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

by Bernard Goldberg

Excellent Book

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Journalism, History, Business, Cultural, Biography

238 pages, Paperback

First published February 25, 2001

About the author

American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career. He is currently a commentator for Fox News and a correspondent for HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.

From 1972 to 1974 he worked for CBS News as a producer in Atlanta; he became a reporter in 1974 and correspondent in 1976.

Goldberg frequently contributed to the CBS Evening News and CBS newsmagazines Eye to Eye with Connie Chung and 48 Hours.

Reviews

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book helped me to understand that the liberal bias I see in the news/Hollywood (which I always assumed was common knowledge but I guess not, judging by the Goodreads reviews of this book) is not the result of a massive left-wing conspiracy. Reporters tend to be very liberal, and so they actually see the news from a very liberal perspective. That was comforting, but at the same time depressing.

I got fired up about many parts of the book.

The acceptability of lambasting men on the news, the stereotypical "dumb dad" on every sitcom, makes me boiling mad (what are we doing to society? to our families? to the men we love?).

And probably nowhere was I more outraged than in the chapter on daycare. I feel very strongly that we are doing our kids a big disservice by allowing them to spend 40 hours a week in daycare, and that kids DO need a parent home full-time, and that you CAN'T have it all as a parent, and I feel that it's become explosively un-PC to even suggest such a thing anymore. I think the media has worked really hard to create an environment where such things just aren't said out loud, and is pretty proud of itself for having done so.

The only complaint I have about the book is the endless personal attacks on Dan Rather, despite the vehement assertion "I have no personal vendetta against The Dan." Really hurts Goldberg's credibility, in my opinion. Obviously he had some issues with Rather to work through, but I wish he would have done it in his personal journal rather than in a published work of non-fiction.

[Christian D. D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The MSM can't handle the truths this book reveals!

"BIAS" by Bernard Goldberg

God bless Bernie Goldberg for having the balls and the chutzpah to write this OutSTANding book. A longtime veteran of the mainstream candidate (who "never voted for a Republican for president in my life!") with the courage and audacity to admit--and expose--what his fellow MSM types were to loath to admit: that, yes Virginia, the MSM *is* liberally biased, no matter how much they try to deny it.

Of course, Mr. Goldberg's colleagues (especially "The Dan," i.e. Dan Rather), in the words of Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan Jessup in "A Few Good Men," "CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH," and therefore tried to make a pariah out of the author.

RANDOM STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS (and noteworthy passeges):

--Dan Rather as Mafia capo, nice.

--Steve Forbes' flat tax one-sided coverage

--"Far-fetched? Just think back to that famous observation by the New Yorker’s otherwise brilliant film critic Pauline Kael, who in 1972 couldn’t figure out how Richard Nixon had won the presidency. 'I can’t believe it!' she said. 'I don’t know a single person who voted for him!' Nixon carried forty-nine states to McGovern’s one, for God’s sake—and she wasn’t kidding!"


--"These are people who love to take on politicians and businessmen and lawyers and Christians and the military and athletes and all sorts of other Americans, yet when one of their own writes an opinion piece about American Journalism, then you’ve crossed the line . . . because taking on the media is like raping their wives and kidnapping their kids!"

--1989, CNN reporter inflates the homeless number from 462,000 to THREE MILLION!!! And other MSM journalists inflated the number even more from there!!

--"And we live by the journalist/ social worker motto: Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." A-HA, just what one of my fellow Daily Trojan student newspaper colleagues had repeatedly told me during our undergrad days at USC!!


--Matt Lauer reference!

--Gil Garcetti; wow, what a slimy bloodsucker!

--"If arrogance were a crime, there wouldn’t be enough jail cells in the entire United States to hold all the people in TV news." Haha, zing!

--"The ship be sinking....The sky's the limit," haha, zing.

--"Only in the fickle world of television news can someone who has disappeared without a trace disappear a second time." Oh, snap.

--"According to the media elites’ rule-book, when liberals rant it’s called free speech; when conservatives rant it’s called incitement to terrorism."

--Great points about the Dan's (and liberals' in general) infatuation with Fidel Castro.

--"'You have to understand that Dan Rather is Richard Nixon,' Jon told me. 'If he sees you as an enemy even for a second, you’re an enemy for life. And like Nixon, Rather must destroy his enemies.'"

[Joe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bernie Goldberg is such a tragic hero. It's so tough to be a wealthy white man in America these days. "President Bush touched my book!" What a dick. Basically this book is hilarious. I'd like to say that it's worth reading for the comedic value, but that's not true. Only read this book if you must and even then, don't buy it. Get it from the library or steal it from a used book store. They probably have plenty. One phrase sums it all up: "The myth of heterosexual aids." You truly are a comedian, Bernie.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I couldn't agree more with the statements and proof in this book.

[Kevin Kirkhoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bernard Goldberg spent twenty-eight years as a reporter for CBS. His book shows how the media unintentionally impose a liberal bias when reporting the news. He is quick to point out that for non-social issues like plane crashes or September 11 the media does a superb job. The bias comes out in their coverage of social issues. Several reasons support this feeling.

- A large majority of the press are Democrats compared with around 20% of the general population.

- When getting opinions on various news stories, they consult known liberal groups, but no conservative groups.

- They socialize and work with like-minded people, therefore, they view their stances as normal.

Their bias comes out in a distortion of facts, how people are portrayed in the news, and words used to describe ideas that do not match their own. Politicians are labelled "conservative" or "right-wing", but none are labelled "liberal" or "left-wing". Various conservative/Republican platform planks are schemes or something that has a negative connotation.

It was interesting how the media (60 Minutes in particular), who have no problem exposing corruption and questionable behavior, reacted with disdain, denial, and vindictiveness when Goldberg turns the tables. It was obvious to me that those who dish it out, can't take it.

The topics that he feels are subjected to this bias are the homeless, AIDS, men, terrorism, and race. This was very interesting because he would make a point and counter it with a "what if" scenario. For instance, Katie Couric jokingly asks if a jilted bride considered castration as a suitable remedy for the groom. Goldberg counters that with "what if" Matt Lauer were interviewing a groom in a similar situation. What if Lauer had mentioned cutting off the bride's breasts as a remedy? All Hell would break loose. Women's groups would be calling for his abusive-violence-against-women's head.

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who rolls their eyes at the very thought of a media bias. It was eye-opening, and I'll never watch network news the same way again. Come to think of it, I never watch network news anyway. Oh well, no great loss.

By the way, Bernard Goldberg has never voted for a Republican, and voted for Bill Clinton twice.

[Jacob Burgess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Realizing that I had forgot that the book check for my College Prep Read Write class was on Monday, and today was Monday I was forced to pick a book off of Mrs. Riggs’s shelf. I found myself inspecting the worn cover of Bias, “A CBS Insider Eposes How the Media Distorts the News.” I had picked a non-fiction book about news 1980 to present, I was fairly displeased about the nature of my selection. I realized not long after that, that my initial misgivings were unfounded as to prove the cliché aphorism; don’t judge a book by its cover. The book not to be judged was written by author and former CBS news-man, Bernard Goldberg in the context of his career long dissatisfaction with the not so impartial reporting In U.S news.

Bernard starts his book with the story of the cataclysm that ensued when he first voiced his options on bias in the news publicly. He explains that when he publish the Wall Street Journal op-ed that eventually inspired him to write the book back in 1996,were he addressed a long growing concern about the slant that issues where given in the main stream media. Through a large body of evidence ranging from how the media suppress the discussion of issues of bias, primarily explored through his first had experience with Dan Rather, too how often homelessness stories aired during the Regan Administration vs. the Clinton Administration. He makes his points not with wild accusations or claims but with sound reasoning built on facts. He tries to answer questions, in what ways in the media biased? and how does that effect our world?

Now I will pass judgment on what I have read. I found the book informative and thought provoking for 2 reasons. One, Bernard explains his points of view without sounding like he is a conspiracy theorist And Two, through his assertions that bias comes not from organized intent but form compliancy, I must ask myself what is the cause of bad intentions? and furthermore, is there really a time when people sit down and plot to do nefarious deeds or is never actually that clear? I would recommend this book even if you back at the arguments made by the author because, it asks so many good questions about the media. I would suggest this book to anyone who wishes to be asked to think about the world differently.

[Kathryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book rocked. I checked it out from the library but found myself wishing I could highlight my favorite paragraphs, which were often enlightening and/or highly entertaining.

For me, I particularly enjoyed the book because it acknowledged things I always thought were odd about the news but thought I was the only one imagining things, and also because it explained why the author believed certain phenomena occurred. I also enjoyed getting the "insider" scoop on a wide range of topics, like how the media filters the race and class of people they show/interview in their stories.

At times, the book read kind of like Freakonomics, in that I'd read something and go "oh, I never thought of it like that, but it makes sense. Enlightening."

Some of my favorite parts of the book were:
-Learning that the media doesn't consciously try to have a liberal bias--they just live in a liberal bubble and believe that the way they think is middle of the road
-Reading about how white guilt affects the media (subconsciously)
-The chapter about "the most important story you never saw on TV"

Cons:
-Too much criticism of "The Dan." As much as the author says he didn't have personal issues with Dan Rather, I got tired of reading his rants about the man by the end of the book.

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the chapters were insider bilge and personality explosion which did little to enhance a professional style. But the questions and examples raised in several chapters, especially the hate language and character attack portions were 4 star. One example that he gives I actually hear myself on a PBS news program, with absolutely no reaction by the "learned" support panel or inquirer. I was horrified that a death wish could have been answered with that kind of silence.

The media, on tv especially, but also in print, is consistently distorting news. Instead of who, what, where, how, when. It has become why and interpreting what you need to hear or should hear. Almost in a chiding way, as if there was only one "correct" way to perceive or think upon the issue. The issue that THEY have chosen to focus upon- ignoring any that might not be as comfortable to approach from their own worldview.

That the network and newspapers are so heavily seeded to liberal slant is beyond an argument at this point, but this book had several chapters that were specific. The crude style hurts the observations, but kudos to the subject matter. The fourth estate has collapsed as a protection from despotic actions or as a base for factual reporting intrinsically needed for an educated and informed electorate. Not marketed with P.R. but informed.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the author says, the liberal bias in the MSM is so obvious that it's hardly worth talking about anymore. What is worth talking about is the fact that this book was not written by yet another conservative yowling about the unfairness of it all, even if it's a real problem; it's written by a moderate who damaged his own career telling the truth. He was an insider who spoke out, rather than an outsider critiquing something he was never a part of.

He does a good job of mixing his own personal story and anecdotal evidence with hard statistics, which makes this a quick and easy read. I don't always agree with his own views, but I admire that he's honest enough to admit his views and then say that even when the MSM is advancing his views, he still can't support the way they're doing it. A good read for everyone across the spectrum, from left-leaning all the way over to, well, me, if you're ready for some real hard truths.

[Curtis Chamberlain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! Goldberg has guts, man!

What a horrifying look at what really happens to our news before we get it! Bernard Goldberg puts his "finger on the nose" of the media elite, and calls them out for what most of us would consider treasonous crimes against the United States of America.

I dare say that once you read "Bias," you will never watch the evening news again without having to raise an eyebrow of suspicion!

Fantastic truth-telling book! I rate it 100 stars!!!

[Carol · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this was written years ago, it still holds true today. The main-stream media is so biased, they don't even know it anymore. It teaches me to not look for news from any one source and not trust the media. Great expose.

[Valerie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Archived from http://web.archive.org/web/2003012613...

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldberg

A review of this controversial book demands full disclosure, and I'll freely admit my views lean leftward. So I fully expected to be challenged and provoked by this expose of allegedly prevalent liberal bias in television news by a retired Emmy-winning CkBS reporter. But that was not what happened at all. Alternate titles for "Bias" could be "Bernard Goldberg: Why Dan Rather Should Stop Being So Mad at Me" and "Bernard Goldberg: All the Things I Wanted to Say in My CBS News Exit Interview."

The book sprang from a single article: a February 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece written by Goldberg (included in its entirety in the appendix) entitled "Networks Need a Reality Check." In it he criticizes a CBS colleague's report that attacked then Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes and his flat tax plan. Goldberg argued that his colleague's report, which was relentless in characterizing the flat tax as "wacky," was indicative of a larger crime: the news is always filtered through a liberal eye and presented in a liberal voice. Conservative voices are either not heard or mocked as suspect when they are.

There may be some legitimacy to this idea, and there may even be a book in it, a book which closely examines the news media and presents some compelling conclusions. Despite Goldberg's best intentions, "Bias" is not that book. Certainly Goldberg has some good stories. He shows how news stories featuring people stricken with AIDS who "look just like us"--the "us" being white middle class Americans, or, more to the point, the "us" that makes up most of the viewing audience--would intentionally misrepresent the true circumstances of the "us" people affected. The reports would also present such people not as rare single cases, but as indicative of a disturbing trend, as proof that AIDS would soon be running rampant all over the country. Likewise, homelessness was presented in this way, with forecasts for the number of homeless inflated haphazardly into the millions. Goldberg alleges that the media did this with both the blessing and assistance of the AIDS and homeless lobbies, in order to generate more sympathy for their causes. Further, he shows how stories on those surging numbers of homeless, which dogged the Republican administration in the eighties, seemed to cease overnight once Bill Clinton took office.

Goldberg also claims that network news divisions go to great and occasionally irrational pains to make sure that there aren't "too many" black criminals shown on their national early evening news broadcasts, to make up for a past time when it seemed the only black people on the news were criminals. He contrasts this with the prime time news magazines, including CBS' "60 Minutes," ABC's "20/20," and NBC's "Dateline," where the rules change and such attempts at image correction vanish. The reason for these seemingly contradictory policies has to do, he says, with the news magazines becoming extensions of the networks' entertainment divisions. The networks were pressured by the NAACP in 1999 over the lack of diversity in entertainment programs, and research showed that blacks and whites clearly watch different programs, with people showing a preference for cast members from their own race. That's why, according to Goldberg, there is an intentional focus on the white middle class in the reality magazines, where an abundance of black criminals would not be considered such a bad thing. It's the whites who are regarded as more likely to purchase the cars, computers and other items advertised. And Goldberg also fearlessly opines that the networks are not above distorting the news because of their own personal lives. He says a story on how day care harms children's development was not well reported because it indicted the female news reporters themselves, many of whom are mothers with children in day care programs.

Goldberg insists that his book isn't a "me vs. them" blame game. And to prove it, he takes the time to list absolutely every single major political and social issue in contemporary American life and breathlessly tells us the unquestioningly liberal view he holds about it. After all, he comes from a "blue-collar, Democratic" family, he says, and he's just trying to help his former colleagues, by providing to them this book of irrefutable evidence that the current media slate does not reflect the full range of political sensibilities. But this statement never comes off as anything more than a cheap ploy to try to give his arguments more weight.

Despite the news stories covered in this book, "Bias" mostly sets its sights on thrashing the three network news anchors and their broadcasts. Peter Jennings of ABC and Dan Rather of CBS are further distinguished by having quotes listed in the "Bias" chapter titled "Liberal Hate-Speech." As you might expect, the bulk of Goldberg's criticisms are focused squarely on Rather, his former CBS colleague, and this reveals the real weakness of the book. At the time of the editorial, Rather quickly and repeatedly let it be known just how much he disagreed with Goldberg's assertions of liberal bias. And so a lot of this book is devoted to Goldberg's responses to Rather's comments, making it come off more like a monologue from a disgruntled ex-employee instead of a serious news analyst.

Most irritating to me was Goldberg's unctuous writing style, as though he's the reader's best friend, tossing an arm around our collective shoulders and cheerfully ingratiating himself into our confidence. Like a guy who likes to hear himself speak, or a car salesman softening us up for the pitch, Goldberg's chapters are dotted with asides, witticisms, joke set-ups and pay-offs, and lots and lots of italicized exclamations! Sure, those devices can serve to establish a voice, but are best used in moderation. A heavy reliance on them means you may not have full confidence in your own opinions.

I agree that there should be a book that addresses this issue, as this seems to be the question that won't go away. It could be argued that the current success of conservative journalist Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel is indicative of the viewing public detecting and rejecting the liberal bias which supposedly rules the three network newscasts. And perhaps the real problem is not one of politics at all, but a by-product of the increasingly blurry lines between news, commentary and entertainment. There must be a way, however, to explore such theories without coming off as having an ax to grind. Two stars.

Regnery Publishing Inc., 2002, $27.95
Reviewed by Valerie Hawkins

[BradMD · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting reading. I read it after Dan Rather had been dismissed from CBS news for poor journalism. The book was apparently written before then. It was very interesting that Bernard Goldberg came close to losing his pension because of criticizing CBS for having a liberal bias in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. This brought him the wrath of Dan Rather. Goldberg may have had the last laugh as Dan Rather was eventually fired for using a forged document against President George W. Bush on the CBS news. The main point: our hard news should be fair, balanced, and unbiased.

[Ken · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author is a whining publicity artist masquerading as a journalist. He clearly has no experience in investigative journalism and is more concerned with his absurd version of 'conventional wisdom' than truth or accuracy.

The fact he got a second book shocks me completely.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Laughably out of touch, full of irony and narcissism. Also wrong.

[Sue · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was recommended to me by my younger brother, who is decidedly right wing in his views, as a supporting source for his argument that the mainstream media is biased and leans to the left. I decided to read it to a) understand my brother better b) broaden my own thinking and c) convince him that -- since I read "his" book -- he should read a book of my choosing in order to broaden HIS thinking.

First of all, this book is apparently a "classic" of sorts because, despite its 2001 copyright, I had no trouble purchasing a new copy, complete with an added forward by Ed Morrissey (conservative blogger and talk show host -- I googled him.) Second of all, in spite of its "classic" status, this book is incredibly dated, and I would never recommend it to anyone under the age of 45 because he/she would have absolutely no knowledge of the news stories and controversies that are used as examples by the author, and therefore, would have no hope of assessing the validity of the points made. (Even I, who at age 69 DO remember these stories, felt that I was reading ancient history, so thoroughly has the world moved on.)

Here is what I will tell my brother: Yes, the "mainstream media" slants the news to the left. It's important to be aware of that. But no, that is not a reason to stop watching/reading anything from the "mainstream media" (which is the solution that my brother decided upon) and restrict oneself only to material from the "fair and balanced" sources because, generally, they are NOT fair and balanced. (I'm looking at you, FOX.) In my opinion, the only reasonable approach to understanding the news is to watch/read about issues and events from multiple sources across the political spectrum, while keeping in mind the bias of the sources. This seems to me to be the only way to achieve a modicum of objectivity (and sanity) in these partisan times.

Now, I need to convince my brother to read a book exposing the "fair and balanced" news sources that he favors. Any suggestions?

[Carlton R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

You're biased is the cry of the day. Another is you're prejudiced. Another deals with the inability to see a facet of our personality or even having others see it and point it out. This last was described in Johari's window as the dark pane labeled unknown to self and unknown to others. It is also revealed in this book. Though perhaps timely rather than timeless it is still a great read which will force one to consider the log in their eye when trying to remove the speck in another's eye (The Sermon On The Mount Matthew 5-7). Easy reading, quick, relatively concise (perhaps a bit repetitive), understandable and with many examples. A good book to counsel from and to train debaters and children.
I didn't have a good grounding in the blindness of self and others before reading this work. I had always looked at bias as the preferential track one takes in various domains of physics, or a path, one level and smooth the other brambled and rocky. Of course the bias is toward the level easy way. The downhill rather than the up. Goldberg, of course, opens and expands my thinking to mental bias, institutional bias and the difference between a carefully thought out position taken after consideration of all other positions. He also shows the importance of other people's confirmation of our positions as reasonable through a process described in statistcs as limited range. If one only consults with and talks to those of similar positions then range is involved with narrowing( trying to get an average height of the general population by measuring the height of a basketball team) and also regression to the mean (group think). This is much different from pre-judging which is a form of bias—perhaps group-think If you reject the reading of this book out of hand "..."
A very good book about entanglement of our movers and shakers. We of course suffer because the media becomes the "flappers" controlling our information from our leaders.

Carlton R. Smith, Author, The Ignorant Grandfather.
website: http://www.theignorantgrandfather.org

[David Howell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quoting from the author:

"...this inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart of the entire problem. ...the media...can so easily talk about "right-wing" [Republican, Christian, etc.], but the only time they utter the words "left-wing" is when they're talking about an airplane. Conservatives must be identified because the audience needs to know these are people with axes to grind. But liberals don't need to be identified because their views on all the big social issues...aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elite mingle with at all their reasonable dinner parties..."

"The media elites can float through their personal lives and rarely run into someone with an opposing view. This is very unhealthy and sometimes downright ridiculous, as when Pauline Kael, for years the brilliant film critic at the New Yorker, was completely baffled about how Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern in 1972: "Nobody I know voted for Nixon." Never mind that Nixon carried forty-nine states. She wasn't kidding."

This book is a good lesson in taking a critical look at YOUR own personal biases and reflect upon how many people you talk to or hang out with that have opposing views and lifestyles to your own. It's also a good reminder to not get your news from one source. Especially network TV. Their purpose is entertainment and money making, not to present facts in an unbiased manner. Edward R. Murrow saw the potential of television, but groaned that "it was being squandered by people who saw it only as a business opportunity, a medium of empty entertainment for advertising and profit, with no thought for ambition or edification." Still is, and always will be, unfortunately.

[Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic of the whistleblowing genre. I hesitated to read this when I saw the 2001 publication date. Why bother with a volume that wouldn't include more recent and more egregious examples of media bias? Dan Rather, the author's close friend turned nemesis, hadn't even broadcast his infamous untruths about George Bush's National Guard service yet. But Bernard Goldberg's status as a CBS insider put him ahead of the curve. The ensuing years have buttressed his observations and crystallized his arguments to the point where the book is maybe more illustrative now than it was upon its release. The only thing that has changed is Goldberg's premise that media bias is not the result of a purposeful conspiracy, but the natural result of how journalists see the world. After so much exposure, it would be difficult today to conclude that the bias is not purposeful and conspiratorial, but as Goldberg noted in 1996, "The old argument that the networks and other "media elites" have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore."

Other reviewers, including poster-boy-for-media-bias Thomas Frank, have written this book off as sour grapes for the treatment that Goldberg received after he blew the whistle. They mostly ignore the many concrete examples of media bias that Goldberg offers.

Five stars for bravery, impact, and enlightenment.

[Lauren · Rating 1 out of 5]

Maybe I'm cynical, but Goldberg's assertion that the media distort the news seems self-evident. There's no way to be completely impartial in anything we say or do: our words or actions are colored by our attitudes and experiences. Journalists may delude themselves that their reporting will be neutral, but this reality is impossible to sustain. Goldberg's Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News is filled with excellent examples of media leanings towards the left or the right, but as an expose, it's simplistic and unenlightening.

[Amy Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book makes some interesting points about bias, but the author clearly has bias of his own that taints much of the book's usefulness. I think I was able to pick out 2-3 fair observations about bias in the entire book. It would have been better and more effective if he hadn't used the book as an opportunity to air his personal fights. And he points to media as being liberal while using clearly conservative issues and points- it really just undermines the solid critiques he does make.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Bias" gives many irrefutable, concrete examples of the always-denied media bias, especially in network news. The fact that this bias has grown to absurd extremes over the years since this book was written makes it a must-read. That said, the book is difficult to read at times because of the inconsistent writing style. Perhaps Goldberg frequently switches to an overly casual tone in order to avoid the impression that he is vindictive for the way CBS treated him after he blew the whistle.

[Moss 慈映夢図 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good content that needs more exploration in general but it's mainly weighed down by the authors personal axe to grind against Dan Rather. I'm sure it was therapeutic for him to write about it but some of it should've been replaced with the more academic stuff.
I am willing to give a shit about your personal vendetta for exactly one chapter or an introduction, not for every chapter and certainly not all the way up to the literal final paragraph.

[Jeffrey Lyons · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a former broadcast journalist myself and I read this book many years ago . And yes, I saw a lot of what was outlined in this book first hand. Although it was on a much smaller scale. All you need to look at are the words used in the news stories to understand how reporters try to drop in their own opinions.

[James Baynes · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 2020, this book is still timely. It sheds light on the way the media is still corrupt and vain. Luckily for the American people, there are many, many more outlets to use to research events and gather as many objective facts as we can before making a decision...as long as we choose to do so.

[Adina · Rating 1 out of 5]

WAH!!!! I got fired from my job!!! Pity me!!!! I can't believe someone actually published this book. It's basically one long rant about how unfair it was that the author got fired from CBS.

[Patty Pasko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enlightening, a must read!

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this years ago and recall enjoying it.

[Benjamin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why write a book about liberal bias when you never clearly define what a liberal bias is?

[Jay Rain · Rating 4.25 out of 5]

Rating - 8.6

Thought-provocation that I love - an expose into the unconscious corruption that permeates the media structure - took three days to read but have to feel that certain facts have been omitted

Most compelling is the impact that working moms have on today's children and the reason that the media does not cover it; Just supports some internal beliefs that I already possessed

Interesting Thoughts

News Mafia
- news media promotes insider stories unless it is about themselves - then it is considered treason
- timely considering the Jayson Blair situation - reporter for the NY Times that fabricated sources and stories
- problem is that too many journalists do not know what to think until they have read it in the NY Times or the Washington Post - print media dictates the views of the TV elite
- reporters include their own slant on topics by the choice of the questions they ask and experts that they consult - will ignore experts that do not support their thoughts/intent
- sophisticated media do not view themselves as being liberal but rather the correct way to look at life
- Steve Forbes - Flat Tax was described as wacky, a scheme, and an elixir by CBS News - no economists that supported the tax were included
- WSJ - ran an op-ed by Goldberg on his view of liberal bias in the media and in particular the Engberg Forbes Flat Tax piece


Media that Reflects America
- Washington journalists are far more liberal and pro-Democrat - 89% voted for Clinton and 50% said they were Democrat 94% said Republican)
- Journalists are less likely to be married or have children, less likely to do volunteer work or go to church
- Media Elite - journalists let their backgrounds dictate their views, which is present in their pieces

Mugged by the Dan
- Tom Brokaw thought the BG was out of line
- Andrew Heyward - likened it to Goldberg raping his wife and kids
- Dan Rather - accused BG of being a political activist - Dan has humble beginnings and has put himself above the news - protect your image by ripping your accuser response - feels threatened and reacts
- Tom Brokaw - when GE (owner of NBC) was publicly cited for safety issues w airplane engines - NBC news did not run the story
- Connie Chung - strained relationship w Rather - when she was sent in to Oklahoma City before Rather (bombing) he spent more time slamming Chung then on the events at hand
- Andrew Heyward - acknowledged that there is a liberal bias in the media
- Andy Rooney - supporter of BG

Targeting Men
- News are far more offensive and derogatory to men than they are to women - women interest groups are all over offensive material to women but support offensive material to men
- Men do earn more money - but they earn it for more hazardous jobs, longer hours, and more amiable to relocation and poor working conditions
- News shows have to compete for primetime audience with the comedies and the dramas
- John Johnson - received a court order to pay child support - missed the thirty day appeal and has to pay child support for a child from a person w a different name
- Tony Jackson - DNA has proven that he is not the father, but because he missed the 30 day deadline he has to pay child support for a child that is not his
- Meredith Vieira - host of the View - sexist comments made to the Mets - what if it was the other way around??

Identity Politics
- Media always came down hard on Reagan and all Republican governments
- When quoting sources was always use the label "conservative" to describe the right, but never "liberal" to describe the left - Clinton impeachment by Jennings most notable
- Media is not liberal - they just agree w sensible, rational views
- Dan Rather - views the NY Times (the most liberal paper there is) as 'middle of the road' - Tom Snyder interview claims that most journalists see all sides of the story

Thieves and Pimps
- White people would rather watch white stars - blacks prefer to watch blacks - cater to the advertising dollars that are trying to sell products to the audience - generally the white audience
- All about the money - if Black shows would make money then they would be on - do not mess w the goldmines
- Very rare that a TV show caters to both audiences - Cosby, Winfrey, Touched by an Angel are the exceptions
- News shows run mostly white stories - otherwise white people will not watch
- NAACP Boycott - over the lack of Black stars in Primetime television - networks responded to avoid the controversy
- May Sweeps - news shows focus on white stories only

Bill Clinton
- News is all about ratings - when 48 Hours became a hit, it proved that news could be profitable
- News know there audience and like to depict stories that impact or relate to the audience
- Prettifying Reality - model victoms that slant who the true sufferers of a particular disease are (homeless, AIDs, Blacks)
- advocates will always exaggerate the number of those involved - homeless grew from 3-19MM with each new story
- journalists are starting to view themselves as Society Saviors - and are not presenting truth in the media
- blond hair, blue eyes, clean white guy makes for a good homeless story
- Homelessness is only an issue to the media when there is a Rep president

Working Mothers
- as parents spend less time w their children, the attitudes of children are progressively worse - kids involved in drugs, alcohol, and sex
- women are not only doing it for economic reasons - rejecting the role of care provider as their primary occupation
- with women not home as much, the opportunity and cases of sexual abuse have risen
- 20% of children are latchkey children
- if working mothers are a large part of the audience then this is a story that will offend and cause them to turn off the television - males as well who enjoy the secondary income
- Media elites will not take on the feminists who would be all over this story
- Daycare centres are not as equipped as they should be
- Kids who spend more time in daycare are more aggressive and defiant
- Feminist response is more subsidies for daycare - improve the quality of, but do not shift any blame to dual income families
- Suicide rates are up for children aged 10-14 (71% for boys, 27% for girls)
- 15 Year Old Sex - one out of every three girls under 15 is having sex - 5% in 1970
- Daycare Health - when it is a positive story it is frontline news - when it is a negative it cannot be found

Epidemic of Fear
- Homosexuals are convinced that Straight America is negligent of them and the only way that they would contribute to AIDS funding is if the fear was that it could happen to them
- Journalists on the left define themselves by their compassion for Special Interest Groups - jumped all over the AIDS story
- As w the homeless it is Prettifying Reality
- Homosexuals will be offended if asked how they acquired AIDS - politically incorrect - considered a hostile question
- When CBS announced that 40% of AIDS victims were heterosexuals, they included drug users as well
- Whether teenagers or Blacks - the news media always misrepresents the truth that AIDS victims generally engage in risky business - unprotected sex, drug use
- Michael Fumento - The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS - book that statistically proved that AIDS was more prevalent among drug users and homosexuals
- Media Study of People w AIDS - 6% shown on TV were gay, 58% real life, 16% were ethnic, 46% real life, 2% were drug users, 23% real life
- Dateline and 48 Hours - all these shows were born for ratings - show a lot of T&A and the trash story of the time - OJ, Jon Benet, Joey Buttafuoco, Chandra Levy


The Ship Be Sinking
- Less and less people are watching the news - from 1995-2001, it has fallen from 51% to 43%
- CBS News has fallen into last place under Dan Rather - all of the traditional news anchors are on their way out
- September 11th - they got it right - they did what news is supposed to do
- After the fact, it was conservative rhetoric that creates domestic terrorism
- Not enough media on how the Middle East has come to hate America so passionately
- Newzak just goes on and on - and that is why America is clicking off
- Richard Nixon - had a hate-on for Dan Rather - Dan is still sensitive to those that critique him to this day - poor upbringings are his weak spot
- News is all about image - stories have to be negotiated within the newsroom as well as outside
- Media elites do not want equality in real life - they want equality in the news - bring about change that does not endanger their own position
- Distort the images not to ease the pain of the oppressed but rather ease their own pain of their contribution
- Alabama Chain Gang - reporter got some heat for filming an Alabama Chain Gang that was all Black
- Gannett Newspapers - must have at least one minority source - even if they are not an expert, key is that they are not white
- Virgin Islands Looting - removed all looting from the story because it was all blacks - Virgin Islands is all black