalists have recognized, albeit tacitly, the validity of this criticism.

He also shows how some long-running issues—like homelessness and AIDs among heterosexuals, have been distorted due to the well-meaning, but flawed, thinking of journalists.

When people in the media deny any bias, it isn’t to hide their evil conspiracy—it’s because they BELIEVE they are telling the truth! I suggest that everyone hold their protests, and read his arguments. If you disagree, argue with facts, not attacks.

One complaint I had about the book is that Goldberg weakens the power and logic of his arguments by launching a very personal—and repetitive attack against Dan Rather and some others at CBS. Yes…Rather treated him very poorly but calling him over and over again “The Dan” made Goldberg seem spiteful and petty. We could have stood to hear less whining about how poorly he was treated at CBS. . They let him stay on, doing essentially nothing, to qualify for his pension. The book was not published until AFTER this occurred.

Good post and very good overview. I thought the whole thing about "The Dan" was funny. I can definately see how it could make one think that he had some type of vendetta, but I thought of it simply as humor.

The chapter on child care was amazing. And the truly amazing thing is there is no debate in the press over many of these issues.

Dave...

It's been awhile since I read BIAS. Please refresh my memory about what he said on childcare.

Regards!