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

message: :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. 
::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)
thread_title: Al Franken

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Unbiased

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where is the criticism and acclaim section? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Unknown critics

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What we are [[WP:NOT|not]]... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What happened to the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stubification 

message: How do we reference that a book was on the NYT best seller list? RJFJR (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *This site has been accepted on other articles. They maintain the past lists in PDF format. . I forgot that the book was #1 in non-fiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT bestseller - references