What do you think?
Rate this book
Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics
From Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck and Matt Drudge, Americans are accustomed to thinking of right-wing media as integral to contemporary conservatism. But today's well-known personalities make up the second generation of broadcasting and publishing activists. Messengers of the Right tells the story of the little-known first generation.
Beginning in the late 1940s, activists working in media emerged as leaders of the American conservative movement. They not only started an array of enterprises—publishing houses, radio programs, magazines, book clubs, television shows—they also built the movement. They coordinated rallies, founded organizations, ran political campaigns, and mobilized voters. While these media activists disagreed profoundly on tactics and strategy, they shared a belief that political change stemmed not just from ideas but from spreading those ideas through openly ideological communications channels.
In Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer explains how conservative media became the institutional and organizational nexus of the conservative movement, transforming audiences into activists and activists into a reliable voting base. Hemmer also explores how the idea of liberal media bias emerged, why conservatives have been more successful at media activism than liberals, and how the right remade both the Republican Party and American news media. Messengers of the Right follows broadcaster Clarence Manion, book publisher Henry Regnery, and magazine publisher William Rusher as they evolved from frustrated outsiders in search of a platform into leaders of one of the most significant and successful political movements of the twentieth century.
Beginning in the late 1940s, activists working in media emerged as leaders of the American conservative movement. They not only started an array of enterprises—publishing houses, radio programs, magazines, book clubs, television shows—they also built the movement. They coordinated rallies, founded organizations, ran political campaigns, and mobilized voters. While these media activists disagreed profoundly on tactics and strategy, they shared a belief that political change stemmed not just from ideas but from spreading those ideas through openly ideological communications channels.
In Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer explains how conservative media became the institutional and organizational nexus of the conservative movement, transforming audiences into activists and activists into a reliable voting base. Hemmer also explores how the idea of liberal media bias emerged, why conservatives have been more successful at media activism than liberals, and how the right remade both the Republican Party and American news media. Messengers of the Right follows broadcaster Clarence Manion, book publisher Henry Regnery, and magazine publisher William Rusher as they evolved from frustrated outsiders in search of a platform into leaders of one of the most significant and successful political movements of the twentieth century.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
40 people are currently reading
1320 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 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 21, 2021
Lots of inside baseball. From before baseball was baseball. And while I'm interested in the broad strokes of conservative media history, I didn't need a play-by-play. Probably the only thing that will really stick with me is how familiar the history from the 50s and 60s all felt. Conservatives (NOT necessarily 'Republicans', for the record) felt outnumbered (because they were) and underrepresented in media (they weren't) so they withdrew to their own media channels where they could nurse grievances and isolate themselves in their own ideological cocoons without the inconveniences of, well ... truth, and people unpersuaded by their banter. In many ways, the biggest difference between then and now is that they've gotten better at it.
For those wondering, the tone throughout is clinical and historical, not partisan or punditic. If it gets your hackles up somehow, remind yourself that no one should have to feel responsible for all 70 years of a political movement. ;)
p. 71 "Existing separately from established media enterprises meant conservatives in media turned to one another to expand audiences, spread publicity, and bolster content. These were mutually reinforcing relationships. To provide evidence for claims, conservatives would cite one another. To establish legitimacy, media activists would trade on the reputations of other recognized conservatives. ... The danger of this self-referential system was that it could become unmoored from reality, creating an echo chamber that rendered it unintelligible to outsiders. But in the 1950s, conservative media outlets were neither numerous nor powerful enough to create a robust alternate media ecosystem."
p. 274 "Frum diagnosed the GOP's problem as one not of leadership but of 'followership'. And the followership problem - the reliance on the most ideological members of the base to shape the party's agenda - was at heart a media problem. 'The media culture of the U.S. has been reshaped to become a bespoke purveyor of desired facts,' Frum argued. While he insisted this was happening for liberals as well as conservatives, he begrudgingly conceded 'the Republican and conservative knowledge system does seem more coordinated than the liberal system - and even further removed from reality.' Conservatives, in other words, had built an iron-clad media system, and in doing so had trapped themselves in a system of misinformation. Good, at times, for movement cohesion and organized outrage, but not so good when reckoning with the real world."
p. 276 "No doubt the second generation of conservative media activism has been a boon for the movement, helping draw the Republican Party to the right, to normalize claims of liberal media bias, and to reconfirm the media's leadership position among conservatives. But media activism has also developed into an industry worth billions of dollars. As a result, the incentives of the media are no longer always in line with the movement or the party. The first generation of activists never had to worry about confusing profit and principles: they had a dearth of the first and a surfeit of the second. The second generation has had a more difficult course to chart. Yet despite the fundamental differences between these generations of activists, they shared a faith that working through media was the surest path to political power. Liberals agreed, and repeatedly tried to replicate conservatives' media successes. But their efforts failed. ... The problem with these liberal efforts was that they were copying the products of conservative media, but their target audience lacked both the ideological justification and the identity-based media habits that sustained conservative media for so long."
For those wondering, the tone throughout is clinical and historical, not partisan or punditic. If it gets your hackles up somehow, remind yourself that no one should have to feel responsible for all 70 years of a political movement. ;)
p. 71 "Existing separately from established media enterprises meant conservatives in media turned to one another to expand audiences, spread publicity, and bolster content. These were mutually reinforcing relationships. To provide evidence for claims, conservatives would cite one another. To establish legitimacy, media activists would trade on the reputations of other recognized conservatives. ... The danger of this self-referential system was that it could become unmoored from reality, creating an echo chamber that rendered it unintelligible to outsiders. But in the 1950s, conservative media outlets were neither numerous nor powerful enough to create a robust alternate media ecosystem."
p. 274 "Frum diagnosed the GOP's problem as one not of leadership but of 'followership'. And the followership problem - the reliance on the most ideological members of the base to shape the party's agenda - was at heart a media problem. 'The media culture of the U.S. has been reshaped to become a bespoke purveyor of desired facts,' Frum argued. While he insisted this was happening for liberals as well as conservatives, he begrudgingly conceded 'the Republican and conservative knowledge system does seem more coordinated than the liberal system - and even further removed from reality.' Conservatives, in other words, had built an iron-clad media system, and in doing so had trapped themselves in a system of misinformation. Good, at times, for movement cohesion and organized outrage, but not so good when reckoning with the real world."
p. 276 "No doubt the second generation of conservative media activism has been a boon for the movement, helping draw the Republican Party to the right, to normalize claims of liberal media bias, and to reconfirm the media's leadership position among conservatives. But media activism has also developed into an industry worth billions of dollars. As a result, the incentives of the media are no longer always in line with the movement or the party. The first generation of activists never had to worry about confusing profit and principles: they had a dearth of the first and a surfeit of the second. The second generation has had a more difficult course to chart. Yet despite the fundamental differences between these generations of activists, they shared a faith that working through media was the surest path to political power. Liberals agreed, and repeatedly tried to replicate conservatives' media successes. But their efforts failed. ... The problem with these liberal efforts was that they were copying the products of conservative media, but their target audience lacked both the ideological justification and the identity-based media habits that sustained conservative media for so long."
September 16, 2022
An outstanding study of conservative media from the 40s to the 70s. Hemmer argues that a set of conservative media activists established key patterns and ideas for later conservative media, especially from the 1990s to today (think Rush and Fox). Her main characters are William Rusher (mainly National Review), Clarence Manion (the Manion Forum), and Henry Regnery (Regnery publishing). She focuses on these figures rather than key conservative intellectuals like Buckley and Kirk or politicians like Goldwater or Thurmond. This is key because these figures played an important and distinct role in the conservative movement.
Hemmer's messenger believed that the entire media system in the age of consensus (40s-60s) claimed objectivity but was in fact biased toward liberalism. They defined fairness not as the objective pursuit of facts but as balance, which for them meant getting conservative voices heard. These was a key stylistic/ideological precedent to Fox News' "fair and balanced style." They believed that the mainstream press was thoroughly dominated by liberals and that they essentially conspired to exclude conservative voices. In the 1950s, they focused on building radio programming, magazines like National Review, and books. Their focus was on advancing ideas rather than profits, and often they barely remained solvent. I thought this was more than a little ironic, given their lauding of the free market, but I suppose most start-up media isn't all that profitable. Over time, they helped construct the conservative movement's base, connect conservatives to each other across the country, and build up an alternative source of information and facts (or unreality, occasionally) against what they saw as a biased media. They identified primarily with the conservative movement and secondarily with the Republican Party; in fact, what they really sought to do was pressure and then take over the party. Hemmer is excellent on the topic of how they interacted with key Republicans like Goldwater and Nixon in this era.
The similarities between these conservative media guys and the modern conservative media ecosystem were so striking to me that I often wrote notes in the margins that Hemmer then mentioned on the next page. This wave of media died out in the 70s but left major legacies for later right-wing media. There was a strong sort of "red-pill" belief system in which everyone who disagreed with them just hadn't been awoken to reality (Rusher and Manion seemed particularly rigid and fanatical). There was a sense of persecution by the mainstream. There was a little sense of rebellion, although these guys were pretty buttoned-down and traditional compared to the modern scumbag right. Of course, they play a similar game as the modern Right: if liberal media reports something that makes conservatives look bad, it shows their bias. But if they report something that makes conservatives look good, they see "Look, even the liberal New York Times believes...!" Here's an example: Regnery published several
The theme of boundary defining and policing is crucial in the history of conservatism, and to me it was the most interesting part of this book. The conservative movement and the GOP have always had to draw some lines in terms of what views and what people are too crazy to be in the movement/party. Today, there pretty much aren't any more lines. But in the 1950s, these messengers and folks like Buckley were very concerns with being seen as kooks, conspiracy theorists, and to some extent racists. THe big issue then was the John Birch Society, particularly Robert Welch, it's domineering and conspiratorial leader. Manion remained a supporter of the Birchers, but the others, especially William F. Buckley, decided that A. Birch's views were too extreme and paranoid B. They made the movement look crazy and were ultimately bad for getting conservatism to be taken seriously politically. Honestly, I think the second factor might have been even more important, but regardless, Buckley and many of his allies gradually denounced the Birch Society while also issuing an olive branch to its rank and file, who provided a lot of energy and resources on the right in that era. It was a deft and important move by Buckley and company that helped modernize conservatism and marginalize some of the real crazies. Buckley has many flaws, but this kind of boundary policing is a crucial guardrail for democratic politics, one which the GOP now utterly fails to do.
Hemmer is an excellent writer and historian. She is actually pretty funny but also fair, and the book is well-paced and not too long. It is still a book mainly for academics, although I would think that communications people as well as historians would get a lot out of it.
Hemmer's messenger believed that the entire media system in the age of consensus (40s-60s) claimed objectivity but was in fact biased toward liberalism. They defined fairness not as the objective pursuit of facts but as balance, which for them meant getting conservative voices heard. These was a key stylistic/ideological precedent to Fox News' "fair and balanced style." They believed that the mainstream press was thoroughly dominated by liberals and that they essentially conspired to exclude conservative voices. In the 1950s, they focused on building radio programming, magazines like National Review, and books. Their focus was on advancing ideas rather than profits, and often they barely remained solvent. I thought this was more than a little ironic, given their lauding of the free market, but I suppose most start-up media isn't all that profitable. Over time, they helped construct the conservative movement's base, connect conservatives to each other across the country, and build up an alternative source of information and facts (or unreality, occasionally) against what they saw as a biased media. They identified primarily with the conservative movement and secondarily with the Republican Party; in fact, what they really sought to do was pressure and then take over the party. Hemmer is excellent on the topic of how they interacted with key Republicans like Goldwater and Nixon in this era.
The similarities between these conservative media guys and the modern conservative media ecosystem were so striking to me that I often wrote notes in the margins that Hemmer then mentioned on the next page. This wave of media died out in the 70s but left major legacies for later right-wing media. There was a strong sort of "red-pill" belief system in which everyone who disagreed with them just hadn't been awoken to reality (Rusher and Manion seemed particularly rigid and fanatical). There was a sense of persecution by the mainstream. There was a little sense of rebellion, although these guys were pretty buttoned-down and traditional compared to the modern scumbag right. Of course, they play a similar game as the modern Right: if liberal media reports something that makes conservatives look bad, it shows their bias. But if they report something that makes conservatives look good, they see "Look, even the liberal New York Times believes...!" Here's an example: Regnery published several
The theme of boundary defining and policing is crucial in the history of conservatism, and to me it was the most interesting part of this book. The conservative movement and the GOP have always had to draw some lines in terms of what views and what people are too crazy to be in the movement/party. Today, there pretty much aren't any more lines. But in the 1950s, these messengers and folks like Buckley were very concerns with being seen as kooks, conspiracy theorists, and to some extent racists. THe big issue then was the John Birch Society, particularly Robert Welch, it's domineering and conspiratorial leader. Manion remained a supporter of the Birchers, but the others, especially William F. Buckley, decided that A. Birch's views were too extreme and paranoid B. They made the movement look crazy and were ultimately bad for getting conservatism to be taken seriously politically. Honestly, I think the second factor might have been even more important, but regardless, Buckley and many of his allies gradually denounced the Birch Society while also issuing an olive branch to its rank and file, who provided a lot of energy and resources on the right in that era. It was a deft and important move by Buckley and company that helped modernize conservatism and marginalize some of the real crazies. Buckley has many flaws, but this kind of boundary policing is a crucial guardrail for democratic politics, one which the GOP now utterly fails to do.
Hemmer is an excellent writer and historian. She is actually pretty funny but also fair, and the book is well-paced and not too long. It is still a book mainly for academics, although I would think that communications people as well as historians would get a lot out of it.
April 30, 2020
Messengers of the Right is a history of the conservative media movement and how it has shaped politics. It's also one of my most disappointing reads yet this year. I love microhistories, where a book tackles a narrow topic and delves deeply in, but Messengers of the Right is too narrow. It's absolutely a history of the conservative media movement, and it's an incredibly detailed one. The people and publications and relationships are all impeccably present.
The thing that's not, and the thing that bothers me most is that the politics are not. Messengers of the Right probably works much better for someone who knows what the political positions of the 50s and 60s were, and what the conflicts were. I'm not that person; I know vague broad strokes about the 50s and 60s, but certainly not enough to be able to understand Messengers of the Right. I also think that choosing to present the creation of a political movement with only the barest hint of the basis of the political beliefs of that movement is a Choice. Going off of this book, there's barely any sign that the Civil Rights Movement was happening, let alone in a big way. It's just bewildering to me that a book explicitly about the creation of propaganda machines like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't talk about racism as a motivating factor. Unions and Communism featured more heavily, but only just. Conservative Southern Democrats were mentioned as allies of the early far-right Republicans, but race/racism as the basis for that allyship is only vaguely alluded to when Hemmer talks about conservative radio shows with wide reach using accepted euphemisms like "states rights."
If it weren't so impeccable in what it does cover, I would absolutely give a lower rating, but Messengers of the Right is a comprehensive, detailed list of actions that right wing publishers took while building their movements. If you already have a detailed understanding of the politics of the 50s and 60s, and how those actions might have effected them, you might get more from it than I did.
(Caveat: I DNF'd in chapter nine because my loan was up. It's possible, though I think unlikely, that the book turns around in the last three and a half chapters, but the first nine were such a slog to get through that I doubt it.)
The thing that's not, and the thing that bothers me most is that the politics are not. Messengers of the Right probably works much better for someone who knows what the political positions of the 50s and 60s were, and what the conflicts were. I'm not that person; I know vague broad strokes about the 50s and 60s, but certainly not enough to be able to understand Messengers of the Right. I also think that choosing to present the creation of a political movement with only the barest hint of the basis of the political beliefs of that movement is a Choice. Going off of this book, there's barely any sign that the Civil Rights Movement was happening, let alone in a big way. It's just bewildering to me that a book explicitly about the creation of propaganda machines like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't talk about racism as a motivating factor. Unions and Communism featured more heavily, but only just. Conservative Southern Democrats were mentioned as allies of the early far-right Republicans, but race/racism as the basis for that allyship is only vaguely alluded to when Hemmer talks about conservative radio shows with wide reach using accepted euphemisms like "states rights."
If it weren't so impeccable in what it does cover, I would absolutely give a lower rating, but Messengers of the Right is a comprehensive, detailed list of actions that right wing publishers took while building their movements. If you already have a detailed understanding of the politics of the 50s and 60s, and how those actions might have effected them, you might get more from it than I did.
(Caveat: I DNF'd in chapter nine because my loan was up. It's possible, though I think unlikely, that the book turns around in the last three and a half chapters, but the first nine were such a slog to get through that I doubt it.)
March 23, 2017
We all know about Fox News, but what lead up to it? This is a really interesting book that sheds light on the conservative media pioneers of the 1950s and 1960s. Well written and very informative.
October 17, 2021
This book discusses the conservative media activism and its struggles and influences on American politics. From the humble beginning, armed with supposition of liberal tendencies in mainstream media, activists like of Clarence Manion, Henry Regnery and William Rusher stood for what they believe as “real conservatism”, as outsiders in America’s political scene standing against mainstream liberal Republican Party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller in the 50s, while building outreach to advance the conservative ideas, from radio talk show, book publishing, and even selling magazines.
Throughout the book we see the troubles that faced the conservative activists, from shedding the more extreme elements of conservative movements (the likes of conspiratorial John Birch Society), balancing the ever-present problem that every movement faces, that is, balancing ideological purity with pragmatical reality, and even, the most basic problem like making sure that the whole movement is well-funded.
As events unfolded, history showed that the conservative media activists faced an uphill battle. The movement, evidently, had more downs than up, with their first serious political presidential endorsement of Barry Goldwater in 1964 ended up in embarrassing rout, while in 1968 they succeeded in supporting Richard Nixon, but only did so with sacrificing ideological purity for pragmatism (as Nixon showed its true colors). While they were surely had influence by the time of Reagan’s election in the late 70’s, they had to compete with the ‘New Right’, which consisted of moral crusaders that formed the bulk of Reagan’s support. The media activists then spent the whole Reagan’s and Bush Sr’s terms in slow, seemingly terminal decline, until the moment of its resurgence brought about by second generation of media activists most personified by Rush Limbaugh, and then, Fox News, finally achieving what had eluded the first generation: making the movement truly profitable. The book ends with author assertion of liberals’ failure of duplicating Fox News, seemingly successful story, due to their failure of acknowledging the first generation of conservative media activists, a view, which in my opinion needs a reassessment.
Throughout the book we see the troubles that faced the conservative activists, from shedding the more extreme elements of conservative movements (the likes of conspiratorial John Birch Society), balancing the ever-present problem that every movement faces, that is, balancing ideological purity with pragmatical reality, and even, the most basic problem like making sure that the whole movement is well-funded.
As events unfolded, history showed that the conservative media activists faced an uphill battle. The movement, evidently, had more downs than up, with their first serious political presidential endorsement of Barry Goldwater in 1964 ended up in embarrassing rout, while in 1968 they succeeded in supporting Richard Nixon, but only did so with sacrificing ideological purity for pragmatism (as Nixon showed its true colors). While they were surely had influence by the time of Reagan’s election in the late 70’s, they had to compete with the ‘New Right’, which consisted of moral crusaders that formed the bulk of Reagan’s support. The media activists then spent the whole Reagan’s and Bush Sr’s terms in slow, seemingly terminal decline, until the moment of its resurgence brought about by second generation of media activists most personified by Rush Limbaugh, and then, Fox News, finally achieving what had eluded the first generation: making the movement truly profitable. The book ends with author assertion of liberals’ failure of duplicating Fox News, seemingly successful story, due to their failure of acknowledging the first generation of conservative media activists, a view, which in my opinion needs a reassessment.
January 8, 2025
It's a common lament on the left that messaging on our side of the aisle is just not nearly as organized or as effective as that of the right. Setting aside the amusing irony that many right-wingers make the exact same complaint in the other direction, it really does seem like right-wing media has an energy driving it that doesn't have an equivalent counterpart on the other side of the aisle, but what's a surprise is that it's been like this since the end of World War 2. Hemmer's very interesting history of postwar conservative thought focuses on 3 main heralds of doom and their successful efforts to build powerful structures for ideological communications: radio broadcaster Clarence Manion, book publisher Henry Regnery, and magazine publisher William Rusher. The supply/demand dynamics of partisan media in the modern era has surprisingly deep roots, and one of the main insights of these pioneers of conservative media is that ideology without media to disseminate it is impotent; while receptivity to ideas might be latent in the populace, you have to get your message to them and tailor it to what they want to hear in a way that makes them want to hear more of it. This lesson is timeless and offers much to ponder in an era when much of left-wing media is copying the worst of right-wing thought patterns while forgetting that our politics should be constructive and not corrosive to public trust, but it's hard to see a good way out of the propaganda arms race since appealing to people's darker instincts yields such powerful short-term effects. Richard Hofstadter's famous essay "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" will be relevant as long as there are significant strands of fear-based thought alleging dark forces undermining the essential goodness and virtue of America, and Hemmer's book does a good job showing how the vast industry delivering the Bad News to an eager customer base has assumed many new forms into this modern era of social media but remains essentially similar to its depressingly successful predecessors.
September 4, 2017
Before Fox, et al: How it all began
My opinion of conservative media is not very high, to be honest. Still, I do try to maintain a somewhat balanced media diet. This means occasionally reading something from The National Review or Wall Street Journal, to name a couple. In short, I know the political positions. What I didn't know, and was the gap filled by this book, is how we got to where we are today. Hence, Fox and Rush Limbaugh are the conclusion, and generally aren't dealt with too deeply. Which is fine. Instead, I got to find out about a burgeoning, often struggling, media ecosystem that began to emerge after WWII. It was quite fascinating, to say the least, with plenty of infighting over principles versus pragmatism, kind of like now. I see this book as having a narrow readership, but if conservative media history interests you, by all means check this out.
My opinion of conservative media is not very high, to be honest. Still, I do try to maintain a somewhat balanced media diet. This means occasionally reading something from The National Review or Wall Street Journal, to name a couple. In short, I know the political positions. What I didn't know, and was the gap filled by this book, is how we got to where we are today. Hence, Fox and Rush Limbaugh are the conclusion, and generally aren't dealt with too deeply. Which is fine. Instead, I got to find out about a burgeoning, often struggling, media ecosystem that began to emerge after WWII. It was quite fascinating, to say the least, with plenty of infighting over principles versus pragmatism, kind of like now. I see this book as having a narrow readership, but if conservative media history interests you, by all means check this out.
October 7, 2018
I read this concurrently with Perlstein's "Before The Storm," and this text seems useful as an extension/expansion of the historiography of conservative media established there. Hemmer's work here is most valuable tracing the origin story of these media movements to a particular political moment and then explaining how the movement in turn gave rise to our modern politics.
The text becomes more shallow as the chronology moves forward- doing its best and deepest work in the 1950s-1960s. The discussion of modern conservative media is surprisingly light and the text could be substantially improved by making the end of the book more robust and addressing the rise of Trumpism in the second edition- to which I look forward.
The text becomes more shallow as the chronology moves forward- doing its best and deepest work in the 1950s-1960s. The discussion of modern conservative media is surprisingly light and the text could be substantially improved by making the end of the book more robust and addressing the rise of Trumpism in the second edition- to which I look forward.
August 7, 2019
Read this based on a recommendation. It was described to me as being a history and explanation of "the myth of liberal media bias," but it is definitely not that. Hemmer gives a historical account of how the conservative media emerged pre WWII out of a desire to push back against the Woodrow Wilson era progressive movements. From that point on, conservative media has evolved, transformed, and given birth to a formidable voice from scholars, statesmen, and communicators motivated by the founding principles of our country; based the rights of the individual and the ever-present need for vigilance against the ambitions of bureaucrats and government force which never stop trying to dominate the individual.
March 24, 2021
MESSENGERS OF THE RIGHT concentrates on the rise of right-wing media in the 1950s rather than the stories of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News that its readers might have lived through. (They get their own final chapter.) The contradictions and complexities are interesting: points of contact between leftist and conservative critiques of the media manufacturing consent, suggesting that Reagan's rise happened at conservative media's low point, debunking the idea that the death of the Fairness Doctrine was the only reason Limbaugh's come-up was newly possible in the late '80s.
October 4, 2025
This book was a disappointment. I thought it would explain the rise of conservative media but really it was about the original people that started it all which was during the late 50's and early 60's. But it was the nuts and bolts of it. It didn't explain what conservatism meant at the time. Once Nixon became president, time sped up quickly. It had one chapter on Reagan and the rise of Rush. It was interesting to read and learn about FTC and the Fairness Doctrine. It's worth reading for that but overall, I'd pass on it.
November 18, 2021
A good history of the rise of far right media long before Faux News. The information is great. The understanding of the people that shaped the thinking of far right American politics is very useful.
I found that at some point, the word jumble of names and who ran what got a bit confusing. It might have been good to have a player sheet with those names and what they did, just to help keep track.
I found that at some point, the word jumble of names and who ran what got a bit confusing. It might have been good to have a player sheet with those names and what they did, just to help keep track.
December 12, 2022
I found this book through a podcast.
A study of the conservative media from the 1940s-1970s. I found myself gaping in awe at how the more things change, the less they do. This book does possess the most engaging prose (the author is an academic) the story unfolds in a deliberate manner. I would definitely recommend it in conjunction with other studies of the time (all of the Perlstein books). I cannot wait to read her next work.
A study of the conservative media from the 1940s-1970s. I found myself gaping in awe at how the more things change, the less they do. This book does possess the most engaging prose (the author is an academic) the story unfolds in a deliberate manner. I would definitely recommend it in conjunction with other studies of the time (all of the Perlstein books). I cannot wait to read her next work.
December 16, 2020
An interesting and detailed read about the emergence of right wing media going back to the 1950s through Limbaugh. Interesting thesis about why the conservative media empire waned with the success of Reagan and how it was so different because of its lack of populism when compared with the rise of the "new right" media with Fox News, etc in the 1990s.
January 12, 2022
An important topic. Conservative media came from somewhere. This is useful history to interpret what we see today. I wrote a little bit on Medium.
January 25, 2024
A great book. The first generation of conservative media existed in a world they helped to destroy. Understanding that world and the steps they took to destroy it is vital as a part of building a better one than the one we currently live in
July 1, 2023
Powerful accounting of conservative media's decades-long road to domination. Now I better know how we got the current Supreme Court.
October 13, 2024
SO MUCH INFO. so many parallels to political media today. I read this for school but I enjoyed it so I’m including it here 😄
December 25, 2024
Great book about conservative media activists in the 50s-70s in the US and how they laid the foundations, along with regulatory and technological developments, for far right media today.
August 11, 2022
For a history book, this is great! So much information and written in a way that is interesting. Following the different people through the years was easy. It makes sense now, what is happening in the nation. Recommend that everyone read it!
December 7, 2016
This is a short history of the Conservative Media
August 19, 2018
In the 1940s, conservative activists built a network of alternative publishing and broadcasting institutions, including Human Events and National Review, that transformed generations of right-wing audiences into a reliable voting base. Hemmer credits this network with popularizing the myth of liberal media and laying the groundwork for the Limbaughs, Drudges, Hannities, Bannons and Infowars of today.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews