What do you think?
Rate this book
Copaganda: How Police and the Media Manipulate Our News
From the prizewinning rising legal star, the deeply researched and definitive book on the way the media and police distract us from what matters
“Alec Karakatsanis is a leading voice in the legal struggle to dismantle mass incarceration. . . . What he says cannot be ignored.”
—James Forman‚ Jr.
“Copaganda,” as defined by Alec Karakatsanis, describes a special kind of propaganda, perpetuated by the police and media, that affects who and what we fear and what kinds of social investments we support to address our fears. At a time when the United States incarcerates five times more people per capita than its own historical average and five to ten times more people per capita than other countries, its vast punishment bureaucracy spends huge amounts of time and money manipulating the rest of us to see the world from its point of view.
As a result, we see a grossly distorted version of crime, punishment, and safety in our newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets. The news generates fear by focusing on crimes committed by the most marginalized people while ignoring far more serious threats to our collective well-being, from wage theft by corporations to environmental crimes to the deaths that result from cigarette smoke (which make the number of violent crimes pale in comparison). And it falsely suggests that the best way to respond to our fear is to increase government repression through police, prosecution, and prisons as opposed to addressing the root causes of interpersonal harm.
In the spirit of such classics as Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, Copaganda includes chapters on “What Is News?,” “Public Relations Spending by the Police,” “Whose Perspective? How Sources Shape News,” “How the News Uses Experts,” “How to Smuggle Ideology into the News,” and “Academic Copaganda.“
Already called “one of the most prominent voices on [copaganda]” (Teen Vogue), with a huge following on social media and appearances discussing copaganda on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and The Breakfast Club, Karakatsanis brings a legal eye, humor, gripping personal stories, and a keen ability to read between the lines to a topic at the forefront of one of the most pressing public debates in our society.
“Alec Karakatsanis is a leading voice in the legal struggle to dismantle mass incarceration. . . . What he says cannot be ignored.”
—James Forman‚ Jr.
“Copaganda,” as defined by Alec Karakatsanis, describes a special kind of propaganda, perpetuated by the police and media, that affects who and what we fear and what kinds of social investments we support to address our fears. At a time when the United States incarcerates five times more people per capita than its own historical average and five to ten times more people per capita than other countries, its vast punishment bureaucracy spends huge amounts of time and money manipulating the rest of us to see the world from its point of view.
As a result, we see a grossly distorted version of crime, punishment, and safety in our newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets. The news generates fear by focusing on crimes committed by the most marginalized people while ignoring far more serious threats to our collective well-being, from wage theft by corporations to environmental crimes to the deaths that result from cigarette smoke (which make the number of violent crimes pale in comparison). And it falsely suggests that the best way to respond to our fear is to increase government repression through police, prosecution, and prisons as opposed to addressing the root causes of interpersonal harm.
In the spirit of such classics as Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, Copaganda includes chapters on “What Is News?,” “Public Relations Spending by the Police,” “Whose Perspective? How Sources Shape News,” “How the News Uses Experts,” “How to Smuggle Ideology into the News,” and “Academic Copaganda.“
Already called “one of the most prominent voices on [copaganda]” (Teen Vogue), with a huge following on social media and appearances discussing copaganda on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and The Breakfast Club, Karakatsanis brings a legal eye, humor, gripping personal stories, and a keen ability to read between the lines to a topic at the forefront of one of the most pressing public debates in our society.
421 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 15, 2025
216 people are currently reading
3085 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
April 27, 2025
4.5/5 stars. Big rambling thoughts ahead if you’re interested in that. I found that Copaganda was an informative, accessible, and enjoyable read about this topic. For me, the central arguments of the book were nothing new, but even so the information was quite valuable, especially as I begin to synthesize it with information I’ve learned in other books and life experience and such. Like, this is a book that works best when you read other books about topics related to it, such as surveillance (I say this as I’m reading Dark Matters by Simone Browne).
However, for as much as I did enjoy this book, there is a reason why I have taken off that half star. And that reason is that this book is incomplete. In my opinion, you cannot have a conversation about copaganda without a discussion of the history of policing in the United States and its origin in anti-Blackness and white supremacy, because that history is also the institution of policing’s present reality (policing also protects the interests of the rich, which are intertwined with anti-Blackness and white supremacy as well). Overall this has the effect of…I don’t want to say obscuring but neglecting the fact that copaganda is only one piece of a larger puzzle of the intentional misinformation and social control activities that drive this country. This is referenced at the very end of the book, but in only a passing way, and I think it should have been part of the book’s central themes and arguments. I understand why it was not, it would have been quite the undertaking to include all of this as well, especially for a single writer, but I think it would’ve been better to do this anyway.
Additionally, especially by the end, it has become evident that this book is not exactly for me. Which is okay, not every book has to envision every single person in its audience. This book is for well-off liberals who are only just now grappling with the fascism and authoritarianism in this country. It’s not for people who have been subjugated under said fascism and authoritarianism for decades (centuries).
And even though the book says at the end during its call to action that people reading should now “get involved in their communities”, overall I get the impression that the book is satisfied in being the radical action taken by readers. Consuming the information itself is enough for this book, and I disagree with that. But this is characteristic of liberals like the book is written for—they cannot envision making concrete, personal risks for change in this society. This connects to the issue I had with the book repeatedly assuming good faith from the US American public. A central tenet of this book is that the well-meaning public consumes news that makes them believe regressive policies and police are the best ways to deal with societal ills. And while on a certain level this is true (otherwise the whole argument of the book would be wrong, because why would the police care so much about the news otherwise), I think this neglects the fact that again, copaganda is one of many tools used to encourage the operation of this country. Yeah, people are generally well-meaning, but because of the overarching narratives that have framed what public action we can take, along with copaganda’s best friends in racist propaganda and nation-building propaganda and individualism propaganda, the general public has no desire to take on personal risk for radical change.
And so I find that this book lacks a bit of teeth. For one thing, the government’s role in all of this is slightly obscured. Now, to be clear, the author certainly lays blame at the government’s feet for the situation we find ourselves in. But…not enough, because at times it almost feels like it’s saying that the police are manipulating the *government* when the police are merely the government’s enforcing arms. And the book does endorse this position at times too. So it feels a little inconsistent in that regard. There are times where it seems to genuinely believe in the “well-meaning government official”, and I’m talking about the progressive ones here. But…those don’t really exist. Or they are well-meaning, but in a limited scope, because who they are well-meaning to is limited. If you are a government official, you are invested in the United States as an entity, as a project, and for as long as this country exists, there will *always* be *somebody* subjugated for the “freedom” of the rest of us, and paying lip service to that does not change the fact that you are still invested in this country’s continued existence with only minor changes.
This review has turned into a soapbox, as my reviews tend to do, but this is just how I feel about the book. After all, books are meant to make you think, and this book made me think a lot, which is good! It doesn’t sound like it, but I did really like this one. I think everyone should read it. I just worry a bit that for those who aren’t privy to other conversations, especially from Black folks, about policing, this book might lack the teeth and context necessary to understand and argue for the complete deconstruction and abolition of policing altogether. But I suppose that’s not the book’s argument at all, and that is what I ultimately disagree with. I have an ideological conflict with this book, but I cannot deny that it was well-written, well-researched, and effective.
However, for as much as I did enjoy this book, there is a reason why I have taken off that half star. And that reason is that this book is incomplete. In my opinion, you cannot have a conversation about copaganda without a discussion of the history of policing in the United States and its origin in anti-Blackness and white supremacy, because that history is also the institution of policing’s present reality (policing also protects the interests of the rich, which are intertwined with anti-Blackness and white supremacy as well). Overall this has the effect of…I don’t want to say obscuring but neglecting the fact that copaganda is only one piece of a larger puzzle of the intentional misinformation and social control activities that drive this country. This is referenced at the very end of the book, but in only a passing way, and I think it should have been part of the book’s central themes and arguments. I understand why it was not, it would have been quite the undertaking to include all of this as well, especially for a single writer, but I think it would’ve been better to do this anyway.
Additionally, especially by the end, it has become evident that this book is not exactly for me. Which is okay, not every book has to envision every single person in its audience. This book is for well-off liberals who are only just now grappling with the fascism and authoritarianism in this country. It’s not for people who have been subjugated under said fascism and authoritarianism for decades (centuries).
And even though the book says at the end during its call to action that people reading should now “get involved in their communities”, overall I get the impression that the book is satisfied in being the radical action taken by readers. Consuming the information itself is enough for this book, and I disagree with that. But this is characteristic of liberals like the book is written for—they cannot envision making concrete, personal risks for change in this society. This connects to the issue I had with the book repeatedly assuming good faith from the US American public. A central tenet of this book is that the well-meaning public consumes news that makes them believe regressive policies and police are the best ways to deal with societal ills. And while on a certain level this is true (otherwise the whole argument of the book would be wrong, because why would the police care so much about the news otherwise), I think this neglects the fact that again, copaganda is one of many tools used to encourage the operation of this country. Yeah, people are generally well-meaning, but because of the overarching narratives that have framed what public action we can take, along with copaganda’s best friends in racist propaganda and nation-building propaganda and individualism propaganda, the general public has no desire to take on personal risk for radical change.
And so I find that this book lacks a bit of teeth. For one thing, the government’s role in all of this is slightly obscured. Now, to be clear, the author certainly lays blame at the government’s feet for the situation we find ourselves in. But…not enough, because at times it almost feels like it’s saying that the police are manipulating the *government* when the police are merely the government’s enforcing arms. And the book does endorse this position at times too. So it feels a little inconsistent in that regard. There are times where it seems to genuinely believe in the “well-meaning government official”, and I’m talking about the progressive ones here. But…those don’t really exist. Or they are well-meaning, but in a limited scope, because who they are well-meaning to is limited. If you are a government official, you are invested in the United States as an entity, as a project, and for as long as this country exists, there will *always* be *somebody* subjugated for the “freedom” of the rest of us, and paying lip service to that does not change the fact that you are still invested in this country’s continued existence with only minor changes.
This review has turned into a soapbox, as my reviews tend to do, but this is just how I feel about the book. After all, books are meant to make you think, and this book made me think a lot, which is good! It doesn’t sound like it, but I did really like this one. I think everyone should read it. I just worry a bit that for those who aren’t privy to other conversations, especially from Black folks, about policing, this book might lack the teeth and context necessary to understand and argue for the complete deconstruction and abolition of policing altogether. But I suppose that’s not the book’s argument at all, and that is what I ultimately disagree with. I have an ideological conflict with this book, but I cannot deny that it was well-written, well-researched, and effective.
June 1, 2025
I don’t think I’ll ever stop thinking about the things I learned from this book. Absolutely brilliant
September 17, 2025
“Copaganda keeps the public in a vague state of fear.”
This book by Alec Karakatsanis lays out important facts in manipulation of media by media and what he names “the punishment bureaucracy” [cops, pic, gov’t, academia]. It’s obvious that the media works to control narrative to protect the rich and powerful. But here it is laid out in a way that is undeniable and easy to connect all the parts. I found this, as a non-fiction, really digestible and flew through it. I like how the author adds in screenshots and graphs, which helps break up the content as well.
I’ve followed Karakatsanis on twitter for years and so I was excited to see this book from him covering an important topic. It did not disappoint. Alec rightfully questions what is considered crime and why and who it benefits, dissects major stories to show how media manipulation by the punishment bureaucracy works, and delightfully inserts his own humor throughout.
“The system profits from its own injustice.”
In detail the book explores how this profit driven punishment system upholds toxic and harmful systems that punish Black people and low-income people while protecting the violence of people who are wealthy and white. It also dissects common talking points like “underfunding”, drugs, and violent crime that are used as ways to underfund social services while overfunded police. It is one of those books where nothing is particularly surprising but all the same it is refreshing to have the facts laid out so plainly and in such a digestible way.
I highly recommend this book and easily fits into my favorite non-fiction published this year.
Thank you to the publisher for the copy
This book by Alec Karakatsanis lays out important facts in manipulation of media by media and what he names “the punishment bureaucracy” [cops, pic, gov’t, academia]. It’s obvious that the media works to control narrative to protect the rich and powerful. But here it is laid out in a way that is undeniable and easy to connect all the parts. I found this, as a non-fiction, really digestible and flew through it. I like how the author adds in screenshots and graphs, which helps break up the content as well.
I’ve followed Karakatsanis on twitter for years and so I was excited to see this book from him covering an important topic. It did not disappoint. Alec rightfully questions what is considered crime and why and who it benefits, dissects major stories to show how media manipulation by the punishment bureaucracy works, and delightfully inserts his own humor throughout.
“The system profits from its own injustice.”
In detail the book explores how this profit driven punishment system upholds toxic and harmful systems that punish Black people and low-income people while protecting the violence of people who are wealthy and white. It also dissects common talking points like “underfunding”, drugs, and violent crime that are used as ways to underfund social services while overfunded police. It is one of those books where nothing is particularly surprising but all the same it is refreshing to have the facts laid out so plainly and in such a digestible way.
I highly recommend this book and easily fits into my favorite non-fiction published this year.
Thank you to the publisher for the copy
July 21, 2025
5/5 this book has completely changed how I view mainstream news (including the "liberal" ones!)
"It turns things about our society that should shock us to the core into things we do not even notice, into things we meet with a million isolated shrugs and a sense of helplessness, or, perhaps in the end, into things we celebrate and crave like fiends. The final nail in the copaganda coffin is that we view this process as becoming “informed.”"
this quote shook me to my core this book is a must read
I also really like how he dissected specific real news articles and how they push propaganda
if I had to nitpick I would have liked the author to specifically call out that the systems in power are created by white people but it definitely is implied
"It turns things about our society that should shock us to the core into things we do not even notice, into things we meet with a million isolated shrugs and a sense of helplessness, or, perhaps in the end, into things we celebrate and crave like fiends. The final nail in the copaganda coffin is that we view this process as becoming “informed.”"
this quote shook me to my core this book is a must read
I also really like how he dissected specific real news articles and how they push propaganda
if I had to nitpick I would have liked the author to specifically call out that the systems in power are created by white people but it definitely is implied
Read
August 31, 2025Unfortunately a chore to finish. I don’t disagree with the author’s arguments and I think he makes a compelling case for how much journalistic malpractice there is on the topic of policing, but I really think he needed a better editor or more rounds of editing or more editors. The structure of the book felt meandering and man does the author love listing things. I don’t think there is a page in this book that doesn’t have at least 1 list of 4-8 elements and that is annoying as a reader.
November 2, 2025
This book was not done yet. It's repetitive, frequently incautious in his claims, regularly unnecessarily ad hominem, and often it reads like a barstool rant, which is fine if you're on a barstool I suppose. It's a real shame because the line of argument that Karakatsanis sets out to make is a good one. But the end result here is not an effective one for me. A good example of how a good argument made messily or irresponsibly is a good argument not made.
November 11, 2025
ACAB includes The New York Times and CNN. Defending the police is kinda impossible for someone to do and also very LAME. Very good book I love how sassy he writes and doesn’t hide his contempt for police or media one bit.
July 17, 2025
“Copaganda convinces people that sadly, much to our discomfort as caring people, there is no way to solve the serious problems of our society. Having reluctantly come to that conclusion, we now have to expand authoritarian measures to manage those problems through violence. We wish we didn’t have to do this, but we’ve tried everything else” (pp. 316).
“By cultivating ignorance about what defunding police means and whether it happened, [The New York Times] manufactures a false narrative that progressives implemented their policies, which then failed. Most of the article is about Dallas, but it doesn’t tell readers that Dallas didn’t reduce police funding at all. The article claims that a progressive policy, which was never implemented, caused an increase in crime, which did not happen, and that therefore funding, which was never cut, is now being restored” (pp. 236).
Wow… it’s hard to decide where to start with this book. A masterpiece in dissecting the political economy of crime reporting done by so-called liberal-leaning outlets like the NYT. The service that the language and sourcing of their work and that of other major American newspapers does to power cannot escape Karakatsanis, and righftully so. This book is absolutely required reading for anyone who consumes this sort of media regularly, as it will allow you to approach it with an appropriate critical lens. Lessons learned can be applied beyond crime reporting, and indeed to how the New York Times covers progressive movements in general (see Mamdani coverage for obvious recent examples of NYT bootlicking).
There are so many things to love about this book. It avoids the low-hanging fruit of Fox News, NY Post, etc., instead dismantling the reliability of outlets more respected by the liberal mainstream. It completely unpacks and discredits the media frenzy around Chesa Boudin and the fabricated San Francisco “crime wave” that led to the unjustified demonization of that city on a national scale (an incredibly frustrating lie that is very close to my heart). It reveals how language around policy reform helps to define the appropriate spectrum of debate (a la Chomsky). It calls out self-styled liberals in journalism, politics, and business for hamstringing evidence-backed progressive change while hypocritically claiming to hold values that this change would advance. Lastly, it ends with a measured optimism regarding our capability to seeking out the truth and construct communities immune to the harmful lies told by the media to serve elites.
Besides identifying with so many of the critiques Karakatsanis made, I also just learned so much about the punishment bureaucracy through this book. How about those dozens-strong PR staffs at the LAPD and Chicago PD? Or the fact that body cameras were favored by many pro-police organizations for their surveillance capabilities, and indeed have largely been used in courtrooms for that purpose?
I also found myself very inspired by the author’s own journey through criminal/civil rights law as a lot of his goals mirror some of my own, which I sometimes doubt I can accomplish. I look forward to engaging with people who have such an unwavering commitment to truth and justice in law school and my career; as Karakatsanis notes in the book, it’s always rewarding to be surrounded by people who challenge you and hold you accountable in acting in accordance with these values.
“By cultivating ignorance about what defunding police means and whether it happened, [The New York Times] manufactures a false narrative that progressives implemented their policies, which then failed. Most of the article is about Dallas, but it doesn’t tell readers that Dallas didn’t reduce police funding at all. The article claims that a progressive policy, which was never implemented, caused an increase in crime, which did not happen, and that therefore funding, which was never cut, is now being restored” (pp. 236).
Wow… it’s hard to decide where to start with this book. A masterpiece in dissecting the political economy of crime reporting done by so-called liberal-leaning outlets like the NYT. The service that the language and sourcing of their work and that of other major American newspapers does to power cannot escape Karakatsanis, and righftully so. This book is absolutely required reading for anyone who consumes this sort of media regularly, as it will allow you to approach it with an appropriate critical lens. Lessons learned can be applied beyond crime reporting, and indeed to how the New York Times covers progressive movements in general (see Mamdani coverage for obvious recent examples of NYT bootlicking).
There are so many things to love about this book. It avoids the low-hanging fruit of Fox News, NY Post, etc., instead dismantling the reliability of outlets more respected by the liberal mainstream. It completely unpacks and discredits the media frenzy around Chesa Boudin and the fabricated San Francisco “crime wave” that led to the unjustified demonization of that city on a national scale (an incredibly frustrating lie that is very close to my heart). It reveals how language around policy reform helps to define the appropriate spectrum of debate (a la Chomsky). It calls out self-styled liberals in journalism, politics, and business for hamstringing evidence-backed progressive change while hypocritically claiming to hold values that this change would advance. Lastly, it ends with a measured optimism regarding our capability to seeking out the truth and construct communities immune to the harmful lies told by the media to serve elites.
Besides identifying with so many of the critiques Karakatsanis made, I also just learned so much about the punishment bureaucracy through this book. How about those dozens-strong PR staffs at the LAPD and Chicago PD? Or the fact that body cameras were favored by many pro-police organizations for their surveillance capabilities, and indeed have largely been used in courtrooms for that purpose?
I also found myself very inspired by the author’s own journey through criminal/civil rights law as a lot of his goals mirror some of my own, which I sometimes doubt I can accomplish. I look forward to engaging with people who have such an unwavering commitment to truth and justice in law school and my career; as Karakatsanis notes in the book, it’s always rewarding to be surrounded by people who challenge you and hold you accountable in acting in accordance with these values.
August 12, 2025
Everyone should read this
August 29, 2025
4.5 - persuasive and compelling read that convinced that me that “well-read and informed neoliberals” are among the most susceptible people to propaganda. I appreciated Karakatsanis’ clear-eyed conviction but found this book to restate itself and drag on a bit towards the end.
The NYT is much more insidious than I (previously a hater) even realized…
The NYT is much more insidious than I (previously a hater) even realized…
December 14, 2025
this book was utterly scathing in the best way possible. the authors (who i’ve followed on twitter since like 2018 and was one of the gateways to my radicalization which is why i wanted to read this book so bad) anger at what he is writing abt comes across so clearly, and he sprinkles in sarcastic humor that makes this book not only informational, but fun as well. and his credentials are no joke. just look him up and you’ll see — this man knows ball. this book was uniquely interesting to me having just done a thesis where i researched news norms and having long held beliefs aligning w those expressed in this book. i do think that my pre existing knowledge of journalistic practices was helpful to my understanding of this book and my only critique was that, for readers with less background knowledge, some added context of news structures would be helpful here, specifically from herbert gans deciding what’s news. anyways this book was very well researched and, again, the author references anecdotes from his personal experience as a civil rights lawyer and founder of a civil rights law org (among other achievements) that lends added credibility to the content of the book. if you are interested in manufacturing consent-esque analyses of news content, and are a police and prison abolitionist you should definitely read this. the author does an excellent job at calling out all of the news hypocrisy, self-contradictions, journalistic malpractice via strategies such as manipulating facts, exclusion of certain voices, and more. an excellent portrait of a news landscape that embraces the talking points from what the author refers to as the “punishment bureaucracy” (that is, police and prosecutors and elected officials and corporations who profit off of policing and incarceration technologies). i also appreciated how he touched upon the role of the news in generating a sense of fear among the public in order to increase support for repressive policies - this is a sociological arena i think is especially important in current times. analysis of how the media promotes and upholds punitive policies is tied to analysis of the role of things such as material and structural inequalities in generating crime. i appreciated how this wasn’t just a book about the news - all aspects of the system of over policing and mass incarceration that exists in america are touched upon. for example, the author takes care to note that there are a plethora of crimes carried out by the powerful that go unpoliced, while poor and marginalized communities are targeted through enforcement of low level offenses. better yet, the concluding chapter of the book is actionable. karakatsanis provides am abundance of strategies one can use to combat a media landscape that promotes punitive and repressive policies for managing community safety. also, this book is very accessible in terms of language. it is not steeped in jargon or written in an overly complicated manner which i think is great for readers.
July 10, 2025
This should be required reading for anyone who reads the news. It's an excellent critique of the ways the punishment bureaucracy manipulates the truth to mislead consumers of news, and has thorough breakdowns of the methods and falsehoods we're fed on the regular.
Though I do disagree with some of the author's points about the ways to combat it and I think some aspects of journalism aren't presented completely. For example, it's not as simple as convincing journalists to ask better questions and produce more informative, well-rounded news pieces (even though I think they should!).
It's really, really difficult to produce well thought out news stories because of the way the newsrooms are set up to make money (more sensational news stories=more clicks=bigger audience for advertisers). And the less $$ a news outlet makes, the more difficult the job of a journalist is. Most journalists are expected to produce several stories a week, and often have to juggle being their own fact checkers, editors, photographers, social media managers, and more. And they get paid very little to do a lot. And editors reject good stories left and right because they may think (with data to back it up) that one will get a lot of readers and another will not.
Karakatsanis did give credit to this in one section where a producer talked about how easy it is to turn a police report into a soundbite, given all they have to do in one day. So ya, cutting the police PR budget would be great so that they don't keep feeding news outlets their version of a story.
But that doesn't change audience behavior, and it doesn't change journalists working conditions, and it doesn't change police or politician's behavior. If news outlets stopped producing sensational stories, people will crowdsource their sensational stories on apps like NextDoor (this is already happening).
For all his arguments about how addressing poverty and material resources would reduce crime/interpersonal harm, and how politicians, police, and prosecutors distort the truth, he doesn't address how working conditions in newsrooms - and let's zoom out and look at large in the US - contribute to this cycle.
I could get into the weeds about this but I don't want to do it all on a goodreads review. Just read the book!
Though I do disagree with some of the author's points about the ways to combat it and I think some aspects of journalism aren't presented completely. For example, it's not as simple as convincing journalists to ask better questions and produce more informative, well-rounded news pieces (even though I think they should!).
It's really, really difficult to produce well thought out news stories because of the way the newsrooms are set up to make money (more sensational news stories=more clicks=bigger audience for advertisers). And the less $$ a news outlet makes, the more difficult the job of a journalist is. Most journalists are expected to produce several stories a week, and often have to juggle being their own fact checkers, editors, photographers, social media managers, and more. And they get paid very little to do a lot. And editors reject good stories left and right because they may think (with data to back it up) that one will get a lot of readers and another will not.
Karakatsanis did give credit to this in one section where a producer talked about how easy it is to turn a police report into a soundbite, given all they have to do in one day. So ya, cutting the police PR budget would be great so that they don't keep feeding news outlets their version of a story.
But that doesn't change audience behavior, and it doesn't change journalists working conditions, and it doesn't change police or politician's behavior. If news outlets stopped producing sensational stories, people will crowdsource their sensational stories on apps like NextDoor (this is already happening).
For all his arguments about how addressing poverty and material resources would reduce crime/interpersonal harm, and how politicians, police, and prosecutors distort the truth, he doesn't address how working conditions in newsrooms - and let's zoom out and look at large in the US - contribute to this cycle.
I could get into the weeds about this but I don't want to do it all on a goodreads review. Just read the book!
September 25, 2025
Copaganda is not a history book per se. Alec Karawhatever filled in the gaps of my understanding of policing in America, and his audiobook deserves 5 stars. More importantly, Copaganda deserves to be listened to or read. I doubt I could get the police I know to try it, but I will recommend it to open-minded people I know. If you're sure our current system of "justice" works well, you might not have the intellect to benefit from this book. But, hey, surprise yourself.
About the narration: Alec K rumbles and stumbles over the text he wrote himself, but that's okay. He's just doing what a lot us do when we speak with passion, and boy is he passionate. I appreciate that. Yes, he repeats himself with the major points in his argument, which is that the establishment (both political parties, police, and many companies) are complicit in supporting an industry of incarceration that makes the US a pathetic outlier among the nations of the world. I find repetition in non-fiction serves to cement the important parts in readers' memories. I'm an old fart, so I need it. Any day now, you will too.
This is a must read or must listen for anyone who gives a rats ass about the marginalized in our country. At the conclusion, he lists steps anyone can take to make a difference in changing a truly malevolent system.
I like to do a Wiki-dive into a new author before I decide to invest many hours on his or her book. I found Abrakadakas to be an impressive human being whose message needs to be broadcast.
Alert: if you are offended by the iterations of the word fuck, forget everything above. You'll hate Al Karaccas' work. You can settle on reading silly novels or you could grow a pair, challenge your assumptions, and learn something important.
About the narration: Alec K rumbles and stumbles over the text he wrote himself, but that's okay. He's just doing what a lot us do when we speak with passion, and boy is he passionate. I appreciate that. Yes, he repeats himself with the major points in his argument, which is that the establishment (both political parties, police, and many companies) are complicit in supporting an industry of incarceration that makes the US a pathetic outlier among the nations of the world. I find repetition in non-fiction serves to cement the important parts in readers' memories. I'm an old fart, so I need it. Any day now, you will too.
This is a must read or must listen for anyone who gives a rats ass about the marginalized in our country. At the conclusion, he lists steps anyone can take to make a difference in changing a truly malevolent system.
I like to do a Wiki-dive into a new author before I decide to invest many hours on his or her book. I found Abrakadakas to be an impressive human being whose message needs to be broadcast.
Alert: if you are offended by the iterations of the word fuck, forget everything above. You'll hate Al Karaccas' work. You can settle on reading silly novels or you could grow a pair, challenge your assumptions, and learn something important.
August 15, 2025
This book will explain how police and media manipulate our news, but it also calls attention to our lack of critical thinking and teaches one to be a more informed reader of journalism - there's even a list in the last chapter. The questions and criticisms around the specific topic in the book can be used to interrogate everything we read to better avoid misinformation on other subjects from local politics to justifications for genocide.
One of the most memorable things is the discussion around how punishment bureaucracy and supporters always say critics of the punishment bureaucracy have no solutions - and this silences all debate on social causes of violence. There are solutions and we should be discussing them in the media before just giving all the budget money to police. Studies show reallocating money to mental health, housing, education, non-police emergency response units, etc are what reduces crime, not more heavily armed police abd harsher punishments.
As much as that message needs to get out, learning or re-learning how to think critically is arguably more valuable for making changes in that direction.
One of the most memorable things is the discussion around how punishment bureaucracy and supporters always say critics of the punishment bureaucracy have no solutions - and this silences all debate on social causes of violence. There are solutions and we should be discussing them in the media before just giving all the budget money to police. Studies show reallocating money to mental health, housing, education, non-police emergency response units, etc are what reduces crime, not more heavily armed police abd harsher punishments.
As much as that message needs to get out, learning or re-learning how to think critically is arguably more valuable for making changes in that direction.
September 16, 2025
I am devastated a man wrote something this good and occasionally funny. He also had the audacity to quote some of my favorite authors—Graeber and Scott. No, but seriously, love this book. I appreciate and treasure anything that helps me grow closer to the ideals I wish to practice; Karakatsanis did just that by pointing out blind spots in my understanding of copaganda—for example, the punishment bureaucracy’s drive to get and the uses it has for police body cameras.
July 19, 2025
I initially was hesitant to pick it up because I feared it’d be dense and a tough slog. I was pleased to find it was a quick read, with a surprising amount of humor. Did it depress me? No, actually it helped illuminate so much of what the problem is, so that I can do my small part to combat it. Absolutely essential reading for anyone who lives in a society.
November 13, 2025
Every journalist should read this. He makes a very compelling argument about how most stories on public safety and policing are incomplete and biased. Although we can't implement all his ideas in our stories as that would also be bias, I got many good takeaways.
April 22, 2025
Thoughtful, informative, and insightful. I knew Copanda was a major issue, but I didn't realize it covered so many outlets and forms.
also Zeitgang!
also Zeitgang!
June 23, 2025
This definitely was not a Winn-Dixie romance, I don't care what my friend Phil says.
Read
October 6, 2025this book is phenomenal yet frustrating. the research was thorough and the thesis was strong, but the chapters felt bloated and repetitive. i’d 100% recommend it for the content though!
May 15, 2025
An absolute must-read by every US citizen and resident. A non-stop gut punch of reality about the US’s criminally unjust system.
Author Alec Karakatsanis hits it out of the park once again, off the heals of his 2019 bone-chilling book "Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System".
Don’t get me wrong. This book is tough to get through. But it has absolutely zero filler. It thoroughly debunks the decades of Copaganda perpetuated by the media, government officials, the police, and others that make their money in our punishment bureaucracy. Learning to recognize and call out Copaganda is critical in eroding its efficacy. This thoroughly researched book will make you an expert in spotting and debunking it.
This is not just in “right-wing” media. NPR and The New York Times is full of Copaganda too. All mainstream media, regardless of their opinions of abortion, trans people, or the current presidential administration, ALL OF THEM repeat Copaganda at the behest of those in power who benefit.
This is why it drives me crazy when I see those “media bias charts” or see ads for Ground News. All “progressive” news orgs to the right of Jacobin perpetuate Copaganda and yet they’re still labeled “liberal” or “progressive” or whatever whitewashing label they come up with next time. There’s a reason why leftists say “liberals are the progressive wing of the fascist party.” (It’s because it’s true).
If you genuinely think the New York Times is “left-wing” or “progressive, then you’ve successfully been indoctrinated with propaganda. Congratulations.
The book deserves every iota of praise I and others have lofted upon it. I cannot effectively find the words to describe how good it is. I’ve ordered 2 physical copies. Not certain what I’m gonna do with the 2nd.
“[T]hroughout U.S. history, police have turned to surveillance, violence, infiltration, SWAT raids, false-flag operations, lobbying, threats, assassinations, political advocacy, public relations, and intimidation to oppose progressive social movements. Therefore, it makes little sense to gesture at reducing inequality while advocating more money and power for cops, because the more money and power police get, the more they have used it to block that agenda.”
I witnessed this first hand when a roommate of mine helped put together a peaceful protest in 2020 and the police harassed him and his parents to discourage more peaceful protests against police brutality.
I’ve also had a friend of mine gunned down by police in a shootout while driving home from work where police were using cars of pedestrians as human shields in busy traffic. The police obstructed justice for half a decade before finally admitting that it was their officers’ bullets that killed him.
Indoctrinated copagandists tried to gaslight me into believing that the reality of his needless slaying was somehow not the police’s fault.
Members of my own family have been harassed by police when attempting to seek justice against them.
Police did not “mishandle” the 2020 George Floyd protests with their criminal brutality as corporate media asserts. They did exactly as they were designed to do: brutally oppress anyone who threatens their power. That’s a driving purpose of police.
There is absolutely zero possibility of solving our police brutality/punishment bureaucracy problem by “better funding” or “better training” the police. No amount of body cameras or “racial bias” training or any other reform efforts will fix this. There is not a problem with “bad apple’s” because there are no “good apples” to be spoiled. There is no such thing as a “good cop”. It is oxymoronic.
Those who say “this isn’t who we are” when a cop does something particularly horrible, they are intentionally lying (aka: spreading copaganda). Brutality is the point. Cruelty and murder is the point of policing, by design, originating from the first existence of police as a societal concept. The legalized lawlessness of these state-sanctioned gangsters harms all of us (except the 1% of course, whom they actually protect and serve). Defund the police. Abolish the police. ACAB.
I recommend this book to every soul on earth.
Author Alec Karakatsanis hits it out of the park once again, off the heals of his 2019 bone-chilling book "Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System".
Don’t get me wrong. This book is tough to get through. But it has absolutely zero filler. It thoroughly debunks the decades of Copaganda perpetuated by the media, government officials, the police, and others that make their money in our punishment bureaucracy. Learning to recognize and call out Copaganda is critical in eroding its efficacy. This thoroughly researched book will make you an expert in spotting and debunking it.
This is not just in “right-wing” media. NPR and The New York Times is full of Copaganda too. All mainstream media, regardless of their opinions of abortion, trans people, or the current presidential administration, ALL OF THEM repeat Copaganda at the behest of those in power who benefit.
This is why it drives me crazy when I see those “media bias charts” or see ads for Ground News. All “progressive” news orgs to the right of Jacobin perpetuate Copaganda and yet they’re still labeled “liberal” or “progressive” or whatever whitewashing label they come up with next time. There’s a reason why leftists say “liberals are the progressive wing of the fascist party.” (It’s because it’s true).
If you genuinely think the New York Times is “left-wing” or “progressive, then you’ve successfully been indoctrinated with propaganda. Congratulations.
The book deserves every iota of praise I and others have lofted upon it. I cannot effectively find the words to describe how good it is. I’ve ordered 2 physical copies. Not certain what I’m gonna do with the 2nd.
“[T]hroughout U.S. history, police have turned to surveillance, violence, infiltration, SWAT raids, false-flag operations, lobbying, threats, assassinations, political advocacy, public relations, and intimidation to oppose progressive social movements. Therefore, it makes little sense to gesture at reducing inequality while advocating more money and power for cops, because the more money and power police get, the more they have used it to block that agenda.”
I witnessed this first hand when a roommate of mine helped put together a peaceful protest in 2020 and the police harassed him and his parents to discourage more peaceful protests against police brutality.
I’ve also had a friend of mine gunned down by police in a shootout while driving home from work where police were using cars of pedestrians as human shields in busy traffic. The police obstructed justice for half a decade before finally admitting that it was their officers’ bullets that killed him.
Indoctrinated copagandists tried to gaslight me into believing that the reality of his needless slaying was somehow not the police’s fault.
Members of my own family have been harassed by police when attempting to seek justice against them.
Police did not “mishandle” the 2020 George Floyd protests with their criminal brutality as corporate media asserts. They did exactly as they were designed to do: brutally oppress anyone who threatens their power. That’s a driving purpose of police.
There is absolutely zero possibility of solving our police brutality/punishment bureaucracy problem by “better funding” or “better training” the police. No amount of body cameras or “racial bias” training or any other reform efforts will fix this. There is not a problem with “bad apple’s” because there are no “good apples” to be spoiled. There is no such thing as a “good cop”. It is oxymoronic.
Those who say “this isn’t who we are” when a cop does something particularly horrible, they are intentionally lying (aka: spreading copaganda). Brutality is the point. Cruelty and murder is the point of policing, by design, originating from the first existence of police as a societal concept. The legalized lawlessness of these state-sanctioned gangsters harms all of us (except the 1% of course, whom they actually protect and serve). Defund the police. Abolish the police. ACAB.
I recommend this book to every soul on earth.
March 17, 2025
This Book Has So Very Many Problems. Read It Anyway. First, let's dispense with the fact that this is a fairly well documented book, clocking in at about 26% documentation... even if Karakatsanis' sources are pretty clearly slanted one direction... which we'll get into momentarily. No matter what else is said here, everyone considering reading this text should at least appreciate that Karakatsanis clearly shows his work. :)
Because of my own work and experiences within the anti-police-brutality spaces and indeed even the projects I was working with before giving them up in favor of book blogging, I bring a lot to this particular book that not everyone will have... which gives me a fairly unique perspective on it overall.
I can tell you that even as a former Libertarian Party official and activist, and thus someone who knew a lot of people of a *very* wide range of political persuasions... I've known *few* over the years who would be to the left of Karakatsanis. Indeed, your opinion of terms like "pregnant person" and "wage theft" is likely a good barometer of how often you're going to want to defenestrate this particular text. "Wage theft" seemingly a phrase Karakatsanis is particularly fond of.
This noted, *from his perspective*, the narrative here is at least largely coherent, and even from such a far leftist perspective, he brings up a fair amount of solid points that every American *should* read and understand... even if you have to squeeze your nose so hard you'll be afraid it will turn into a diamond as you do.
The problem, and the star deduction, comes from the simple fact that very nearly every single logical problem Karakatsanis decries in others... he also largely *employs* in building his "arguments" against them.
Hell, he even manages to fall into former Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington's "perception of crime" problem - claiming over and over (and over and over and over and over...) that "statistics say" crime is down (which, as he points out, is *always true*... when you're selective with your time ranges ;) ) even as people report seeing ever more crime. As Richard Pryor famously said - "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
Indeed, part of the star deduction also comes from the pervasive "no true Scotsman" problem that runs rampant through this text. No matter how far left the politician, no matter how hard the most progressive activists pushed for a particular policy - especially in California and particularly the Bay Area - Karakatsanis *insists* that the policies were never actually progressive, that it was instead the bureaucrats and the media ("controlled" by the usual leftist scapegoats) - those he deems the "punishment bureaucracy" and that the *actual* leftist policy had never been implemented.
Still, despite the rampant problems and extremist politics, there really is quite a bit here about understanding how police and media collude and conspire to hide essential information from the rest of us, so you really do need to read this book.
Ultimately, I think there is a point Karakatsanis tries to make but utterly fails to, in his attempt to appear authoritative here:
Question. Everything.
Including this book.
And I'll go so far as to say even this very review.
Read the book yourself. Write your own review of it - cuss me up one wall and down the other if you think I deserve it, if you think Karakatsanis is perfectly correct in all things and should never possibly be even looked askance at, much less questioned. Or maybe you'll agree with me to some extent or another. *My* entire point here is to get you to read the book yourself and make up your own mind about it. I guarantee you you're going to learn *something* you didn't previously know along the way.
Recommended.
Because of my own work and experiences within the anti-police-brutality spaces and indeed even the projects I was working with before giving them up in favor of book blogging, I bring a lot to this particular book that not everyone will have... which gives me a fairly unique perspective on it overall.
I can tell you that even as a former Libertarian Party official and activist, and thus someone who knew a lot of people of a *very* wide range of political persuasions... I've known *few* over the years who would be to the left of Karakatsanis. Indeed, your opinion of terms like "pregnant person" and "wage theft" is likely a good barometer of how often you're going to want to defenestrate this particular text. "Wage theft" seemingly a phrase Karakatsanis is particularly fond of.
This noted, *from his perspective*, the narrative here is at least largely coherent, and even from such a far leftist perspective, he brings up a fair amount of solid points that every American *should* read and understand... even if you have to squeeze your nose so hard you'll be afraid it will turn into a diamond as you do.
The problem, and the star deduction, comes from the simple fact that very nearly every single logical problem Karakatsanis decries in others... he also largely *employs* in building his "arguments" against them.
Hell, he even manages to fall into former Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington's "perception of crime" problem - claiming over and over (and over and over and over and over...) that "statistics say" crime is down (which, as he points out, is *always true*... when you're selective with your time ranges ;) ) even as people report seeing ever more crime. As Richard Pryor famously said - "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
Indeed, part of the star deduction also comes from the pervasive "no true Scotsman" problem that runs rampant through this text. No matter how far left the politician, no matter how hard the most progressive activists pushed for a particular policy - especially in California and particularly the Bay Area - Karakatsanis *insists* that the policies were never actually progressive, that it was instead the bureaucrats and the media ("controlled" by the usual leftist scapegoats) - those he deems the "punishment bureaucracy" and that the *actual* leftist policy had never been implemented.
Still, despite the rampant problems and extremist politics, there really is quite a bit here about understanding how police and media collude and conspire to hide essential information from the rest of us, so you really do need to read this book.
Ultimately, I think there is a point Karakatsanis tries to make but utterly fails to, in his attempt to appear authoritative here:
Question. Everything.
Including this book.
And I'll go so far as to say even this very review.
Read the book yourself. Write your own review of it - cuss me up one wall and down the other if you think I deserve it, if you think Karakatsanis is perfectly correct in all things and should never possibly be even looked askance at, much less questioned. Or maybe you'll agree with me to some extent or another. *My* entire point here is to get you to read the book yourself and make up your own mind about it. I guarantee you you're going to learn *something* you didn't previously know along the way.
Recommended.
Read
August 10, 2025DNF. I'm actually not going to give this book a rating, because I feel that it could be incredibly helpful to some people, particularly those who don't have media training. I'm not finishing it because it does something that is incredibly annoying to me: It places the onus for fighting copaganda on journalists and average citizens rather than the moneyed interests who promote that copaganda.
I understand why the author does this, because ultimately the onus IS on the average person. However, the huge blind spot in this book is that it portrays the media's decision to focus on petty crime as the agenda of powerful people ONLY, rather than as a money-making strategy. Of course, there are powerful people who make the decisions about what is reported on and what isn't. But the problem goes deeper than that--In a for-profit media environment, fear and sensationalism are the best ways to make money, and it has been this way for much of American history. Yellow journalism in this country has been happening for well over 150 years.
When we take this fact into account, the author's idealized vision of the news seems incredibly naïve. Believe me, I would love it if news companies reported on large systemic issues like racism and white-collar crime with frequency, but those are simply not the stories that make them money. The news depends almost entirely on emotion for profit, and police PR departments simply exploit this money-making strategy for their own purposes. If a news outlet fails to produce some sort of emotion in a reader, then it simply will not make money, period.
Powerful people will always engage in bad behavior; it's a tale as old as time. Particularly when it comes to large-scale, structural issues, news outlets don't report on them with a lot of volume because the change is very slow moving and not very exciting. You cannot report on structural racism on a daily basis because there's nothing "new" to report--It will be there today, tomorrow, and the next day. That doesn't make it a less urgent issue, but people will not engage with the news if it is reporting on issues that are not "sexy" to them. People tend to be far more concerned about their own bodily safety than about invisible structural problems that only marginally affect them.
With all that being said, it might have been better for the author to write a manifesto on the ways that he thinks media can change structurally rather than compiling a catalog of evidence of copaganda. I think that many people already realize that powerful people and law enforcement authorities influence the news in significant ways. They might not realize how deep it goes, and if they want to get a better idea of that, then they should read this book. But it is very frustrating that a book so focused on systemic injustice doesn't provide any suggestions for systemic solutions. It falls into the neoliberal trap of telling individuals to stop propaganda by asking better questions, instead of telling people to organize en masse to confront the powers that be.
I understand why the author does this, because ultimately the onus IS on the average person. However, the huge blind spot in this book is that it portrays the media's decision to focus on petty crime as the agenda of powerful people ONLY, rather than as a money-making strategy. Of course, there are powerful people who make the decisions about what is reported on and what isn't. But the problem goes deeper than that--In a for-profit media environment, fear and sensationalism are the best ways to make money, and it has been this way for much of American history. Yellow journalism in this country has been happening for well over 150 years.
When we take this fact into account, the author's idealized vision of the news seems incredibly naïve. Believe me, I would love it if news companies reported on large systemic issues like racism and white-collar crime with frequency, but those are simply not the stories that make them money. The news depends almost entirely on emotion for profit, and police PR departments simply exploit this money-making strategy for their own purposes. If a news outlet fails to produce some sort of emotion in a reader, then it simply will not make money, period.
Powerful people will always engage in bad behavior; it's a tale as old as time. Particularly when it comes to large-scale, structural issues, news outlets don't report on them with a lot of volume because the change is very slow moving and not very exciting. You cannot report on structural racism on a daily basis because there's nothing "new" to report--It will be there today, tomorrow, and the next day. That doesn't make it a less urgent issue, but people will not engage with the news if it is reporting on issues that are not "sexy" to them. People tend to be far more concerned about their own bodily safety than about invisible structural problems that only marginally affect them.
With all that being said, it might have been better for the author to write a manifesto on the ways that he thinks media can change structurally rather than compiling a catalog of evidence of copaganda. I think that many people already realize that powerful people and law enforcement authorities influence the news in significant ways. They might not realize how deep it goes, and if they want to get a better idea of that, then they should read this book. But it is very frustrating that a book so focused on systemic injustice doesn't provide any suggestions for systemic solutions. It falls into the neoliberal trap of telling individuals to stop propaganda by asking better questions, instead of telling people to organize en masse to confront the powers that be.
October 11, 2025
“Copaganda” is a master-class in media analysis.
I can barely scratch the surface of nuggets here. Between 2006 and 2024, at least 52,529 guns once owned by police were later used to commit a crime. One-third of all murders by strangers in the U.S. are by police.
We see the complicit nature of the media in funneling money into the punishment bureaucracy, increasing the authoritarian base every step of the way. The mainstream media seems to never honestly look at the real reform proposals activists have, instead channeling efforts into more funding for police to keep doing what has already been shown to not work for human needs.
A must read.
Here are some excerpts from the book that get at the heart of things.
I can barely scratch the surface of nuggets here. Between 2006 and 2024, at least 52,529 guns once owned by police were later used to commit a crime. One-third of all murders by strangers in the U.S. are by police.
We see the complicit nature of the media in funneling money into the punishment bureaucracy, increasing the authoritarian base every step of the way. The mainstream media seems to never honestly look at the real reform proposals activists have, instead channeling efforts into more funding for police to keep doing what has already been shown to not work for human needs.
A must read.
Here are some excerpts from the book that get at the heart of things.
In an unequal society where a few have more money and power than the many, the punishment bureaucracy is a tool for preserving inequalities. It maintains the social order by using government violence to manage the unrest that comes from unfairness, desperation, and alienation, and it crushes organized opposition against the political system. These functions explain why the punishment bureaucracy expands during times of growing inequality and social agitation. Throughout history, those who are comfortable with how society looks tend to preserve and expand the punishment bureaucracy, even though—and largely because—it operates as an anti-democratic force.
In general, we are far more likely to be harmed by wealthy people, the institutions that serve them, and people we know. But people in power suggest that the “real” threats come from bad poor people whose mode of living normal people cannot possibly understand or address other than through punishment. And the news uses the moral panic du jour—from violent crime to shoplifting, carjacking, public drug use, and juvenile super-predators; to car theft, fentanyl, and crack dealers; to people released on bail or people released on parole; to Central American migrants, etc.—to win support for increased funding for the punishment bureaucracy instead of providing care and safety for all human beings.
In general, powerful people in charge of public safety want us to think (1) that the problems of our society aren’t structural; (2) that they share our outrage at these problems; (3) that these problems can be fixed with little tweaks to the existing system rather than radical change; and (4) that they are doing everything they can to fix them. There are many ways powerful institutions benefit from masking their intentions, but one is paramount: it takes attention away from the longer causal chain of reasons for why our society looks the way it does.
December 10, 2025
The police is a criminal organization, so I wanted to like this book so much... but it was impossible.
There are a few premises to begin with:
- The governments of the West and their politicians are in a war against their own citizens.
- This is an agenda, a globalist/communist agenda. The governments of the West are communist (actually luciferic). The mere fact that none dares to challenge the monopoly of money (communism) by the central banks speaks for itself.
- We are debt and tax slaves.
- The police enforces this criminal system.
The author can see how the government makes propaganda directed towards giving more power to the government and its enforcer (the police).
Sadly, he fails to understand that all the ideologies he supports undermines the capacity of the public to have moral strength against the government. They are psyops. This is called in the parlance of the alphabet agencies: demoralization. The author and people who think alike are demoralized (what's more, it's a metaphyscial issue, they are enslaved by "the prince of this world", but do not know it).
In case there was any doubt, the core of the ideology is "critical theory", as postulated by Columbia University and promulgated by the intelligence agencies (the media and the academia are controlled by the intelligence agencies). The core of this ideology is basically the destruction of real authority as represented by "evil" white conservative man. If the authority of man is destroyed, there are no familes and the government is not opposed. I.e., the inmigrants brought by the very government (Kalergi plan) do commit more crimes and, in turn, it gives the police more "authority" to control more the populace. Et voila! Problem, reaction, solution.
The author (and the like) are just another bunch of "useful idiots", as Lenin would say.
If I had to judge the author, he doesn't have an integrous intention.
Any honest reader could google Yuri Bezmenov and see what's all about.
There are a few premises to begin with:
- The governments of the West and their politicians are in a war against their own citizens.
- This is an agenda, a globalist/communist agenda. The governments of the West are communist (actually luciferic). The mere fact that none dares to challenge the monopoly of money (communism) by the central banks speaks for itself.
- We are debt and tax slaves.
- The police enforces this criminal system.
The author can see how the government makes propaganda directed towards giving more power to the government and its enforcer (the police).
Sadly, he fails to understand that all the ideologies he supports undermines the capacity of the public to have moral strength against the government. They are psyops. This is called in the parlance of the alphabet agencies: demoralization. The author and people who think alike are demoralized (what's more, it's a metaphyscial issue, they are enslaved by "the prince of this world", but do not know it).
In case there was any doubt, the core of the ideology is "critical theory", as postulated by Columbia University and promulgated by the intelligence agencies (the media and the academia are controlled by the intelligence agencies). The core of this ideology is basically the destruction of real authority as represented by "evil" white conservative man. If the authority of man is destroyed, there are no familes and the government is not opposed. I.e., the inmigrants brought by the very government (Kalergi plan) do commit more crimes and, in turn, it gives the police more "authority" to control more the populace. Et voila! Problem, reaction, solution.
The author (and the like) are just another bunch of "useful idiots", as Lenin would say.
If I had to judge the author, he doesn't have an integrous intention.
Any honest reader could google Yuri Bezmenov and see what's all about.
July 30, 2025
Overall, a Recommend You Read for Alec Karakatsanis's 'Copaganda', IF you want to learn about the ways police departments and the USA's media ecosystem cooperate to propagate a few fundamental modern American myths.
After reading the book, I see the main myth being propagated as the heroic status of America's brutal machinery of punishment, i.e. cops, prosecutors, and prisons, what he calls the 'punishment bureaucracy.' The author drives home through constructive repetition the points that constitute the book's main thesis, i.e. how exactly it happens that everyday human-on-human brutality committed in the public's name is turned into 'common sense' public policy. How does this occur and recur everyday? I understand better than ever now that one vector is the fact that cop shops nowadays almost universally marshal what is euphemistically called 'public relations' units in their everyday operations and, among other things, provide cheap, usable content to local news stations. If you watch local news, keep an eye out for these 'news' segments, some of which are labeled as products of the specific cop shop that produced it. They are recognizable normally by the way it generally encapsulates a small human interest story involving a Hero cop saving a Person in Trouble or otherwise contributing to the betterment of society by maybe delivering a pizza after arresting the poor delivery driver, or something.
You WILL learn something useful and vital, IF you decide to read this little gem of a book.
After reading the book, I see the main myth being propagated as the heroic status of America's brutal machinery of punishment, i.e. cops, prosecutors, and prisons, what he calls the 'punishment bureaucracy.' The author drives home through constructive repetition the points that constitute the book's main thesis, i.e. how exactly it happens that everyday human-on-human brutality committed in the public's name is turned into 'common sense' public policy. How does this occur and recur everyday? I understand better than ever now that one vector is the fact that cop shops nowadays almost universally marshal what is euphemistically called 'public relations' units in their everyday operations and, among other things, provide cheap, usable content to local news stations. If you watch local news, keep an eye out for these 'news' segments, some of which are labeled as products of the specific cop shop that produced it. They are recognizable normally by the way it generally encapsulates a small human interest story involving a Hero cop saving a Person in Trouble or otherwise contributing to the betterment of society by maybe delivering a pizza after arresting the poor delivery driver, or something.
You WILL learn something useful and vital, IF you decide to read this little gem of a book.
August 22, 2025
A data-filled and yet still witty book about how the news media and law enforcement collude to curtail people’s rights and keep monies flowing into the coffers of police and entities that promote punishment and incarceration over social programs to deal with the origins of crime.
The majority of police time is spent not on violent crime but on surveillance and controlling protest and arresting marginalized people for low level offenses – most of them poor people or people of color.
But controlling people of color has a long history in the U.S. The Nixon era “War on Crime” was intended as a means of controlling Black people and those who opposed the Nixon administration, a fact that those in the administration have readily admitted. Four decades on, more people have been mailed for “marijuana offenses” than for all violent crimes combined.
So, what’s with the media? Why spill so much ink on street crimes but ignore wage theft and other white-collar crimes? Because the average citizen doesn’t understand white collar crime? Because spreading fear (even if largely baseless) among citizens encourages them to vote for and support the punishment bureaucracy? Because the news media is leery of offending people and institutions with money?
And what’s with the police, who tout their “sympathy and support for the community” in endless puff pieces in the media, when away from reporters and cameras, they are committed to harshness and racism?
The issues are sobering to think of, but we’d better start thinking of them. Begin by reading this book.
The majority of police time is spent not on violent crime but on surveillance and controlling protest and arresting marginalized people for low level offenses – most of them poor people or people of color.
But controlling people of color has a long history in the U.S. The Nixon era “War on Crime” was intended as a means of controlling Black people and those who opposed the Nixon administration, a fact that those in the administration have readily admitted. Four decades on, more people have been mailed for “marijuana offenses” than for all violent crimes combined.
So, what’s with the media? Why spill so much ink on street crimes but ignore wage theft and other white-collar crimes? Because the average citizen doesn’t understand white collar crime? Because spreading fear (even if largely baseless) among citizens encourages them to vote for and support the punishment bureaucracy? Because the news media is leery of offending people and institutions with money?
And what’s with the police, who tout their “sympathy and support for the community” in endless puff pieces in the media, when away from reporters and cameras, they are committed to harshness and racism?
The issues are sobering to think of, but we’d better start thinking of them. Begin by reading this book.
June 4, 2025
I've followed Alec on Twitter for years (and now on Bluesky), so I was somewhat familiar with his work prior to reading the book. His long-form threads about our flawed criminal justice system, and particularly the operations of the police and Sheriff departments in LA have been shocking and informative, so as soon as I saw he was releasing a book I grabbed it and moved it to the top of my reading list.
It's a subject that is rarely analyzed with such rigor and clarity in what passes for public discourse in America. It is a book that every self-styled "informed" citizen MUST read. I would place it up there as required reading for anyone politically engaged, along with Manufacturing Consent and Demon Haunted World. It deftly breaks down the politics and propaganda that reinforce systems of oppression and injustice that claim to promote safety and security while obfuscating its primary purpose of protecting wealth and power, and turning the punishment bureaucracy into a cash cow for unscrupulous corporations.
I can't recommend this book enough, because it's a bit more approachable than Chomsky I think it is a great companion piece to Manufacturing Consent and will have you unpacking spin, motive, and intent in every piece of news that you see.
It's a subject that is rarely analyzed with such rigor and clarity in what passes for public discourse in America. It is a book that every self-styled "informed" citizen MUST read. I would place it up there as required reading for anyone politically engaged, along with Manufacturing Consent and Demon Haunted World. It deftly breaks down the politics and propaganda that reinforce systems of oppression and injustice that claim to promote safety and security while obfuscating its primary purpose of protecting wealth and power, and turning the punishment bureaucracy into a cash cow for unscrupulous corporations.
I can't recommend this book enough, because it's a bit more approachable than Chomsky I think it is a great companion piece to Manufacturing Consent and will have you unpacking spin, motive, and intent in every piece of news that you see.
Read
September 19, 2025This is one of those books that articulates things you knew deep down but didn't quite have the language for. It also reveals the different facets of the issue of copaganda. I think there are some really interesting points in here that, if you work with a group that works on police violence or police budgets, could really direct some local advocacy and education campaigns.
The issue I see with the book is that most people won't read this and become aware of the prevalence and depths of copaganda in media. And a lot of the people who agree with Karakatsanis probably also won't read this. I find it incredibly frustrating that people on the left can shy away from education thinking they already know everything or that it's other people who need education, not them. I know that's a broad generalization, but I've seen it time and again in the spaces I'm in.
Also, Karakatsanis is funny. There were laugh out loud lines throughout this book despite the serious and heavy topic. I appreciated the moments of levity. All in all, this was a really worthwhile read and I will be returning to it in the next year or so.
The issue I see with the book is that most people won't read this and become aware of the prevalence and depths of copaganda in media. And a lot of the people who agree with Karakatsanis probably also won't read this. I find it incredibly frustrating that people on the left can shy away from education thinking they already know everything or that it's other people who need education, not them. I know that's a broad generalization, but I've seen it time and again in the spaces I'm in.
Also, Karakatsanis is funny. There were laugh out loud lines throughout this book despite the serious and heavy topic. I appreciated the moments of levity. All in all, this was a really worthwhile read and I will be returning to it in the next year or so.
June 25, 2025
With a bunch of examples and a fair bit of snark, Karakatsanis does a great job summarizing his work of the past 5 years. The book provides examples of how the media, in conjunction with the "punishment bureaucracy", manipulates, misleads, and outright lies to the public with issues concerning public safety.
With Mamdani winning in New York the day before I finish this book, it is interesting to see a mayor potentially actually push for policies that have evidence behind them for reducing crime. Mainly, I am interested to see if he is able to de-police mental health care and if he is able to meaningfully increase the affordable housing stock.
This book also provides tools and frameworks for analyzing news stories around crime and punishment.
I particularly love the snarkiness of this book, because the snark is well-deserved based on his examples. Why treat liars and propagandists with reverence, mock them instead!
Totally worth the read, especially because it focuses on events of the last 5 years or so.
With Mamdani winning in New York the day before I finish this book, it is interesting to see a mayor potentially actually push for policies that have evidence behind them for reducing crime. Mainly, I am interested to see if he is able to de-police mental health care and if he is able to meaningfully increase the affordable housing stock.
This book also provides tools and frameworks for analyzing news stories around crime and punishment.
I particularly love the snarkiness of this book, because the snark is well-deserved based on his examples. Why treat liars and propagandists with reverence, mock them instead!
Totally worth the read, especially because it focuses on events of the last 5 years or so.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews