What do you think?
Rate this book
Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election---and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016
The Media Research Center, a leading right-wing media watchdog, presents detailed evidence of the liberal media's unmistakable efforts to protect Barack Obama from his failures and focus on his accomplishments, while relentlessly discrediting his GOP rivals. 30,000 first printing.
352 pages, Paperback
First published June 11, 2013
9 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
About the author
L. Brent Bozell III
8 books2 followersAmerican conservative writer and activist. He is the son of L. Brent Bozell Jr.
Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service.
Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.
In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.
Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service.
Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.
In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 16, 2016
My memory of the 2012 presidential season will forever be bookended by two instances 14complexes, really 14of mainstream media (MSM) bias. It began in January when the first Republican contenders 19 debate took place. George Stephanopoulos, ABC News journalist and former campaign advisor to President Bill Clinton, who moderated the debate, insisted on asking each candidate whether states could outlaw contraceptives. Each candidate, starting with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, pointed out that no one has proposed such a thing. One or two candidates allowed that it was theoretically possible but still did not see why Stephanopoulos insisted on asking about this non-issue so persistently.
The answer came when Democratic Party political operatives spent the next few months pushing the idea that all Republicans want to take contraceptives away from women. It was an entirely manufactured issue, until, of course, conservative media people, particularly Rush Limbaugh, played into the Democrats 19 hands, in the process helping to make a nobody named Sandra Fluke into a supposed victim and national celebrity. The point is that Stephanopoulos was obviously abusing his role as moderator of a Republican primary debate by using it to push the campaign agenda of the Democratic Party.
The other bookend to the 2012 election season was the final debate in October where alleged moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and told Romney he was wrong in saying that President Barack Obama did not use the word 1Cterrorism 1D during a press conference following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September of 2012. Crowley said Obama did use the word, and she miraculously had the transcript at hand. Immediately after the debate, a grinning Crowley claimed that she had tripped Romney on a technicality and admitted that 1CGovernor Romney was right in the main. 1D How is that? Crowley did not explain further but the trick was that Obama had begun that press conference by saying that he is against terrorism. He went on to discuss what little he pretended to know about the attack in Benghazi, but never said that what had happened there was an act of terrorism. That was why Romney was 1Cright in the main, 1D because Obama had not applied the word 1Cterrorism 1D in any meaningful way to any particular incident; he had only said that he was against it in general. The author 19s of this book further indict Crowley for her deception by noting that, in an interview with Obama minion David Axelrod shortly before the debate, she herself had noted that Obama did not say that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism in that speech. Axelrod had responded by claiming that Obama had used the word 1Cterrorism 19 in that talk. So what Crowley was repeating at the debate was the very lie she had been told. Her subsequent remarks show that she knew it was a lie when Axelrod said it as well as when she said it.
The double teaming of Romney by both his opponent and the supposedly neutral moderator raised some interesting questions that were never answered satisfactorily: How did Crowley happen to have the transcript of a press conference from a month before, and did she know that Romney was going to bring up this issue? If so, how did she know? In any case, when 1CSaturday Night Live 1D spoofed the debate the next week by reenacting Crowley 19s 1Ccorrection 1D of Romney 14followed by SNL 19s addition of Obama doing a victory dance 14the once-great satire show completely missed the real comedy in the situation, which was that a 1Cneutral 1D moderator had suddenly become the debate partner of one of the candidates. Didn 19t Romney now have the right to demand his own debate partner? How about a lifeline option of calling Rush Limbaugh to ask for help? Of course, the bigger joke was that what Crowley had done was to support the president in his lie that he had called the incident an act of terrorism. The mainstream media was uniform in never pointing out that the president had lied or that the truth was that Romney 1Cwas right in the main, 1D which Crowley 19s colleagues ignored even in her understated words.
Most of the highly paid star journalists, whether at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., do not formally coordinate their messages with the White House or Democratic National Committee (although there was a revelation a few years back that a particular group of journalists was doing just that). That would be a conspiracy. But most journalists, especially at the above news organizations, are Democrats themselves and know what the Democratic Party wants them to believe, and they believe it. They eagerly read whatever the White House and DNC put out on any given issue and willingly fall in line, pushing the Democratic Party 19s talking points, which they have uniformly and uncritically absorbed. There is little need for any formal conspiracy when this kind of informal collusion is possible. Members of the MSM are, in fact, part of the Democratic Party 19s base and would not know how to begin to question the assumptions behind their party 19s propaganda.
In 1CCollusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election--and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016, 1D Brent Bozell and Tim Graham take a detailed look at MSM bias with particular focus on how the media shaped the issues and picked favorites in the 2012 election cycle. During the presidential campaign, Romney was vilified not only by Democratic party officials but also by the journalists who work for most of the biggest news outlets in the country. Throughout 2012, partisan journalists were almost constantly hunting for gaffe 19s, taking them out of context, exaggerating them, and inventing them when they could not be found. Meanwhile, the incumbent, Obama, was sent valentines on the nightly news and on the front pages of the major daily newspapers. If anything turned up that was unflattering to the president, it didn 19t make the news at all, or occasionally, it was confined to the fifth paragraph of a story on page eight.
Even candidates wives were treated differently by soft-news programs like Barbara Walter 19s interview specials and her regular program, 1CThe View. 1D First Lady Michelle Obama would get flattered while Ann Romney got the third degree. Mrs. Romney, like her husband, would be criticized for being upper class 14and therefore out of touch with middle-class folks 14by politicians, journalists and entertainers who are in the same tax bracket as the Romneys. The authors tell us that one New York Times journalist who wrote anti-Romney hit pieces one after the other, attacking Romney for being out of touch, is the son of a real estate developer and cut his journalistic teeth writing about luxury consumer goods.
The authors do not hide their own bias, perhaps unnecessarily piling witty sarcasms on top of what are already unintentionally hilarious statements by journalists who seem unaware that they are making goofy statements. Speaking of one reporter who led a media-wide feeding frenzy by reporting at length on a supposed Romney gaffe that had somehow 1Cdragged 1D the candidate 1Coff message, 1D Bozell and Graham write, 1CIt 19s typical for liberals to proclaim Republicans are being dragged off message at the very moment they 19re the ones doing the dragging. 1D
There might be a few instances where the authors strain their argument, but the overwhelming number of instances of blatant bias cannot but lead an objective observer to conclude that no Republican candidate can get a fair hearing from the MSM, and that their constant attacks show that the MSM believes in their bones that no Republican deserves a fair hearing.
In their epilogue, the authors discuss the last part of their book 19s title: 1C 26How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016. 1D Their prescriptions are rather general if pertinent. Thirty years ago, the big networks were watched by about a quarter of the American public and now they are watched by fewer than ten percent. Yet the influence of the left-leaning press on public opinion seems to result from the quantity and ubiquity their of hard-hitting if naked propaganda. Even with less direct influence, their greater disregard for ethical rules about trying to be objective still allows them to poison the political environment.
The authors also point up the influence of social media opinion leaders and especially celebrities. People who do not watch network news still watch 1Centertainment 1D programs laden with left-wing political messages. The authors probably understate the influence of more personal contact between leftists and the individuals in their circles. That is one reason why it is widely considered hip to be left. This also accounts for those who know better remaining silent when opinions that are both socially harmful and nonsensical are expressed. In such an environment, the authors suggest that conservatives participate more in the Internet 19s social media phenomenon and challenge the left 19s idiocies. Conservatives need to get more involved in popular culture. Further, conservative politicians should stop placating and trying to be liked by leftist media. When they make unfair attacks, hit back. When they want an interview, insist that it be live. If they edit something you say, publicly point out their deception. Evaluate the source before accepting an interview request from, say, CNN or MSNBC, which hardly anyone watches. They are poorly-rated precisely because they twist the news even more than their big-network brothers, so why give them any chance to distort what you have to say? These answers were implied in the preceding litany of examples of how the MSM has skunked Republican candidates in the past: the MSM will always spin the story their way, and one must never give them the chance to do so. The best policy is to go around the MSM, as Ronald Reagan did, and speak directly to the American people. But to do that, you have to have something to say that appeals to the people, and that message is the next thing for conservative candidates to hone. That focus seems beyond the systematic approach of this book and is only alluded to in passing.
The answer came when Democratic Party political operatives spent the next few months pushing the idea that all Republicans want to take contraceptives away from women. It was an entirely manufactured issue, until, of course, conservative media people, particularly Rush Limbaugh, played into the Democrats 19 hands, in the process helping to make a nobody named Sandra Fluke into a supposed victim and national celebrity. The point is that Stephanopoulos was obviously abusing his role as moderator of a Republican primary debate by using it to push the campaign agenda of the Democratic Party.
The other bookend to the 2012 election season was the final debate in October where alleged moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and told Romney he was wrong in saying that President Barack Obama did not use the word 1Cterrorism 1D during a press conference following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September of 2012. Crowley said Obama did use the word, and she miraculously had the transcript at hand. Immediately after the debate, a grinning Crowley claimed that she had tripped Romney on a technicality and admitted that 1CGovernor Romney was right in the main. 1D How is that? Crowley did not explain further but the trick was that Obama had begun that press conference by saying that he is against terrorism. He went on to discuss what little he pretended to know about the attack in Benghazi, but never said that what had happened there was an act of terrorism. That was why Romney was 1Cright in the main, 1D because Obama had not applied the word 1Cterrorism 1D in any meaningful way to any particular incident; he had only said that he was against it in general. The author 19s of this book further indict Crowley for her deception by noting that, in an interview with Obama minion David Axelrod shortly before the debate, she herself had noted that Obama did not say that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism in that speech. Axelrod had responded by claiming that Obama had used the word 1Cterrorism 19 in that talk. So what Crowley was repeating at the debate was the very lie she had been told. Her subsequent remarks show that she knew it was a lie when Axelrod said it as well as when she said it.
The double teaming of Romney by both his opponent and the supposedly neutral moderator raised some interesting questions that were never answered satisfactorily: How did Crowley happen to have the transcript of a press conference from a month before, and did she know that Romney was going to bring up this issue? If so, how did she know? In any case, when 1CSaturday Night Live 1D spoofed the debate the next week by reenacting Crowley 19s 1Ccorrection 1D of Romney 14followed by SNL 19s addition of Obama doing a victory dance 14the once-great satire show completely missed the real comedy in the situation, which was that a 1Cneutral 1D moderator had suddenly become the debate partner of one of the candidates. Didn 19t Romney now have the right to demand his own debate partner? How about a lifeline option of calling Rush Limbaugh to ask for help? Of course, the bigger joke was that what Crowley had done was to support the president in his lie that he had called the incident an act of terrorism. The mainstream media was uniform in never pointing out that the president had lied or that the truth was that Romney 1Cwas right in the main, 1D which Crowley 19s colleagues ignored even in her understated words.
Most of the highly paid star journalists, whether at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., do not formally coordinate their messages with the White House or Democratic National Committee (although there was a revelation a few years back that a particular group of journalists was doing just that). That would be a conspiracy. But most journalists, especially at the above news organizations, are Democrats themselves and know what the Democratic Party wants them to believe, and they believe it. They eagerly read whatever the White House and DNC put out on any given issue and willingly fall in line, pushing the Democratic Party 19s talking points, which they have uniformly and uncritically absorbed. There is little need for any formal conspiracy when this kind of informal collusion is possible. Members of the MSM are, in fact, part of the Democratic Party 19s base and would not know how to begin to question the assumptions behind their party 19s propaganda.
In 1CCollusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election--and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016, 1D Brent Bozell and Tim Graham take a detailed look at MSM bias with particular focus on how the media shaped the issues and picked favorites in the 2012 election cycle. During the presidential campaign, Romney was vilified not only by Democratic party officials but also by the journalists who work for most of the biggest news outlets in the country. Throughout 2012, partisan journalists were almost constantly hunting for gaffe 19s, taking them out of context, exaggerating them, and inventing them when they could not be found. Meanwhile, the incumbent, Obama, was sent valentines on the nightly news and on the front pages of the major daily newspapers. If anything turned up that was unflattering to the president, it didn 19t make the news at all, or occasionally, it was confined to the fifth paragraph of a story on page eight.
Even candidates wives were treated differently by soft-news programs like Barbara Walter 19s interview specials and her regular program, 1CThe View. 1D First Lady Michelle Obama would get flattered while Ann Romney got the third degree. Mrs. Romney, like her husband, would be criticized for being upper class 14and therefore out of touch with middle-class folks 14by politicians, journalists and entertainers who are in the same tax bracket as the Romneys. The authors tell us that one New York Times journalist who wrote anti-Romney hit pieces one after the other, attacking Romney for being out of touch, is the son of a real estate developer and cut his journalistic teeth writing about luxury consumer goods.
The authors do not hide their own bias, perhaps unnecessarily piling witty sarcasms on top of what are already unintentionally hilarious statements by journalists who seem unaware that they are making goofy statements. Speaking of one reporter who led a media-wide feeding frenzy by reporting at length on a supposed Romney gaffe that had somehow 1Cdragged 1D the candidate 1Coff message, 1D Bozell and Graham write, 1CIt 19s typical for liberals to proclaim Republicans are being dragged off message at the very moment they 19re the ones doing the dragging. 1D
There might be a few instances where the authors strain their argument, but the overwhelming number of instances of blatant bias cannot but lead an objective observer to conclude that no Republican candidate can get a fair hearing from the MSM, and that their constant attacks show that the MSM believes in their bones that no Republican deserves a fair hearing.
In their epilogue, the authors discuss the last part of their book 19s title: 1C 26How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016. 1D Their prescriptions are rather general if pertinent. Thirty years ago, the big networks were watched by about a quarter of the American public and now they are watched by fewer than ten percent. Yet the influence of the left-leaning press on public opinion seems to result from the quantity and ubiquity their of hard-hitting if naked propaganda. Even with less direct influence, their greater disregard for ethical rules about trying to be objective still allows them to poison the political environment.
The authors also point up the influence of social media opinion leaders and especially celebrities. People who do not watch network news still watch 1Centertainment 1D programs laden with left-wing political messages. The authors probably understate the influence of more personal contact between leftists and the individuals in their circles. That is one reason why it is widely considered hip to be left. This also accounts for those who know better remaining silent when opinions that are both socially harmful and nonsensical are expressed. In such an environment, the authors suggest that conservatives participate more in the Internet 19s social media phenomenon and challenge the left 19s idiocies. Conservatives need to get more involved in popular culture. Further, conservative politicians should stop placating and trying to be liked by leftist media. When they make unfair attacks, hit back. When they want an interview, insist that it be live. If they edit something you say, publicly point out their deception. Evaluate the source before accepting an interview request from, say, CNN or MSNBC, which hardly anyone watches. They are poorly-rated precisely because they twist the news even more than their big-network brothers, so why give them any chance to distort what you have to say? These answers were implied in the preceding litany of examples of how the MSM has skunked Republican candidates in the past: the MSM will always spin the story their way, and one must never give them the chance to do so. The best policy is to go around the MSM, as Ronald Reagan did, and speak directly to the American people. But to do that, you have to have something to say that appeals to the people, and that message is the next thing for conservative candidates to hone. That focus seems beyond the systematic approach of this book and is only alluded to in passing.
November 4, 2013
Description on how the media says whatever they want to say and how people believe that and how that is how the world works... so what? Well, the message is do not believe on everything you see or hear... but then, what to believe on? This is a difficult book, and although I didn't like the clear bias against Obama, I have to recognize that they got a point. However they were not as effective in their advice on how to discern truth from fantastic manipulation.
February 21, 2016
If you still don't believe the media is biased, you need to read this book. However, when it comes to offering solutions, it falls short of the expectation established by the full title.
November 9, 2013
Frustratingly accurate. It's a shame that American media has died. The citizenry no longer has a watchdog, it has been replaced with an institution that willing manipulates public opinion.
June 11, 2014
Great book! The mainstream news media should take notice that people know there is a Liberal bias. With the popularity of the Internet, many are bypassing them all together. This book is a must read!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews