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

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Al Franken

Finally, the part where I address the Al Franken readers. Let’s go through the points he makes against “Bias,” but before we do, let me comment. Al Franken preaches constantly about the virtues of having a lot of proof for what one is saying. Bernard Goldberg wrote an entire book, chock-full of solid points and Franken merely could put together a short chapter (8 pages), the majority of which he used to talk about his one “victory” over Goldberg on TV. Franken’s victory: Showing that one of the twelve quotes Goldberg took from another source as an example of “liberal hate speech” was out of context and wrong. This is one of the few mistakes Goldberg made that Franken points out, but it was only one quote, and five out of Franken’s eight pages in this chapter are devoted to this single example. In addition, Franken comments on the fact that Goldberg is a disgruntled former employee. Very original, Al. He quotes a survey that says that although it is true that journalists are biased, the editors are not. Although this may be true, the journalists still prepare the stories themselves, and often the editors are not there with them to balance out the bias, as in the case of a live broadcast. Franken makes fair points about how news groups identify people or institutions. [1]

I think that the Franken reference should be removed. Please advise::

All it is is hate speech. I guess it was removed a long time ago...PokeHomsar (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS

Perhaps you were quoting this story from PBS. If so, please use quotation marks. Also, when quoting people's responses to a book, please don't just quote critics

Some critics say Goldberg is simply a disgruntled ex- employee ... Bob Schieffer, the network's chief Washington correspondent, told The Washington Post: "Bernie just seemed to be upset about everything. He was upset with the world."

But others say Goldberg might be on to something. In a New York Times review in December, writer Janet Maslin said while Goldberg's book is meant to raise eyebrows, it also raises questions about how the news media frames its stories. [2]

The first is from the book. I don't know about the second. Lolinder (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased

I agree that if you want to post responses to a book you should be more "unbiased". This article only references critics with a POV.

Well considering how utterly partisan and POV his book is on the conservative side I think you are being absurd in thinking you are going to find an "unbias" critic of the thing.--Ken 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

His book is about bias. How can an article about it be unbiased? The liberal bias in the media, as only someone not liberal could notice (as Goldberg explains in his book,) is quite obvious. You have to be living under a rock not to notice it, especially recently. Does the Duke Lacrosse rape case ring any bells? The case was influenced by the media (which is why Nifong got the case as far as he did) as the plaintiff's claims (however ridiculous and false) fit the liberals' agenda. Why? It was about an "underprivileged" black single mother who was "only a stripper to get through college and raise her kid" claiming three "over-privileged" white male "jocks" gang raped her. It was like heroin to all those radical feminists! One even said "I've never met a woman who claimed rape that lied." Like that case, you can't do anything but look at this book without having some bias as it's called Bias.PokeHomsar (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the criticism and acclaim section?

This whole article is just a summary of the book... Why is there no mention of the media explosion this book caused and its huge commercial success? It was #1 on the NYT Best Seller list for a whole season. Why is this not mentioned at all?PokeHomsar (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown critics

Critics contend that Goldberg is nothing more than a disgruntled former employee who found support only from the hard right.

Please name at least one critic. Two would be better if you want to use the plural critics. Then put the sentence back (with the required reference). --Uncle Ed 16:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved this section to its proper place.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we are not...

All relevant policies and guidelines encourage articles to focus on the real world significance of a work. 95% of this article is dedicated to a chapter-by-chapter summarization of the book, without any critical analysis, book reviews, or any other significance that puts the work into context. I'm going to again remove the chapter and verse and encourage editors to contributed sourced analysis, significance, and context for the work rather than regurgitating its contents. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore this article differs from List of Keith Olbermann's Special Comments in what way?? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redlinked, for one. ;-) In all seriousness, there's a large difference between a list and an article, both in content and style guide. A list exists to organize multiple separate but related items in one cohesive place (especially when each individual item may not itself qualify for its own article). An article about a book should briefly summarize its contents, but should dedicate the majority of the article towards its "real world significance and impact" of the book -- critical reviews, analysis, and context. Wikipedia articles don't exist to solely summarize another work. Additionally, if you can't provide reliable sources that assert notability then the entire article should probably be deleted. I'd spend more time focusing on adding sourced, encyclopedic information showing why this book merits its own article than I would trying to have the article parrot the content of the book. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? That term "real world world significance and impact" sounds suspiciously like language that might be used in advising someone on how to write about a work of fiction. I may have missed it but I didn't see any similar language in the MOS applied to non-fiction, which possibly would be assumed to have "real world significance" already. Perhaps the best solution here (for those who are bigger fans of Goldberg's works than either Blaxhos or I are) would be to have an article entitled List of Bernard Goldberg's books which could exist as the kind of uncritical shrine that KO's fans have created for him. Cheers. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're having trouble distinguishing a list from an article. :-( I think a good common-sense rule that sums up our policies and purpose is that articles about any book (or any subjet) should focus not on the content of the book, but rather why the book is significant. If the article is entirely a summary of the points contained in the book, and devoid of reliable sources that attest to its notability, the article should be deleted for failing WP:N and WP:RS. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the chapter descriptions was very appropriate, because it was not about the book itself, but about the content of the book. For that, we have Media bias (and other articles, such as CBS). This article is about the book itself. A description of the topics covered -- perhaps (but probably not) including a chapter list -- would be appropriate for this article, but the tone would have to be very, very different. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article?

Seriously, this article used to be pretty long. Why is it now just two sentences? Is it because the liberal admins don't like this book or because a wacky liberal Wikipedia person edited down this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.76.138 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that it was bigger at one point. Then someone trimmed it down to stub length ... and then complained that it was too short. Sounds like they don't want to hear about liberal bias in the news media. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; very interesting. But the astute that want to know have a lead to go on. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification

I don't know if this is an official Wikipedia term. If it isn't, I don't know the real one. But the reduction of a long, decent article to two sentences is not really acceptable. If you object to having it just be a summary, improve on it, don't remove what we have so far. And don't revert the edits reverting the reduction without talking about it first here. Lolinder (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?

This article may need as rewrite from the start to achieve cleanup. In my opinion problems include:

It has too many quotes.
It has an odd structure of sections of bulleted material.

RJFJR (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It is really crazy. Better have a paragraph telling us about the book, not giving us a Readers Digest version of it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sections on each chapter and substituted a list of the chapter titles. It actually looks better but now is a bit stubby. Do we have any reviews we can cite? RJFJR (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing, which is what was being discussed, and completely gutting the article, are different. There is no reason why each chapter can't be summarized and maybe a high point or two mentioned. Just a list of chapters? Not an improvement.

I tend to think that what a WP article on a book is supposed to be is a few paragraphs telling us what the book is, what its background is, what influence it has had, and things like that. It's not supposed to repeat everything the book says. I don't even think a list of chapters is appropriate. Especially on a fairly minor book like this. BTW I'm a conservative and would probably agree with much in this book. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to consider NY Times Best Sellers to be more than "fairly minor". When it becomes the first in a series of NY times best sellers, then it definately stops being "fairly minor". Regardless, if this were an article about a Tom Clancy novel, yeah, I'd agree no chapter list etc. But a book like this, which covers a fairly broad spectrum of the media, really would be tough to summarize in a couple of paragraphs without engaging in a lot of OR. But I'm open to suggestions.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the book from the library and I'll see if I can summarize the chapters in a more prose form. RJFJR (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not saying what exists shouldn;t be cut quite a bit. Just that replacing it with nothing more than a table of contents isn't the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT bestseller - references

How do we reference that a book was on the NYT best seller list? RJFJR (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site has been accepted on other articles. They maintain the past lists in PDF format. [3]. I forgot that the book was #1 in non-fiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]