What do you think?
Rate this book
The Smear: How the Secret Art of Character Assassination Controls What You Think, What You Read, and How You Vote
Ever wonder how politics turned into a take-no-prisoners blood sport? The New York Times bestselling author of Stonewalled pulls back the curtain on the shady world of opposition research and reveals the dirty tricks those in power use to influence your opinionsBehind most major political stories in the modern era, there is an agenda; an effort by opposition researchers, spin doctors, and outside interests to destroy an idea or a person. The tactic they use is the smear. Every day, Americans are influenced by the Smear without knowing it. Paid forces cleverly shape virtually every image you cross. Maybe you read that Donald Trump is a racist misogynist, or saw someone on the news mocking the Bernie Sanders campaign. The trick of the smear is that it is often based on some shred of truth, but these media-driven "hit pieces" are designed to obscure the truth. Success hinges on the smear artist's ability to remain invisible, to make it seem as if their work is neither calculated nor scripted. It must appear to be precisely what it is not. Veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson has witnessed this practice firsthand. After years of being pitched hit jobs and puff pieces, she is an expert at detecting smear campaigns. Now, the hard-hitting investigative reporter shares her inside knowledge, revealing how the smear takes shape and who its perpetrators are--including Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal and, most influential of all, "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin" (National Review) political operative David Brock and his Media Matters for America empire. Attkisson exposes the diabolical tactics of smear artists and their outrageous access to the biggest names in political media--operatives who are corrupting the political process and discouraging widespread citizen involvement in our democracy.
Read by the author.
Read by the author.
288 pages, ebook
First published June 27, 2017
762 people are currently reading
1586 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 250 reviews
July 27, 2017
This nonfiction book is for readers interested in politics and media.
Emmy award-winning Sharyl Attkisson gives solid, horrifying details of how the modern smear machine works against individuals, journalists, and politicians who step away from the policies espoused by, for example, the backers of David Brock at Media Matters and his other numerous organizations. (Look for the octopus-like diagram.)
Although Brock is one focus, Attkisson provides chilling background on how creators of insidious, untrue stories are able to make them take root, appear omnipresent, and continue unrelentingly until their target is silenced.
She also exposes how journalists have crossed the line of honest reporting for the get, the scoop, and the clicks.
While The Smear is not pleasant, it is well worth reading to understand the media agendas and approaches of many of today's policy groups, and how the media and the policy groups feed off of one another.
Emmy award-winning Sharyl Attkisson gives solid, horrifying details of how the modern smear machine works against individuals, journalists, and politicians who step away from the policies espoused by, for example, the backers of David Brock at Media Matters and his other numerous organizations. (Look for the octopus-like diagram.)
Although Brock is one focus, Attkisson provides chilling background on how creators of insidious, untrue stories are able to make them take root, appear omnipresent, and continue unrelentingly until their target is silenced.
She also exposes how journalists have crossed the line of honest reporting for the get, the scoop, and the clicks.
While The Smear is not pleasant, it is well worth reading to understand the media agendas and approaches of many of today's policy groups, and how the media and the policy groups feed off of one another.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 7, 2018
i initially was going to give this more stars as the introduction and first chapter are well balanced and a keen deconstruction of modern media. however the author quickly leans to the right which is fair yet i found her focus on media matters smears wearying. i think this is an important book to read but bear in mind the right are not squeaky clean whan it comes to smears
July 30, 2017
Attkisson concludes with this sobering warning:
“One thing you can count on is that most every image that crosses your path has been put there for a reason. Nothing happens by accident. What you need to ask yourself isn’t so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it—and why?”
“One thing you can count on is that most every image that crosses your path has been put there for a reason. Nothing happens by accident. What you need to ask yourself isn’t so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it—and why?”
January 4, 2018
As an English professor who teaches first-year writing and graduate seminars on argument, I welcomed the opportunity to read something current on propaganda and fake news. I did find much of value that rings true regarding smear campaigns, the corruption of the media by corporate interests, and the use of astroturf groups. Ultimately, though, Attkisson has written an ironically dishonest book. I knew nothing of her when I picked the book off the shelves at Barnes & Noble. I perhaps should have done a search on Safari right then and there, but I thought that even if she ended up being a right-wing hack, I'd learn something about how the other side thinks about the propaganda efforts of liberals and the Democratic party. I suppose I did, but Attkisson's attitude was very off-putting. If she had told me out of the gate that she was a conservative or a moderate who was concerned about the Democratic spin machine, particularly David Brock, I could have respected her. Instead, however, she claims to be an objective reporter, searching for the truth, who has been victimized by liberal smear campaigns against reporters, herself in particular. Thus, she pretends to be even-handed and gives lip service to some of the obvious smear campaigns conducted by the Right to claim balance. It doesn't work.
The book, for the most part, blames the Clintons for creating a well-funded propaganda machine, complete with members willing to resort to violence to silence dissenters. Attkisson focuses on David Brock's post-Right Wing days, ignoring the well-funded smear campaigns he was a part of--not creator of--prior to his liberal conversion that Brock shines a bright light on in The Republican Noise Machine. She rarely challenges the material produced from Brock's Media Matters and other outlets for its veracity. It's one thing to smear someone with the truth that has been withheld or has just been discovered. It's another to take kernels of truth, especially on matters irrelevant to the issue at stake, and distort them or make mountains out of molehills. With Attkisson, it appears the two methods are the same. In reading Attkisson, you would think that Glenn Beck was an innocent conservative commentator who liberals succeeded in silencing because of his Republican-leaning views, not a racist, misogynistic propagandist who used his position at Fox News to disseminate falsehoods in the service of a far right agenda. In other words, for Attkisson, the boycott of the advertisers of Beck's show was not warranted by Beck's behavior. It was a trick foisted on the citizenship by Brock to make it appear there was a surge of complaints to try to get Fox News to back off of its watchdog role. She briefly reviews the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, rightly showing how it was deceptive and hardly a grass roots movement, but she concludes that the truth over the allegations are still a subject of debate. Really? That must have come as news to the numerous independent investigators who found nothing but fraudulent claims and hearsay.
Her bias is most clear in what she leaves out. She hardly mentions a word about the 8 years of George W. Bush, despite the massive use of propaganda from his operatives and the media. Was there really no deception about the use of weapons of mass destruction in order to get Congress to greenlight the Iraq War? Someone concerned about shady political operatives would have picked this up. Was science not suppressed about global warming? I also seem to remember the deficit being blamed on the liberals when clearly Bush started it back up (after Bill Clinton had brought it to a halt) due to tax breaks to the rich and the war. The media, except for some progressive venues such as Z Magazine, went along for the ride. It's funny how none of that was of interest to Attkisson. And what about the Persian Gulf War? The media was blacked out from covering the day-to-day operations. Misinformation about Kuwait and Iraq was disseminated by a PR firm hired by the Emir of Kuwait with Bush Sr.'s knowledge. Complete lies were told about the success of the Patriot Missiles. Instead of finding the origins over the control of what we think and see with the Clintons, wouldn't this have been a better place to start?
I will give her credit for exposing some of the weapons used against Donald Trump in the campaign and afterwards. She obviously greatly admires his ability to rise above smear, referring to him as "the wild card," and she succeeds in showing how the mainstream media lost any pretense of objectivity in reporting about him. She uncovers how the media en masse took its cue from the DNC and liberal spinmeisters, using the exact same terminology in some cases to put a slant on his rallies or his campaigns. It's also clear that Hillary Clinton benefited from some favoritism, probably because the media was so afraid of a Trump presidency (something Attkisson refers to, but never questions; could there have been (gasp) a reason the informed citizenry were scared out of its wits?). As much as I dislike Trump, I have not been blind to how the media has jumped on his every misstep, slut-shamed his daughter and wife, and exaggerated his beliefs and agenda. It is disgraceful reporting. Attkisson's perspective and evidence was welcomed by me on this matter, then, although she downplays the truly terrifying aspects of Trump.
So despite some insights, Attkisson pretense of neutrality undermines this book. While blaming liberals and the Democratic party for constructing false narratives, she constructs one of her own. It's a shame, really. As a trained rhetorician, I can see a mind at work as she shows how to detect a smear campaign. I was a victim of a smear campaign that went public. Therefore, I have a very sympathetic ear when I hear of others, Republicans as well as Democrats, having to fight off rumors as if they were facts, to see witnesses coerced into false testimony, to read blatant lies and inconsistencies that could have been exposed as such with just a little effort on a reporter's part. Further, I do not like Hillary Clinton and feel she was very dirty and that she played dirty. I wish she would simply go away. But Attkisson has, herself, concocted a smear campaign in the guise of trying to warn readers of biased reporting. Her book, then, is as dishonest as it is one-sided.
The book, for the most part, blames the Clintons for creating a well-funded propaganda machine, complete with members willing to resort to violence to silence dissenters. Attkisson focuses on David Brock's post-Right Wing days, ignoring the well-funded smear campaigns he was a part of--not creator of--prior to his liberal conversion that Brock shines a bright light on in The Republican Noise Machine. She rarely challenges the material produced from Brock's Media Matters and other outlets for its veracity. It's one thing to smear someone with the truth that has been withheld or has just been discovered. It's another to take kernels of truth, especially on matters irrelevant to the issue at stake, and distort them or make mountains out of molehills. With Attkisson, it appears the two methods are the same. In reading Attkisson, you would think that Glenn Beck was an innocent conservative commentator who liberals succeeded in silencing because of his Republican-leaning views, not a racist, misogynistic propagandist who used his position at Fox News to disseminate falsehoods in the service of a far right agenda. In other words, for Attkisson, the boycott of the advertisers of Beck's show was not warranted by Beck's behavior. It was a trick foisted on the citizenship by Brock to make it appear there was a surge of complaints to try to get Fox News to back off of its watchdog role. She briefly reviews the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, rightly showing how it was deceptive and hardly a grass roots movement, but she concludes that the truth over the allegations are still a subject of debate. Really? That must have come as news to the numerous independent investigators who found nothing but fraudulent claims and hearsay.
Her bias is most clear in what she leaves out. She hardly mentions a word about the 8 years of George W. Bush, despite the massive use of propaganda from his operatives and the media. Was there really no deception about the use of weapons of mass destruction in order to get Congress to greenlight the Iraq War? Someone concerned about shady political operatives would have picked this up. Was science not suppressed about global warming? I also seem to remember the deficit being blamed on the liberals when clearly Bush started it back up (after Bill Clinton had brought it to a halt) due to tax breaks to the rich and the war. The media, except for some progressive venues such as Z Magazine, went along for the ride. It's funny how none of that was of interest to Attkisson. And what about the Persian Gulf War? The media was blacked out from covering the day-to-day operations. Misinformation about Kuwait and Iraq was disseminated by a PR firm hired by the Emir of Kuwait with Bush Sr.'s knowledge. Complete lies were told about the success of the Patriot Missiles. Instead of finding the origins over the control of what we think and see with the Clintons, wouldn't this have been a better place to start?
I will give her credit for exposing some of the weapons used against Donald Trump in the campaign and afterwards. She obviously greatly admires his ability to rise above smear, referring to him as "the wild card," and she succeeds in showing how the mainstream media lost any pretense of objectivity in reporting about him. She uncovers how the media en masse took its cue from the DNC and liberal spinmeisters, using the exact same terminology in some cases to put a slant on his rallies or his campaigns. It's also clear that Hillary Clinton benefited from some favoritism, probably because the media was so afraid of a Trump presidency (something Attkisson refers to, but never questions; could there have been (gasp) a reason the informed citizenry were scared out of its wits?). As much as I dislike Trump, I have not been blind to how the media has jumped on his every misstep, slut-shamed his daughter and wife, and exaggerated his beliefs and agenda. It is disgraceful reporting. Attkisson's perspective and evidence was welcomed by me on this matter, then, although she downplays the truly terrifying aspects of Trump.
So despite some insights, Attkisson pretense of neutrality undermines this book. While blaming liberals and the Democratic party for constructing false narratives, she constructs one of her own. It's a shame, really. As a trained rhetorician, I can see a mind at work as she shows how to detect a smear campaign. I was a victim of a smear campaign that went public. Therefore, I have a very sympathetic ear when I hear of others, Republicans as well as Democrats, having to fight off rumors as if they were facts, to see witnesses coerced into false testimony, to read blatant lies and inconsistencies that could have been exposed as such with just a little effort on a reporter's part. Further, I do not like Hillary Clinton and feel she was very dirty and that she played dirty. I wish she would simply go away. But Attkisson has, herself, concocted a smear campaign in the guise of trying to warn readers of biased reporting. Her book, then, is as dishonest as it is one-sided.
July 28, 2017
The show where that promoted the book was nothing like it. The story was mainly about how companies are manipulating people. I've made it through 9 of the 12 chapters and I'm calling it quits. After the news story I kept waiting to hear how the other side does it too. But it never came. Just Hilary, Hilary Hilary then poor Trump.
To sum up the book Hilary Clinton is the head of a liberal conspiracy hell bent on enriching herself at our expense while crushing the GOP. The GOP has only ever smeared people to try and defeat Trump. Trump is a really nice guy that won though against the liberals and the GOP without ever telling a lie. Basically if you find Fox News a bit too liberal then you might like this book.
To sum up the book Hilary Clinton is the head of a liberal conspiracy hell bent on enriching herself at our expense while crushing the GOP. The GOP has only ever smeared people to try and defeat Trump. Trump is a really nice guy that won though against the liberals and the GOP without ever telling a lie. Basically if you find Fox News a bit too liberal then you might like this book.
July 29, 2024
Ms. Attkisson is a traditional investigative journalist, a dying breed. She is an expert at digging for truth, always verifying, taking nothing at face value. As such, she has witnessed the art of the smear firsthand, and it’s taking over journalism.
A smear is an attack on a person with the goal of censoring them, discrediting them, and ruining them. Smears are usually political in nature. Repeat a life often enough, and people will assume it’s true. Say a truth is debunked often enough, and people will believe that, too.
Smear artists will watch an enemy and wait for them to say something that they can twist into something outrageous and offensive. It is “making a man an offender for a word” — literal fulfillment of Isaiah 29:21.
While political opponents have always taken shots at each other, the advent of the Internet has allowed coordinated smear campaigns to really take off. The big smear campaigns of the modern era can be traced to the Clintons, who successfully sabotaged Bernie Sanders and unsuccessfully attacked Barak Obama.
David Brock is the biggest smear artist of all, working on the Clinton campaigns. Later he worked for Obama and many others, starting many shady organizations designed to look like independent fact-checkers and news sources but are in reality progaganda dispensaries.
We then saw campaign strategists hired as journalists and vice versa. Campaigns now routinely tell reporters what to say in their reporting on political officers and candidates. This is why you’ll see thirty newscasts use the exact same wording in a story. It’s hard to find unbiased news anymore. If someone reports something unfavorable to Democrats, the smear merchants work to get them discredited and fired. The Right has its smear merchants, mostly Karl Rove, but they have a lot less influence and reach by comparison.
The biggest offenders (those newspapers/channels promoting only propaganda) are Politico, Politifact, Moveon.org, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Buzzfeed, Slate, Vox, and Huffington Post are also unreliable. Network and cable news channels are little better. If you want unfiltered, independent news, you need to look for something independent that isn’t funded by big corporations or government or campaigns. If a reporter is a former lobbyist or campaign strategist, don’t trust them.
The book is well written, engaging, informative, and disinterested. It’s also kind of depressing by nature.
Clean content
===============================
Contents:
1. Birth of the Modern Smear: Spies, Bork, and the Clintons
2. David Brock’s Smear Frontier
3. The Smear Industrial Complex: Smear Merchants and Scandalmongers
4. Media Matters (but Money Matters More)
5. Plausible Deniability: Conjuring an Astroturf Reality
6. Transactional Journalism: The Black Market Information Trade
7. The Anti-Smear Candidate (and the Disloyal Opposition)
8. The Road to the Conventions
9. General Election
10. Brave New World of #FakeNews (and Chilling Efforts to Censor It)
Quotes:
What, exactly, distinguishes a smear from the truth? … The answer to what defines a smear often lies in the motivation behind, and scale of, the response. Expert smear artists take a sprinkle of truth … and pervert it into a weapon of mass destruction to advance a larger goal, often political or financial. That’s what truly defines today’s smear: it’s purpose is rooted in annihilation. It uses propaganda tools to amplify a misdeed out of proportion. It aims to obliterate any obstacle blocking a particular agenda. It gets personal. It goes for the jugular.
The smear artist reveals himself by his disparate treatment of people and situations. He drapers himself in a superhero cape, claiming to defend the aggrieved. He pretends to right societal wrongs. In fact, though, he’s motivated primarily by paid interests and his own selfish agendas. By definition, the job requires that morality and conscience be cast aside.
Astroturf is a close cousin to the smear. It’s a vehicle that allows the smear industry to conduct some of its most influential work in complete disguise. The idea is to keep the public from ever knowing exactly who is behind a particular effort to sway opinion. … Plainly speaking, astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests disguise themselves and try to represent their causes as being genuine groundswells of support by ordinary people. … Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not. It magically transforms the media into propaganda agents. In short, what do you do when you don’t have an actual grassroots campaign for your cause? You buy it—or manufacture it—with astroturf.
Transactional journalism refers to the friendly, mutually beneficial relationships that have developed between reporters and those on whom they report. It’s when the relationships cross a line beyond chumminess and the players strike clandestine business deals, whether formally or implicitly, to report on people and topics a certain way. Reporters may offer favorable treatment in exchange for getting a “scoop.” They may agree to let an interview subject dictate terms when it comes to topic and timing of publication. They may promise to ask some questions and avoid others. They may carry on cozy relationships that allow their reporting to be influenced in ways they don’t disclose to the public. Usually reporters afford the most favorable treatment to those with whom they are ideologically in synch.
Democratic operatives are also busy keeping Donald Trump embroiled in demonstrations on the road. His popularity is growing—though you’d never know it from watching the news—but he’s increasingly battling unruly protesters inside and outside his large rallies. They block roads, pelt his supporters with eggs, kick and beat them, tear at their hair, beat on their cards, rip up their signs, and call them names. Rarely, a Trump supporter gets violent with the demonstrators. Almost exclusively, the media faults Trump for the violence wherever it occurs. In March 2016, aggressive protesters swamp the venue of his planned rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago. To those experienced in the art of the smear, it immediately smacks of an organized astroturf effort disguised as a spontaneous, grassroots movement. One giveaway: the presence of Billy Ayers, a controversial acquaintance of President Obama’s and cofounder of the communist Weather Underground revolutionary group. … Ayers was linked to the Weather Underground bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Department headquarters in the 1960s and 1970s. … There’s a dangerous vibe at the protests. Demonstrators appear to be trying to incite violence. They become so disruptive, Trump cancels the rally. It’s a huge victory for the organized opposition. … Ayers can’t help but take partial credit on TV for getting the Chicago rally scrubbed. … The George Soros-funded MoveOn.org also steps up to take credit following the Chicago success story. … Later, a Democrat operative captured on undercover video by the conservative “Project Veritas” describes how party officials had trained and organized agents to attend Trump rallies and then bait Trump supporters into lashing out, knowing the media would smear Trump when it happened.
Largely as a result of efforts like those of Media Matters—its media training of pundits, its outreach to journalists, and its paid efforts to train and hire “reporters” who write for and go on to work in the press—partisan operators have quite literally infiltrated newsrooms in a significant way. They’re included in planning and discussions. Invited in as guests. Hired on as paid analysts, anchors, and reporters. Political operatives are becoming journalists and vice versa. Newsrooms are, in some respects, becoming political operations and vice versa. This helps explain why shocking displays of bias, and even the reporting of blatantly false information, are often allowed to go unpunished. Sometimes they’re even rewarded.
I think Trump was elected partly because of the smears. He was put into office by supporters steeled by criticism from Clinton, who had called them “the basket of deplorables … Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” Seeing themselves mischaracterized in the news media, Trump’s supporters learned to view the media’s criticism of Trump with skepticism. With dislike for and distrust of the media so widespread, perhaps the most effective thing the press could have done do thwart Trump would have been to embrace him. But they just couldn’t see it.
Suffice to say those accused of producing or being fake news tend to define it in terms that exclude themselves and point to the other guys. To complicate matters, we have to consider the possibility that double agents are generating fake news about themselves to justify the movement to crack down on supposedly fake news. There’s already evidence of such twisted plots. … There were dozens of shocking news accounts of pro-Trump racist and Islamophobic violence. … But many of the hate crimes are soon revealed as fake news staged by Trump opponents to look as though they’d been committed by his supporters. … The press doesn’t blame or harangue Clinton or Obama. Nor does it ask them to apologize for the violent acts and false accusations, as they’ve done to Trump. Nor does the press offer its own apologizes for its initial rush to unequivocally blame Trump supporters for the crimes, despite lack of evidence.
A smear is an attack on a person with the goal of censoring them, discrediting them, and ruining them. Smears are usually political in nature. Repeat a life often enough, and people will assume it’s true. Say a truth is debunked often enough, and people will believe that, too.
Smear artists will watch an enemy and wait for them to say something that they can twist into something outrageous and offensive. It is “making a man an offender for a word” — literal fulfillment of Isaiah 29:21.
While political opponents have always taken shots at each other, the advent of the Internet has allowed coordinated smear campaigns to really take off. The big smear campaigns of the modern era can be traced to the Clintons, who successfully sabotaged Bernie Sanders and unsuccessfully attacked Barak Obama.
David Brock is the biggest smear artist of all, working on the Clinton campaigns. Later he worked for Obama and many others, starting many shady organizations designed to look like independent fact-checkers and news sources but are in reality progaganda dispensaries.
We then saw campaign strategists hired as journalists and vice versa. Campaigns now routinely tell reporters what to say in their reporting on political officers and candidates. This is why you’ll see thirty newscasts use the exact same wording in a story. It’s hard to find unbiased news anymore. If someone reports something unfavorable to Democrats, the smear merchants work to get them discredited and fired. The Right has its smear merchants, mostly Karl Rove, but they have a lot less influence and reach by comparison.
The biggest offenders (those newspapers/channels promoting only propaganda) are Politico, Politifact, Moveon.org, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Buzzfeed, Slate, Vox, and Huffington Post are also unreliable. Network and cable news channels are little better. If you want unfiltered, independent news, you need to look for something independent that isn’t funded by big corporations or government or campaigns. If a reporter is a former lobbyist or campaign strategist, don’t trust them.
The book is well written, engaging, informative, and disinterested. It’s also kind of depressing by nature.
Clean content
===============================
Contents:
1. Birth of the Modern Smear: Spies, Bork, and the Clintons
2. David Brock’s Smear Frontier
3. The Smear Industrial Complex: Smear Merchants and Scandalmongers
4. Media Matters (but Money Matters More)
5. Plausible Deniability: Conjuring an Astroturf Reality
6. Transactional Journalism: The Black Market Information Trade
7. The Anti-Smear Candidate (and the Disloyal Opposition)
8. The Road to the Conventions
9. General Election
10. Brave New World of #FakeNews (and Chilling Efforts to Censor It)
Quotes:
What, exactly, distinguishes a smear from the truth? … The answer to what defines a smear often lies in the motivation behind, and scale of, the response. Expert smear artists take a sprinkle of truth … and pervert it into a weapon of mass destruction to advance a larger goal, often political or financial. That’s what truly defines today’s smear: it’s purpose is rooted in annihilation. It uses propaganda tools to amplify a misdeed out of proportion. It aims to obliterate any obstacle blocking a particular agenda. It gets personal. It goes for the jugular.
The smear artist reveals himself by his disparate treatment of people and situations. He drapers himself in a superhero cape, claiming to defend the aggrieved. He pretends to right societal wrongs. In fact, though, he’s motivated primarily by paid interests and his own selfish agendas. By definition, the job requires that morality and conscience be cast aside.
Astroturf is a close cousin to the smear. It’s a vehicle that allows the smear industry to conduct some of its most influential work in complete disguise. The idea is to keep the public from ever knowing exactly who is behind a particular effort to sway opinion. … Plainly speaking, astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests disguise themselves and try to represent their causes as being genuine groundswells of support by ordinary people. … Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not. It magically transforms the media into propaganda agents. In short, what do you do when you don’t have an actual grassroots campaign for your cause? You buy it—or manufacture it—with astroturf.
Transactional journalism refers to the friendly, mutually beneficial relationships that have developed between reporters and those on whom they report. It’s when the relationships cross a line beyond chumminess and the players strike clandestine business deals, whether formally or implicitly, to report on people and topics a certain way. Reporters may offer favorable treatment in exchange for getting a “scoop.” They may agree to let an interview subject dictate terms when it comes to topic and timing of publication. They may promise to ask some questions and avoid others. They may carry on cozy relationships that allow their reporting to be influenced in ways they don’t disclose to the public. Usually reporters afford the most favorable treatment to those with whom they are ideologically in synch.
Democratic operatives are also busy keeping Donald Trump embroiled in demonstrations on the road. His popularity is growing—though you’d never know it from watching the news—but he’s increasingly battling unruly protesters inside and outside his large rallies. They block roads, pelt his supporters with eggs, kick and beat them, tear at their hair, beat on their cards, rip up their signs, and call them names. Rarely, a Trump supporter gets violent with the demonstrators. Almost exclusively, the media faults Trump for the violence wherever it occurs. In March 2016, aggressive protesters swamp the venue of his planned rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago. To those experienced in the art of the smear, it immediately smacks of an organized astroturf effort disguised as a spontaneous, grassroots movement. One giveaway: the presence of Billy Ayers, a controversial acquaintance of President Obama’s and cofounder of the communist Weather Underground revolutionary group. … Ayers was linked to the Weather Underground bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Department headquarters in the 1960s and 1970s. … There’s a dangerous vibe at the protests. Demonstrators appear to be trying to incite violence. They become so disruptive, Trump cancels the rally. It’s a huge victory for the organized opposition. … Ayers can’t help but take partial credit on TV for getting the Chicago rally scrubbed. … The George Soros-funded MoveOn.org also steps up to take credit following the Chicago success story. … Later, a Democrat operative captured on undercover video by the conservative “Project Veritas” describes how party officials had trained and organized agents to attend Trump rallies and then bait Trump supporters into lashing out, knowing the media would smear Trump when it happened.
Largely as a result of efforts like those of Media Matters—its media training of pundits, its outreach to journalists, and its paid efforts to train and hire “reporters” who write for and go on to work in the press—partisan operators have quite literally infiltrated newsrooms in a significant way. They’re included in planning and discussions. Invited in as guests. Hired on as paid analysts, anchors, and reporters. Political operatives are becoming journalists and vice versa. Newsrooms are, in some respects, becoming political operations and vice versa. This helps explain why shocking displays of bias, and even the reporting of blatantly false information, are often allowed to go unpunished. Sometimes they’re even rewarded.
I think Trump was elected partly because of the smears. He was put into office by supporters steeled by criticism from Clinton, who had called them “the basket of deplorables … Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” Seeing themselves mischaracterized in the news media, Trump’s supporters learned to view the media’s criticism of Trump with skepticism. With dislike for and distrust of the media so widespread, perhaps the most effective thing the press could have done do thwart Trump would have been to embrace him. But they just couldn’t see it.
Suffice to say those accused of producing or being fake news tend to define it in terms that exclude themselves and point to the other guys. To complicate matters, we have to consider the possibility that double agents are generating fake news about themselves to justify the movement to crack down on supposedly fake news. There’s already evidence of such twisted plots. … There were dozens of shocking news accounts of pro-Trump racist and Islamophobic violence. … But many of the hate crimes are soon revealed as fake news staged by Trump opponents to look as though they’d been committed by his supporters. … The press doesn’t blame or harangue Clinton or Obama. Nor does it ask them to apologize for the violent acts and false accusations, as they’ve done to Trump. Nor does the press offer its own apologizes for its initial rush to unequivocally blame Trump supporters for the crimes, despite lack of evidence.
April 5, 2021
You may now realize it, but we—you and I—are being manipulated by both the Democratic and Republican Parties as well as by the news media. Democrats and Republicans alike actively engage in smear campaigns, which are attempts to manipulate public opinion—our opinions—in an attempt to destroy a person, idea, or political party. A smear usually contains a small kernel of truth, but the rest is lies. Smear campaigns are run by non-profit organizations aligned with political parties. However, the people who conduct the campaigns have no political allegiances. They’ll switch sides and work for whoever gives them the most money. These campaigns can be traced back to the people and organizations who hired and conducted them.
Astroturfing is “a close cousin” to smearing. Astroturf campaigns attempt to destroy a person, policy, or cause by giving the false impression meant to convince people—you and me—that almost everyone supports a specific idea or policy when very few people actually do. The men, women, and organizations that conduct astroturfing campaigns hide their tracks, making it impossible for anyone to identify who they are.
Sharyl Attkisson’s The Smear was a huge shock for me. She opens by providing a general history of smears. The first ones originated in colonial times, but smear campaigns came into their own during World War II, when both Allies and Axis powers used them against each other.
The “organized political smear,” Attkisson maintains, began during Robert Bork’s Senate confirmation hearings in 1987 when the Democrats “Borked” Bork, a conservative judge President Ronald Reagan nominated for the Supreme Court.* Liberal Democrats organized a public character assassination that resulted in Bork’s not being appointed. The Republicans struck back in 1991 during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court when they successfully “Borked” Anita Hill during her testimony against him. Hill lost credibility and Tomas became a Supreme Court justice.
Attkisson, an investigative reporter who endured multiple smear campaigns aimed at her for her investigations, goes on to describe how the smear industry grew into a multi-million-dollar industry employed by both Democrats and Republicans. She provides plenty of case studies involving smear campaigns by specific smear organizations for and against major politicians on both sides of the aisle. She even mentions smear campaigns the industry launched against her because of investigations she was conducting. She also explains how, just as Democrats and Republicans allow lobbyists to write parts or entire pieces of legislation, news organizations allow smear artists to write articles and opinion pieces using the names of their opinion writers that smear the enemies of the people who are paying them. What you read in newspapers might actually be part of a smear campaign to manipulate you into taking a specific side or believe a certain thing.
The Smear is certainly a wake-up call to not believe everything you hear or read. Research multiple points of view to get as much information as you can, and then make up your mind.
By the way, smear campaigns are no longer confined to America. Attkisson’s epilogue, describes how smears have gone global.
*The hearing resulted in adding a new term, “Borked,” which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means: “To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.” (p. 15)
Astroturfing is “a close cousin” to smearing. Astroturf campaigns attempt to destroy a person, policy, or cause by giving the false impression meant to convince people—you and me—that almost everyone supports a specific idea or policy when very few people actually do. The men, women, and organizations that conduct astroturfing campaigns hide their tracks, making it impossible for anyone to identify who they are.
Sharyl Attkisson’s The Smear was a huge shock for me. She opens by providing a general history of smears. The first ones originated in colonial times, but smear campaigns came into their own during World War II, when both Allies and Axis powers used them against each other.
The “organized political smear,” Attkisson maintains, began during Robert Bork’s Senate confirmation hearings in 1987 when the Democrats “Borked” Bork, a conservative judge President Ronald Reagan nominated for the Supreme Court.* Liberal Democrats organized a public character assassination that resulted in Bork’s not being appointed. The Republicans struck back in 1991 during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court when they successfully “Borked” Anita Hill during her testimony against him. Hill lost credibility and Tomas became a Supreme Court justice.
Attkisson, an investigative reporter who endured multiple smear campaigns aimed at her for her investigations, goes on to describe how the smear industry grew into a multi-million-dollar industry employed by both Democrats and Republicans. She provides plenty of case studies involving smear campaigns by specific smear organizations for and against major politicians on both sides of the aisle. She even mentions smear campaigns the industry launched against her because of investigations she was conducting. She also explains how, just as Democrats and Republicans allow lobbyists to write parts or entire pieces of legislation, news organizations allow smear artists to write articles and opinion pieces using the names of their opinion writers that smear the enemies of the people who are paying them. What you read in newspapers might actually be part of a smear campaign to manipulate you into taking a specific side or believe a certain thing.
The Smear is certainly a wake-up call to not believe everything you hear or read. Research multiple points of view to get as much information as you can, and then make up your mind.
By the way, smear campaigns are no longer confined to America. Attkisson’s epilogue, describes how smears have gone global.
*The hearing resulted in adding a new term, “Borked,” which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means: “To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.” (p. 15)
July 2, 2017
**REVIEW UPDATE**
I rarely change the rating I give for a book. After reconsidering my review, I realized I had no reason to not give this book the top rating. So--now 5 stars.
In THE SMEAR, Sharyl Attkisson argues that regular folks are easy targets for false information or smear campaigns: “The public has no idea of the extent to which news is influenced by smear merchants.” This situation didn’t just happen—it’s been a long time coming: “The past two decades have served as an ideal incubator for an industry of smears and fake news.”
The author gives the reader lots of reasons to worry. Attkisson documents, in great detail, many of the behind-the-scenes organizations with political agendas. The consumer of news is “pummeled by countless narratives—some based on grains of truth; others wholly invented for the audience.”
Attkisson warns news consumers to be cautious even if all the media outlets are parroting the same line. “Today, if enough pundits, operatives, and media parrot the same narrative, it becomes incorporated into the fabric of the news as an accepted fact.”
And yet, smear campaigns are not new—they are as old as the Republic: “Our founding fathers knew very well the power of a sharp character assassination . . . Hamilton and Jefferson were planting stuff on each other’s sex lives.”
The author documents many smear campaigns—originating from both the Left and the Right. She cites the Clarence Thomas hearings as an example of smears from both sides, and also, how one might fight a smear: “The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination showed both sides that the best way to fight a smear might not be to take a defensive posture—but to mount an offensive countersmear.”
Attkisson is careful to define what she means by “smear.” It’s not the dissemination of falsehoods, so much as exaggeration: “Expert smear artists take a sprinkle of truth—in this case Imus’s objectionable comments—and pervert it into a weapon of mass destruction to advance a larger goal, often political or financial.” Smear campaigns take something that is true and "amplify a misdeed out of proportion.”
For me, one of the most fascinating sections was about a variation of smear called “Astroturf.” In this variation, the pros pretend they are ordinary folks: “Paid interests disguised as ordinary people troll assigned topics, news sites, reporters, blogs, and social media for the purpose of posting comments that spin and confuse.” The idea is to “give the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not.”
Attkisson concludes with this sobering warning:
“One thing you can count on is that most every image that crosses your path has been put there for a reason. Nothing happens by accident. What you need to ask yourself isn’t so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it—and why?”
So all in all, I found THE SMEAR to be a solid, and a scary work. The author writes clearly and concisely. Although not a short book, it is reasonably easy to follow. The book explains many detailed cases on both sides of the political spectrum. Of course, I already knew about many of the tragic stories, but I had no idea of the magnitude of the smear machines.
See also:
https://www.bassocantor.com/blog/smear
I rarely change the rating I give for a book. After reconsidering my review, I realized I had no reason to not give this book the top rating. So--now 5 stars.
In THE SMEAR, Sharyl Attkisson argues that regular folks are easy targets for false information or smear campaigns: “The public has no idea of the extent to which news is influenced by smear merchants.” This situation didn’t just happen—it’s been a long time coming: “The past two decades have served as an ideal incubator for an industry of smears and fake news.”
The author gives the reader lots of reasons to worry. Attkisson documents, in great detail, many of the behind-the-scenes organizations with political agendas. The consumer of news is “pummeled by countless narratives—some based on grains of truth; others wholly invented for the audience.”
Attkisson warns news consumers to be cautious even if all the media outlets are parroting the same line. “Today, if enough pundits, operatives, and media parrot the same narrative, it becomes incorporated into the fabric of the news as an accepted fact.”
And yet, smear campaigns are not new—they are as old as the Republic: “Our founding fathers knew very well the power of a sharp character assassination . . . Hamilton and Jefferson were planting stuff on each other’s sex lives.”
The author documents many smear campaigns—originating from both the Left and the Right. She cites the Clarence Thomas hearings as an example of smears from both sides, and also, how one might fight a smear: “The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination showed both sides that the best way to fight a smear might not be to take a defensive posture—but to mount an offensive countersmear.”
Attkisson is careful to define what she means by “smear.” It’s not the dissemination of falsehoods, so much as exaggeration: “Expert smear artists take a sprinkle of truth—in this case Imus’s objectionable comments—and pervert it into a weapon of mass destruction to advance a larger goal, often political or financial.” Smear campaigns take something that is true and "amplify a misdeed out of proportion.”
For me, one of the most fascinating sections was about a variation of smear called “Astroturf.” In this variation, the pros pretend they are ordinary folks: “Paid interests disguised as ordinary people troll assigned topics, news sites, reporters, blogs, and social media for the purpose of posting comments that spin and confuse.” The idea is to “give the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not.”
Attkisson concludes with this sobering warning:
“One thing you can count on is that most every image that crosses your path has been put there for a reason. Nothing happens by accident. What you need to ask yourself isn’t so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it—and why?”
So all in all, I found THE SMEAR to be a solid, and a scary work. The author writes clearly and concisely. Although not a short book, it is reasonably easy to follow. The book explains many detailed cases on both sides of the political spectrum. Of course, I already knew about many of the tragic stories, but I had no idea of the magnitude of the smear machines.
See also:
https://www.bassocantor.com/blog/smear
July 16, 2017
Behind most major political stories there is an agenda – to destroy an idea or the people advancing it. Sharyl Attkisson does a great job explaining how sophisticated operatives on both sides of the aisle work behind the scenes to establish narratives, manipulate journalists, and shape the images you see every day. Nothing is by accident, and you’ll never again watch the evening news in the same old, comfortable way. No matter what you already suspected, this one’s an eye-opener.
January 13, 2018
Yep, politics are ugly and you should definitely look into the author's bias. The entire book was focused on the evil liberal media and Trump's falsehoods got one paragraph (mostly attributed to one accident by Kelley Ann Conway).
I really miss Bernie Sanders.
I really miss Bernie Sanders.
January 15, 2018
An interesting read, but it should have been subtitled, "How The Clintons Work The Smear" to alert the reader to who this book was really aimed at exposing. I don't have enough information to question her research, but the absence of investigation of right wing or Republican smear efforts was disappointing. At one point near the end, it almost seemed she was feeling sorry for poor Trump and the smears surrounding him. If you are looking for a balanced book on smears, don't read this.
July 5, 2017
WOW!!!!! What you don't know can and probably does hurt you. I knew that Washington and New York were corrupt but to this degree? Seriously!!! Just about everything you see on TV, read in the papers or see on the Internet may have and probably was the result of false reporting or reporting based on some facts but definitely not all of the facts. More importantly people behind the scenes are being paid large amounts of money to insure WE see and hear ONLY what THEY want you to see and hear. Then we like sheep repost, or retweet that which we have seen and/or heard. We have become part of their extremely deceptive network at almost not cost to them. This is a must read but I warn you ahead of time, you will read about things you maybe don't want to hear about and instead continue to live your life as if you are NOT being manipulated. Everyone should read this book!
July 31, 2017
If you think a journalist's job is to tell you what you already believe with hyperbolic exaggeration, you won't want to read this book. If you believe facts matter and scrutiny should be identical regardless of partisan, racial, gender or other labels, you'll find effective reporting and concisely shared insights on every page. "The Smear" explains the cognitive dissonance between what makes sense to fair-minded observers and what we hear from politicians and the news media. It's also a wake-up call for those who blindly trust any institution.
July 19, 2017
Sharyl Attkisson is one of the few reliable journalists left and provides a clear picture of the world of fake news. "What you need to ask yourself isn't so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it - and why?"
October 14, 2017
The best thing about this book is that it fits its own definition of smear.
August 3, 2017
6 aye em, 3 aug 17, thursday...just finished this one. mind-boggling. it's not enough that i stopped watching "the evening news" at some point in the 90s when clinton was abusing the office of the presidency...and all the big-talking-heads made...um, headway, with words like "bimbo eruption"..."white trash"..."trailer trash"...the ever-popular "redneck" and a host of others...around the same time the news anchors used, without apology, the phrase "third world countries"...replaced by now, as you know, with the slightly less offending "developing nations."
there was a "march" at the lift bridge earlier this spring, one of two...i forget exactly what they were celebrating, or marching about. something fashionable. but one of the marchers, presumably either a graduated alumbical of the local university (m.t.u.) or a currently enrolled student, posted something like, "it's nice to know the area has more than uneducated rednecks"...oh, la! the local democratic party facebook page saw no offense in her remark, that was removed, when someone (who?) questioned it. i'm comforted with the knowledge that the zombies are (still) being taught not to denigrate the different at institutions like m.t.u. and i dread the day when those not-t0-be-denigrated include those currently deemed deplorable.
me? they'll never learn. change the channel.
'bout the only satisfying quality of all the smears that have been growing and expanding and evolving is that hillary is not our president. trump won! heh!
millions, MILLIONS spent and i had a blast listening to cnn (sirius radio, truck cab, kafvi aiga and lunch) spend five days at a time on SIGNIFICANT NEWS, like, corey lew grabbed an arm...what does it mean? how does it make you feel? will the convention erupt in riots? will blood be shed? or any other SIGNIFICANT NEWS that followed, followed by 5 days of coverage. meanwhile...back on the ranch.
mind-boggling.
eye-opening, too...parts about how some entities have created personalities, multiple personalities (that the psychiatric association has yet to define) to spread the love. this on top of pr firms, el-el-cees, others...
with that kind of money, all designed to influence people...sheesh. but still. trump won. heh!
it isn't alien possession, after all. perhaps the war planning against bullying will see success...what, fifty sixty years from now. 'til then...
too bad joe heller isn't around to write another good as gold. the garden is green.
there was a "march" at the lift bridge earlier this spring, one of two...i forget exactly what they were celebrating, or marching about. something fashionable. but one of the marchers, presumably either a graduated alumbical of the local university (m.t.u.) or a currently enrolled student, posted something like, "it's nice to know the area has more than uneducated rednecks"...oh, la! the local democratic party facebook page saw no offense in her remark, that was removed, when someone (who?) questioned it. i'm comforted with the knowledge that the zombies are (still) being taught not to denigrate the different at institutions like m.t.u. and i dread the day when those not-t0-be-denigrated include those currently deemed deplorable.
me? they'll never learn. change the channel.
'bout the only satisfying quality of all the smears that have been growing and expanding and evolving is that hillary is not our president. trump won! heh!
millions, MILLIONS spent and i had a blast listening to cnn (sirius radio, truck cab, kafvi aiga and lunch) spend five days at a time on SIGNIFICANT NEWS, like, corey lew grabbed an arm...what does it mean? how does it make you feel? will the convention erupt in riots? will blood be shed? or any other SIGNIFICANT NEWS that followed, followed by 5 days of coverage. meanwhile...back on the ranch.
mind-boggling.
eye-opening, too...parts about how some entities have created personalities, multiple personalities (that the psychiatric association has yet to define) to spread the love. this on top of pr firms, el-el-cees, others...
with that kind of money, all designed to influence people...sheesh. but still. trump won. heh!
it isn't alien possession, after all. perhaps the war planning against bullying will see success...what, fifty sixty years from now. 'til then...
too bad joe heller isn't around to write another good as gold. the garden is green.
December 15, 2017
A solid effort that depicts how much collusion there really is. No, not between Trump and Russia, but between the news media and the Left.
Her reportage is backed up by the wikileaks of all the DNC e-mails. While I was familiar with most of her facts, I was still surprised by how in the tank so many reporters were for Hillary. To the point where they were letting her campaign edit, and even write their articles. Additionally, these reporters who were outed now have better jobs in places like the NYT. One can only conclude that these bastions of information condone their new reporters acting as clandestine mouthpieces for one political party.
Otherwise, Attkisson details how often the Press is a mere front for political interests pushing an agenda. I would've liked more from her story but I see her other book probably details that much more.
Her reportage is backed up by the wikileaks of all the DNC e-mails. While I was familiar with most of her facts, I was still surprised by how in the tank so many reporters were for Hillary. To the point where they were letting her campaign edit, and even write their articles. Additionally, these reporters who were outed now have better jobs in places like the NYT. One can only conclude that these bastions of information condone their new reporters acting as clandestine mouthpieces for one political party.
Otherwise, Attkisson details how often the Press is a mere front for political interests pushing an agenda. I would've liked more from her story but I see her other book probably details that much more.
July 22, 2017
Great read
I read it in two days...a real page turner. I felt years ago that mainstream news resembled The National Enquired. I'm sorry to insult that newspaper. Mainstream is worse. Thank you Sharyl for this good read.
I read it in two days...a real page turner. I felt years ago that mainstream news resembled The National Enquired. I'm sorry to insult that newspaper. Mainstream is worse. Thank you Sharyl for this good read.
June 10, 2020
Not as good as her first book, Stonewalled, especially the first half, in which she tends to talk in broad terms rather than citing specific support for her assertions, but it picks up nicely in the last few chapters.
August 8, 2017
Attkisson goes after both parties, the media, billionaire donors and large corporations. Great book for those of us not overly attached to a political party or ideology.
May 9, 2019
Sharyl Attkisson is one of the very few journalists today that I truly respect. She does it Old School by digging, following the facts, checking and rechecking sources, getting multiple sources, then printing the story and following up. Her stories on not all or mostly one-sided because she follows the facts. She has won prestigious journalism awards and had many featured stories on the news while at CBS, until she exposed the Fast and Furious government gun running program that put guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. One of these guns was used by cartel gang members to kill one of our border patrol agents. Suddenly CBS management seemed to not have available newscast time to air her investigative findings. She also started noticing strange things like professional (government grade) hacking of her computer, you can read more about that in her book Stonewalled! With the career, background, contacts, and experiences she has had, she is in the best position to expose the smearing, character assassination, and flat out dirty tricks used by all sides in our political battles today. It seems that even facts can't get in the way of a good smear campaign. She exposes who is behind these supposedly "grass roots" campaigns with sincere and patriotic-sounding names with their money and their organizations. She explains how money is routed through many groups hands to try to obscure who the real donors and their agendas are. You may be surprised (although you really shouldn't be) at the small number of these "puppet masters" who are out to control politics and push their messages. This is not a for or against left or right book. As per her usual practice she calls out the players on all sides to give you the creeps about who is running the government and what they will do (or have done) to get there and stay there. I give you clear warning that you will need a jar of sanitizer and a shower after reading this book...but not because of the author or her work rather the information itself!
June 3, 2018
Another startling, enlightening book by Sharyl Attkisson. Sadly reinforces our suspicions that the purpose of the media is no longer to disseminate truth to the public, but to serve as propaganda machines for their political chums, who in turn serve as puppets for powerful factions, most of which are not particularly interested in the welfare of the average American.
Not only a fascinating read, but also sharpens our abilities to identify potential clues regarding the veracity of the massive amount of "news" available to us.
The most succinct and valuable principle that I've walked away with is to examine the sources of information and ask oneself not only WHAT we are being told, but WHY are we being told.
Just today someone shared a Trump smear on facebook (what else is new?) and I looked up the source ... Alternet... and found it to be a progressive organization with a clear agenda. This does not mean the information was wrong ... but certainly means there's a good chance it's slanted. There are many news sources firmly aligned with one faction or another; most disconcertingly, Ms. Attkisson gives concrete evidence that mainstream news sources are far from unbiased.
Not only a fascinating read, but also sharpens our abilities to identify potential clues regarding the veracity of the massive amount of "news" available to us.
The most succinct and valuable principle that I've walked away with is to examine the sources of information and ask oneself not only WHAT we are being told, but WHY are we being told.
Just today someone shared a Trump smear on facebook (what else is new?) and I looked up the source ... Alternet... and found it to be a progressive organization with a clear agenda. This does not mean the information was wrong ... but certainly means there's a good chance it's slanted. There are many news sources firmly aligned with one faction or another; most disconcertingly, Ms. Attkisson gives concrete evidence that mainstream news sources are far from unbiased.
ugh-i-quit
August 29, 2017I can't. I just can't
I want to read this. The reviews are good. But I find myself reading like this:
Smear blah blah blah the left. Blah blah attack. Blah bitty blah blah blah the right. Some name I'm glossing over, blahs blah the Clintons. Fox News blah bitty blah.
Literally. Like those are literally the words in my head. My eyes move left to right, drop down a line, left to right, drop, repeat. And I'm just pushing my eyes forwards and I want to pluck them out with a spork.
This may be a totally illuminating read. And maybe I really should read it. And maybe I'll revisit the book at some point and finish it. (Yeah, in like blah bitty blah days) But I'm crying uncle.
With so much shit going on in politics, I'm already suspicious of all of them. There are suspect acts (ahem) on both sides. Right now, I just can't with this. The last words I read at night before I sleep cannot be these.
At least right now.
I want to read this. The reviews are good. But I find myself reading like this:
Smear blah blah blah the left. Blah blah attack. Blah bitty blah blah blah the right. Some name I'm glossing over, blahs blah the Clintons. Fox News blah bitty blah.
Literally. Like those are literally the words in my head. My eyes move left to right, drop down a line, left to right, drop, repeat. And I'm just pushing my eyes forwards and I want to pluck them out with a spork.
This may be a totally illuminating read. And maybe I really should read it. And maybe I'll revisit the book at some point and finish it. (Yeah, in like blah bitty blah days) But I'm crying uncle.
With so much shit going on in politics, I'm already suspicious of all of them. There are suspect acts (ahem) on both sides. Right now, I just can't with this. The last words I read at night before I sleep cannot be these.
At least right now.
December 3, 2017
Sheryl Attkisson is a thoughtful journalist who actually researches her stories. The Smear is an excellent history of the failure of journalism to remain independent and observant. Although attempts to smear people is nothing new, it has been brought to new heights in the age of the internet. After reading this book, I will never look at any news story quite the same way.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the current world of the media and the internet.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the current world of the media and the internet.
December 13, 2017
"...[A]n effort to manipulate opinion by promulgating an overblown, scandalous, and damaging narrative. The goal is often to destroy ideas by ruining the people who are most effective at communicating them...Paid forces devise clever, covert ways to shape the total information landscape in ways you can't imagine." p. 3
March 24, 2018
A startling look at how our news and information is manipulated. Vast sums of money are being spent to influence the population by a small group of people. Fake news is very real. This is really disturbing and terrifying.
April 10, 2018
Fascinating stuff, quite a bit frustrating too however.
March 5, 2018
Sharyl Attkisson was perhaps the last journalist with integrity in the mainstream media. As she recounts in her book, Stonewalled, the author was a card-carrying member in good standing with the mainstream media for many years, having won numerous awards, and having held a prestigious investigative reporting position at CBS. That changed when the last administration didn't like her reporting and pressured CBS to spike her stories.
The Smear continues on, and basically documents the death of journalism over the past few years. The author investigates the web of organizations run by David Brock, with Media Matters as the nexus, and she extensively documents how these organizations, in partnership with the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote smear stories for the mainstream media that were then dutifully published widely and uncritically. The mainstream media now sees itself as leftist partisan activists, e.g., asking the previous administration to help write their stories and to feed them questions for upcoming interviews with political opponents.
In this new, post-fact world, it is very difficult for the busy, ordinary citizen to discover the truth about anything. As the author documents with myriad examples, the mainstream media is thoroughly compromised, publishing half-truths, spin, and outright lies. Buzzfeed, Salon, HuffPo, Slate, CNN and many others all report the same misinformation in concert so that it is very easy to live in an echo chamber where all you can hear is what Media Matters wants you to hear. Sadly, those who live in that echo chamber will never hear voices like Sharyl Attkisson. If her name is mentioned at all, it will invariably be in the context of her being smeared by the likes of Media Matters. The Smear is the result of solid investigative journalism. The author reports facts and evidence, facts and evidence. In the post-fact world, however, it is all too easy to dismiss her evidence in favor of the confirmation bias provided by the echo chamber. Goebbels famously said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The modern version might be: “If your social media influencers tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” And the corollary would be that the actual truth now appears to be suspect.
Since this book was published, there is already a need for a follow-on book, as the media has gotten even worse. There seems to be something even more insidious going on, a psychological manipulation where emotional outrage is ginned up on click-bait social media and reinforced in the mainstream media in a way that is mentally harmful to those living in the echo chamber and maybe physically dangerous to themselves and others. In any case, I look forward to what this author does next. As she so clearly demonstrates with her work, integrity matters.
The Smear continues on, and basically documents the death of journalism over the past few years. The author investigates the web of organizations run by David Brock, with Media Matters as the nexus, and she extensively documents how these organizations, in partnership with the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote smear stories for the mainstream media that were then dutifully published widely and uncritically. The mainstream media now sees itself as leftist partisan activists, e.g., asking the previous administration to help write their stories and to feed them questions for upcoming interviews with political opponents.
In this new, post-fact world, it is very difficult for the busy, ordinary citizen to discover the truth about anything. As the author documents with myriad examples, the mainstream media is thoroughly compromised, publishing half-truths, spin, and outright lies. Buzzfeed, Salon, HuffPo, Slate, CNN and many others all report the same misinformation in concert so that it is very easy to live in an echo chamber where all you can hear is what Media Matters wants you to hear. Sadly, those who live in that echo chamber will never hear voices like Sharyl Attkisson. If her name is mentioned at all, it will invariably be in the context of her being smeared by the likes of Media Matters. The Smear is the result of solid investigative journalism. The author reports facts and evidence, facts and evidence. In the post-fact world, however, it is all too easy to dismiss her evidence in favor of the confirmation bias provided by the echo chamber. Goebbels famously said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The modern version might be: “If your social media influencers tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” And the corollary would be that the actual truth now appears to be suspect.
Since this book was published, there is already a need for a follow-on book, as the media has gotten even worse. There seems to be something even more insidious going on, a psychological manipulation where emotional outrage is ginned up on click-bait social media and reinforced in the mainstream media in a way that is mentally harmful to those living in the echo chamber and maybe physically dangerous to themselves and others. In any case, I look forward to what this author does next. As she so clearly demonstrates with her work, integrity matters.
March 17, 2018
If you follow my reviews at all, you know I’m not a big fan of not finishing books. I always want to give authors a fair shot, even when it’s not my thing. I have also made it no secret that it annoys me to no end when someone gives a book a bad star rating because “it’s not my thing” when they know going in the genre of book they are reading. So it may seem odd that I’m not only not going to finish this book, but I’m also going to give it a bad star rating…but I’ll explain my reasons.
This book is marketed as an inside look into ALL smear tactics and campaigns. Silly me, I thought I’d get a non-partisan, objective, fair story. Instead I got story after story after story about how the Clinton’s are terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Clinton’s have done terrible things over the last 30-40 years. But this book is so one-sided and it was quickly obvious that the author has a grudge. She may have reason, and that’s okay. But then you have to market the book as a tell-all into the Clinton’s and their shady dealings, not market as a look into EVERYONE’S shady dealings. After the first few chapters I tried skimming and even jumping ahead, thinking she’d tell us bad things about the Clinton’s and other liberal-minded politicians and then give the other side of the story with the shadiness of some of those on the conservative side. Nope. Basically, everything wrong with politics is because of Hilary Clinton with help from her husband Bill and a sprinkling of Obama. If that’s what I want to learn about I’ll watch Fox News. So no, I don’t feel bad giving this a bad rating because the book is not what it presents itself as in its description.
The funny thing is, my brother was over one day and saw the book (before I started reading) and said, “Is this a pro-Trump book?” I told him no, why would he think that? He said because it has the words ‘fake news’ in the title. I said I thought that was just in jest, kind of using the president’s words to catch the eye. Boy oh boy, I should have listened to my little brother!
You can see my full review at https://allingoodtimeblog.wordpress.c...
This book is marketed as an inside look into ALL smear tactics and campaigns. Silly me, I thought I’d get a non-partisan, objective, fair story. Instead I got story after story after story about how the Clinton’s are terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Clinton’s have done terrible things over the last 30-40 years. But this book is so one-sided and it was quickly obvious that the author has a grudge. She may have reason, and that’s okay. But then you have to market the book as a tell-all into the Clinton’s and their shady dealings, not market as a look into EVERYONE’S shady dealings. After the first few chapters I tried skimming and even jumping ahead, thinking she’d tell us bad things about the Clinton’s and other liberal-minded politicians and then give the other side of the story with the shadiness of some of those on the conservative side. Nope. Basically, everything wrong with politics is because of Hilary Clinton with help from her husband Bill and a sprinkling of Obama. If that’s what I want to learn about I’ll watch Fox News. So no, I don’t feel bad giving this a bad rating because the book is not what it presents itself as in its description.
The funny thing is, my brother was over one day and saw the book (before I started reading) and said, “Is this a pro-Trump book?” I told him no, why would he think that? He said because it has the words ‘fake news’ in the title. I said I thought that was just in jest, kind of using the president’s words to catch the eye. Boy oh boy, I should have listened to my little brother!
You can see my full review at https://allingoodtimeblog.wordpress.c...
March 9, 2018
I have never written a book review before. But for this one I feel the need to write what I think.
This corruption and distortion of information from most sources is used to control and extend the power of these power brokers and their causes in order to maintain their power and to push their agendas. While people like George Soros fund media projects focused on changing how journalists report news with directed and learned talking points he is not the only one. The corruption of facts and information ranges from our news sources, our political parties, special interest groups, our scientific community, our think tanks, and our government. Many of these agendas are truly radical and are aimed at destroying our Country and freedom of thought and speech.
Sharyl Attkisson is one of the few reliable journalists (in my opinion incredibly brave) and one of the few left that provides a clear and dire picture of the world of news (some call it fake news but is seems prevalent across all platforms to me).
Other questions to ask,
"What you need to ask yourself isn't so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it - and why?"
I will be purchasing this book for a number of my friends and relatives. We all need to be aware of what is happening not just in our Country but in our world.
This corruption and distortion of information from most sources is used to control and extend the power of these power brokers and their causes in order to maintain their power and to push their agendas. While people like George Soros fund media projects focused on changing how journalists report news with directed and learned talking points he is not the only one. The corruption of facts and information ranges from our news sources, our political parties, special interest groups, our scientific community, our think tanks, and our government. Many of these agendas are truly radical and are aimed at destroying our Country and freedom of thought and speech.
Sharyl Attkisson is one of the few reliable journalists (in my opinion incredibly brave) and one of the few left that provides a clear and dire picture of the world of news (some call it fake news but is seems prevalent across all platforms to me).
Other questions to ask,
"What you need to ask yourself isn't so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it - and why?"
I will be purchasing this book for a number of my friends and relatives. We all need to be aware of what is happening not just in our Country but in our world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 250 reviews