OurColony.net

Flawed, But Good

Customer Rating:
A great piss on eth conservative canard about the alleged liberal bias of the media. The book does a great job of pointing out in great deal how the opposite is true; the media giants have a conservative bias, and a Republican one. There is great section on the infamous racist screed `The Bell Curve' and how it was immediately made respectable by the allegedly liberal press in spite of the fact that it never passed muster with peers, and once peer reviewed was thoroughly discredited. Also a great bit on Richard Mellon Scafie, the vicious right wing think tank funder and publisher who was the author of the infamous `vast right conspiracy' that Hillary had the audacity to out, much to the chagrin of her conservative critics in the press. I also loved a cooing quote from mawkish right wing nutcase Cokie Roberts about `men in uniform.'

Also worthy are the sections on eth conservative think tanks and publishing houses and their disregard for scholarship and pursuit of ideological purity and how similar intuitions of the left are non existent.

Alterman gives a great description of the way in which the media destroyed Al Gore, inventing his reputation for lying by lying about him. Just two examples, the Love Story claim was really Gore saying he had read that the author used he and his wife as a model in the newspaper (he was right) and his comment about Love Canal was not that he discovered Love Canal, but about a similar pollution problem uncovered by his congressional committee. But the press wanted to make Gore a liar. Altermen's explanation is somewhat misleading I think, he claims the press simply disliked Gore because he was stiff and arrogant, but more likely the media interests preferred an even more right wing candidate.

The author misses the real reason for the bias of course, to mask and excuse the excesses of capitalism itself. For all his insight into the system, Alterman is still basically a loyal democrat, and though he is left enough to despise the Clintons, he is still right enough to blame Gore's lose in 2000 on Nader and those that dared to select a candidate outside the useless and controlled mainstream.

Still, for all it's flaws, the book is a superb indictment of the failure of eth forth estate and is excellently written. Highly recommended

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News

Customer Rating:
The odds that Alterman is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

100 to 1.

Don't believe the conservative talking points!

Customer Rating:
Even though it was published in 2004, Eric Alterman's WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?: THE TRUTH ABOUT BIAS AND THE NEWS is just as relevant and insightful today, as the 2008 election cycle begins to heat up. From the mainstream media's misogynist slurs against Hillary Clinton to their love affair with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain (note to Chris Matthews: the media isn't supposed to be ANY candidate's "base"), the total lack of a liberal bias, even among ostensibly moderate-to-lefty journalists, is painfully evident.

Alterman debunks the myth of the liberal media from a number of angles. From the rise of right-wing pundits and well-funded conservative "think tanks" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), to the political leanings of and corporate pressures faced by individual journalists, Alterman illustrates how the Republican Party seized control of the mainstream media, all the while decrying its supposed bias in favor of liberal causes.

Especially timely is his discussion of how the media has treated George W. Bush with kid gloves, previously having eviscerated (sometimes, rightfully so) Bill Clinton for lesser evils. Yes, Bill Clinton deserves scorn for taking advantage of an awe-struck intern (power disparity, anyone?); but a BJ pales in comparison to an unjust war. (Mind bogglingly, the media's slant has only veered further to the right in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.) Shortly after the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq passed 4,000, Dick Cheney declared "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think -- it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have. The president carries the biggest burden, obviously." Bush himself said - with no hint of irony, compassion, or remorse - that he's found his presidency "joyful" and he sleeps "a lot better than people would assume." And the MSM didn't even blink.

*head desk*

Seriously, WHAT liberal media!?

As the primaries drag on, it's a whole lotta history repeating.

While WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? probably won't sway any hardcore conservatives, it is a useful tool for liberals who wish to quash the myth of the liberal media, and might help to educate misinformed moderates and independents. Generally speaking, it's a good read and a persuasive argument, but I wish Alterman had included more hard statistics and fewer anecdotes. Then again, there seems to be a dearth of research in this area; perhaps WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? can serve as a starting point for some enterprising young journalism or social science students looking to study the issue further. An update for 2008 would be a welcome addition as well; Alterman has four more years of dubya's shenanigans to document, not to mention the farcical 2008 primaries.

To the content of the book, I bequeath four stars. To the format, which was for me an audiobook, one lonely star. I'm normally a huge fan of audiobooks, since they allow me to "read" 2-3 times as many books as I might otherwise. Yet Alterman narrated WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? himself, and the result is almost un-listenable. It's truly awful. (His Bill O'Reilly impression is spot on, though. Hey, credit where credit's due.) And this comes from someone who has a high tolerance for non-professional narration; I usually prefer that authors record the audio versions of their own books, since it lends an added authenticity to the reading. I loved listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's INFIDEL and Christopher Hitchens' GOD IS NOT GREAT, both of which were read by the respective authors, thick accents and all. But Alterman's publisher really should have shelled out the extra money for a pro.

The perefect example of the problem with the media

Customer Rating:
The author creates his own definitions and believes he proves a point by merely explaining his own a-priori assumptions. The bias is not just in the ratio of talking heads but in the assumptions made and excuses accepted. The mainstrem media never challenges the intellectual failings of liberal politicians. Lets face it - Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Cynthia McKinny, Robert Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Barbara Boxer, and many many more are not bright people - but the media treats them with kid gloves....Conservative with low wattage brains are considered fair game.

You are as liberal as the man who owns you

Customer Rating:
One Republican troll who probably did not read the book said, "First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.".

But there is a problem. The corporations that own the media outlets where these reporters work sympathize for the Republican party. The Republican party is the party of corporations.
In one of the chapters Alterman explains that no matter how liberal a reporter is, he will censor his own work, trying to please his editor, and the editor about that editor, and the managing editor, all the way to the top, which in the case of MSNBC, is General Electric, for example.

Right-wingers do not give us example of media bias, but go on yapping about how polls show reporters vote Democratic.

Prove it with a study. Prove it that corporate-owned TV channels and newspapers are publishing lefty stuff. That's right. You don't have anything but cries of "liberal media!, liberal media!"

91% of talk radio (political) content is conservative.