The Postmodern Bible provides what is as close as anyone will ever get to a contemporary handbook on "postmodern" methods of approaching, reading, using and interpreting the Bible. One might ask why such a book is needed. I would reply that this book is needed because it implicates the readers of the Bible in the matters it wishes to bring to bear in biblical study. This book attempts to show (in my estimation) that reading the Bible is a social act, a personal act, a political act and a cultural act. And this book preaches what it practices for it is written by a self-styled "Bible and Culture Collective", a group of scholarly "young turks" no less, who amply demonstrate that projects worked on together need not end up being mish-mashes of the wants and desires of those composing them.

This book has both direction and drive. In seven compact yet thorough discussions we are introduced, in theory and practice, to seven contemporary approaches to the practice of biblical reading. Many, if not all, of these (reader-response criticism, poststructuralism, feminist and womanist criticism) are hardly novel outside of the biblical field but then that seems the point of this book; that is, to attempt (or continue to attempt) to intergrate biblical studies ever more closely with, or into, literary studies and cultural studies. This seems the pervasive agenda of this book.

I must admit that I have an interest in reviewing this book, however. I was taught for three years as an undergraduate by one of the "Bible and Culture Collective", Stephen D. Moore. I can confirm that the Collective, if Moore be an example, do indeed practice what they preach in this book. I have to say it sets the Bible on fire in new and exciting ways. If you want to engage the Bible from some new angles or just want to get up date and clear in your mind on contemporary methods of biblical interpretation then get this book. It has no serious challengers in its field to date.

If you've ever been puzzled by the formula of 'post-modern' and 'biblical studies,' then you'd be wise to pick up this exhaustive and personable piece of academic fervor. Among others, The Postmodern Bible fuses epistemological, religious, and cultural frameworks into a textual craft that will keep you poised with more questions. I recommend this book to anyone who takes the Bible seriously - whether you're a theologian, academic, or a heady poser, you'll want to have this book on the shelves of your mind.

There have been several books out lately about bias in the news, but they tend to focus on political bias. This book instead looks at the same concept--how news media have unwritten scripts that determine what is and what is not news, and how it is covered--but instead focuses on the reporting of research, both scientific and sociological. That's what makes this book worth reading even if you've read some others on media bias.

It was interesting to read about various reports on research, how seemingly conflicting reports came into being, how reports that are on the same topic would seem to get equal coverage but don't, how research with barely detectable results ends up being reported as earth-shattering discovery, and other such topics. The examples were informative, and the authors gave some tips on how to decipher what you read in the news...how to read between the lines, so to speak.

Some reviewers have dissed this book because the examples used are those which conservatives would find most satisfying to learn how media distorted research. Fortunately, most such reviewers have also acknowledged that the book is still worthy of reading due to the way it points out general methods for discerning accuracy in reporting. Still, I feel the "conservative bias" charge is unwarranted. Other books have documented well the powerful politically liberal scripts of mainstream news media; is it any surprise that there are so many examples of such bias in scientific reporting too? If news media carefully filter societal issues to only make their side look good, why would this not be done in reporting on research too? What I'm trying to say is, I am certain there are much more plentiful examples of this kind of thing for the conservative side. I would gladly welcome a book, though, that would reveal such shortcomings that would similarly satisfy liberals, for I simply want to know how things get distorted, whichever direction they get distorted.

My ranking of this book is a 3, which is "good" (see About Me for a complete description of my rating policy), meaning this is a book worth reading. Its weakness is that the authors' writing style is a bit dry and sometimes they repeat their point too much, making me mutter, "Okay, I get it already!" But these are minor drawbacks; the book is something consumers of news should definitely read.

Once again,we have a book that exposes the PC-orthodoxy of the media and of some of the junk scientists out there. Once again, we have mini-reviews (in content and thinking) which use ad hominem (the author's are right-wing) attacks; question the author's motives and finding sources--and, never deal with the content. And, these "reviews" are from the usual suspects (places): Cambridge, San Jose and other bastions of leftist university cant.

Well, as a person with a BS in math and both as MA and Ph.D in psych--the authors are dead-on in the misues of stat by both the media and the junk scientists the media are so fond of.

Try not to present your thinly-disguised PC/Leftist ideology as a "review." It is but a knee-jerk reaction to the cognitive dissonance produced when the truth invades your little world. But, do not worry, you will find others to reinforce what passes for logic in your PC-laden miasma.

Oh, yes, lest I forget, get the book--and Bias and Coloring the News and The Shadow University--then, try and say it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. If you are sane and open-minded, you will be both disgusted and ready to really question what gets on the biased, PC media and why.

Murray and co. do an excellent job of explaining how the results of scientic inquiry are reported in the mass media. The authors avoid the easy out of blaming things on politically motivated journalists, and take a more interesting path. Sometimes what we read in the press is the result of poor reporting; sometimes it's poor science; and, on occasion it may be the reflection of a writer's personal agenda. The book tells the kinds of errors that occur (confusing correlation with causation, poor sampling, etc.)

What makes the book compelling is the anecdotes used to make the points. The stories of contradictory reporting of scientific make for peculiarly amusing reading.

By understanding the types of reporting problems and their causes, people can be more intelligently skeptical about what they read or hear.