For years I have watched the network news programs and been amazed at the fact that they have changed from reporting the news to commenting on the news. While growing up in the sixties I remembered facts that were offered to viewers in stories from distinguished journalists. After Nixon and Watergate, journalism took another fork in the road. Reporters became celebrities rather than newshounds. The days of responsible journalism gave way to fighting for the top spot at the anchor desk.

Perhaps this is a naive remembrance of the way things were. But the change that came about in the seventies was one my memory handles clearly. That combined with the rise in conservative radio and you have a battlefield in reporting that many take sides on. Wouldn't it be better is all reporting was straightforward and not leaning left or right? Wouldn't it be nice not to have to take sides just to get as Jack Webb used to state on DRAGNET "Just the facts maam'" ?

Bernard Goldberg was a part of CBS news for 28 years. To remain in a position on network news for that long requires doing your job and doing it well. Slackers are not kept around to fill in those valuable seats that so many covet. And yet when Goldberg tried to begin a discussion about the left leaning slant of news he was ignored. That is until he wrote an op ed piece for the WALL STREET JOURNAL. That small article nearly costs him his job at CBS.

CBS, the network that had made its news division proud with finding whistle blowers from one corporation to the next. Its top rated show 60 MINUTES used them all the time and they had hailed those whistle blowers as being brave individuals. Apparently it's brave to blow the whistle on someone that the network held below contempt. It's quite another to blow the whistle on yourself.

With that set up, on to the book, BIAS. Goldberg examines the world of network news and does something that those in charge and even those with conservative viewpoints don't do often. He observes the news for what it is and what it does objectively.

Goldberg does not claim that the media attempts to put forth a liberal agenda of its own. No, what he does is offer an explanation as to why the news does lean to the left. And it makes sense.

As Goldberg sees it the problem is not that these broadcasters are out to get anyone so much as they see things through the eyes that God gave them. They are members of an elitists group that is out of touch with the common man. They live in high rise apartments in Manhattan and don't get down and dirty with the little guy. They mingle with one another, sharing the same viewpoints and never exposing themselves to any others. As far as they are concerned, from their vantage point left wing/liberal viewpoints are the middle of the road. And with that in mind, anything that actually IS middle of the road becomes right wing.

A great example of this is a quote Goldberg uses by acclaimed film critic Pauline Kael. After Richard Nixon's win over George McGovern in the presidential race in 1972 she was stunned and stated "Nobody I know voted for Nixon." Nixon won carrying 49 states. MANY people voted for Nixon. But none in Kael's circle of friends.

Goldberg offers tons of quotes from various sources to back up this belief, some of the most damning from former boss Dan Rather. And before you think that he has an axe to grind with Rather, note that Rather spoke highly of Goldberg until the op ed piece appeared. And, even though Rather refuses to speak to Goldberg now (which is somewhat explained towards book's end), Goldberg still thinks highly of Rather.

Goldberg focuses on several examples to prove the point of liberal bias in the media. None of these points are extremely blatant if you don't look beneath the surface. And none are done with an apparent objective in mind.

One example that creeps up often in the book (and in real life) is the use of labels while reporting news. For instance, when the topic of abortion is raised and two guests are introduced to discus it, one is Patricia Ireland the head of the National Organization for Women while the other is identified as conservative spokesperson Phyllis Shlafly. Seems innocent enough. But why must one be identified as Conservative while the other, the head of a blatant liberal organization, not?

Network news is rife with these examples, many offered throughout the book. But just watching the nightly news will make this even more obvious. Read the book and then watch the news and see how many examples you find.

Goldberg talks about how the news focuses on issues only from one perspective and shuts out any viewpoint that doesn't adhere to its own. Note the fact that when Reagan became President, the news reported heavily that there was a homeless problem in this country reaching epidemic proportions. The numbers used to describe how many homeless there were grew astronomically. And none of the numbers offered were ever checked, they were simply reported. These reports began a few days after Reagan took office and continued through the Bush administration. And yet mere days after Bill Clinton took office, the entire problem disappeared. It wasn't that the problem actually disappeared or that it was even the problem that it was proclaimed to be in the first place. It was the news media's look at the topic and the focus of their attention.

Goldberg looks at the way America is portrayed in the news media. He discusses how in their attempts to help the downtrodden, those who would do so manipulate the images that America sees to make their point. A story that made it to air discussed the fact that in Alabama they had instituted chain gangs again to actually punish criminals. After it aired, producers in the New York studio contacted the reporter and informed him they noticed almost all of the prisoners were black. They instructed him that next time to make sure that he had a more diverse group in his story. The fact was that the prisoners WERE black. It does not portray all blacks as criminals. But these producers wanted not to show the facts, the truth, but to make it more politically correct.

Another chapter deals with the reasons why the news is filled with the most lurid topics while other greater social issues are ignored. It all boils down to ratings. News is no longer seen as news but as entertainment that makes money for the network. With that in mind, things must focus that direction. Topics that might turn off a particular group are ignored or altered. And example is reports that came out saying that latch key kids grow up to be more combative and problematic. This wasn't reported. Because it wasn't newsworthy? No. Because it might offend working mothers who would feel guilty if they found this out.

These are only a few of the topics covered in the book. And some of the chapter titles might put off someone who refuses to look past the front page and find the meat of the entire story. But for those willing to read from cover to cover WITH an open mind, you will find that Goldberg backs up what he says. And you will never look at news the same way again.

From the length of this review can you not tell how much I enjoyed this book? It took no time at all, being written in an easy style that held your attention from start to finish. The fact that Goldberg worked in reporting the news for so long is obvious in that he speaks to those of us here at ground level as opposed to the elite. The book is not only valuable from an informative viewpoint, but from an entertainment one as well. But the most important thing, which will never happen, is that this information gets into the hands of future journalists.

Goldberg has already been declared a pariah among many of his peers for doing that which the news has praised so many (whistle blowing). Each and every student studying journalism should have this book as required reading. Not so that they can learn about how bad journalist are but so that they can make certain that they do not fall into the same trap. The book offers an unbiased look at the world and at journalism. Goldberg doesn't take one side or the other. He observes the way a good reporter should: objectively.