What do you think?
Rate this book
The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle between the White House and the Media--from the Founding Fathers to Fake News
An award-winning presidential historian offers an authoritative account of American presidents' attacks on our freedom of the press.
"The FAKE NEWS media," Donald Trump has tweeted, "is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people." Never has our free press faced so great a threat. Yet the tension between presidents and journalists is as old as the republic itself. From George Washington to Trump, presidents have quarreled with, attacked, denigrated, and manipulated the fourth estate.
Washington groused about his treatment in the newspapers, but his successor, John Adams, actually wielded his executive power to overturn press freedoms and prosecute critical reporters. Thomas Jefferson tapped a reporter to find dirt on his rival, Alexander Hamilton, only to have the reporter expose his own affair with his slave Sally Hemings. (Jefferson denied the reports out of hand—perhaps the first presidential cry of "fake news.") Andrew Jackson rewarded loyal newspapers with government contracts; Abraham Lincoln shuttered critical papers and imprisoned their editors without trial. FDR and JFK charmed journalists in order to protect their personal secrets, while Nixon cast the press as a public enemy for daring to investigate his own.
In this remarkable new account, acclaimed scholar Harold Holzer guides readers through the clashes between chief executives and journalists, showing how these battles were waged and won, while girding us for a new fight to protect our nation's greatest institution: a free and functioning press
"The FAKE NEWS media," Donald Trump has tweeted, "is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people." Never has our free press faced so great a threat. Yet the tension between presidents and journalists is as old as the republic itself. From George Washington to Trump, presidents have quarreled with, attacked, denigrated, and manipulated the fourth estate.
Washington groused about his treatment in the newspapers, but his successor, John Adams, actually wielded his executive power to overturn press freedoms and prosecute critical reporters. Thomas Jefferson tapped a reporter to find dirt on his rival, Alexander Hamilton, only to have the reporter expose his own affair with his slave Sally Hemings. (Jefferson denied the reports out of hand—perhaps the first presidential cry of "fake news.") Andrew Jackson rewarded loyal newspapers with government contracts; Abraham Lincoln shuttered critical papers and imprisoned their editors without trial. FDR and JFK charmed journalists in order to protect their personal secrets, while Nixon cast the press as a public enemy for daring to investigate his own.
In this remarkable new account, acclaimed scholar Harold Holzer guides readers through the clashes between chief executives and journalists, showing how these battles were waged and won, while girding us for a new fight to protect our nation's greatest institution: a free and functioning press
576 pages, Hardcover
First published August 25, 2020
97 people are currently reading
913 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 51 reviews
January 27, 2026
"'First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen' George Washington may have been, but he was also the first president to rant against negative press coverage, and anything but the last to believe himself egregiously maltreated by journalists . . . In fact, no American president has ever counted himself fully satisfied with his coverage. Their belief that they are better than their bad press, and that they bear a nearly sacred obligation to counter or control criticism, has remained fixed since the age of bewigged chief executives and hand-screwed printing presses." -- from the introduction
Author Holzer - who had prior experiences as a press secretary during campaigns in New York state - offers an illuminating look at the ink-stained turned 280 character-limit journalistic-related trials and tribulations of many America chief executives in his The President vs. The Press. Noting early on that covering every POTUS would require a book several times this length, he understandably opts to focus on a notable nineteen of them - a mixture of those routinely held in high regard, a few who could be branded as notorious, and some who led during extraordinary and/or eventful years of this country. I felt the initial 100 pages were sort of slow-going, the opening chapter on Washington and then a line-up of four of the 19th century presidents (including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, of course) seeming sort of dry. However, with the arrival of energetic Theodore Roosevelt at the dawn of the 20th century - rapidly followed by lightning-fast developments of new electronic communication methods throughout the next several decades - it almost seemed like the narrative went from sepia-toned to full-blown Technicolor in terms of relatability. Although Holzer chose to skip over both Truman and Eisenhower - I would've liked at least a combined chapter on them, as he opted for later on with the Ford and Carter eras - he then covers every commander-in-chief from JFK's 'thousand days' up to Trump's divisive first term. There was some good history discussed and uncovered here, and I also appreciated a few of the quieter and revealing little moments, such as a surprising interaction with George W. Bush (who was not considered to be particularly well-read, unlike say Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy) during his first term, in which they discuss enjoying and also gleaning a bit of intellectual 'food for thought' from David McCullough's acclaimed and comprehensive 2001 biography on founding father/second POTUS John Adams.
Author Holzer - who had prior experiences as a press secretary during campaigns in New York state - offers an illuminating look at the ink-stained turned 280 character-limit journalistic-related trials and tribulations of many America chief executives in his The President vs. The Press. Noting early on that covering every POTUS would require a book several times this length, he understandably opts to focus on a notable nineteen of them - a mixture of those routinely held in high regard, a few who could be branded as notorious, and some who led during extraordinary and/or eventful years of this country. I felt the initial 100 pages were sort of slow-going, the opening chapter on Washington and then a line-up of four of the 19th century presidents (including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, of course) seeming sort of dry. However, with the arrival of energetic Theodore Roosevelt at the dawn of the 20th century - rapidly followed by lightning-fast developments of new electronic communication methods throughout the next several decades - it almost seemed like the narrative went from sepia-toned to full-blown Technicolor in terms of relatability. Although Holzer chose to skip over both Truman and Eisenhower - I would've liked at least a combined chapter on them, as he opted for later on with the Ford and Carter eras - he then covers every commander-in-chief from JFK's 'thousand days' up to Trump's divisive first term. There was some good history discussed and uncovered here, and I also appreciated a few of the quieter and revealing little moments, such as a surprising interaction with George W. Bush (who was not considered to be particularly well-read, unlike say Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy) during his first term, in which they discuss enjoying and also gleaning a bit of intellectual 'food for thought' from David McCullough's acclaimed and comprehensive 2001 biography on founding father/second POTUS John Adams.
December 27, 2021
As history, this was a five-star read - a well-written, in-depth, enlightening look at a very specific aspect of presidential history spanning hundreds of years. However, for its comparatively lackluster recounting of more recent events, together with a profusion of sloppy errors throughout, I had to knock it down a peg.
The book devotes one (in FDR’s case, two) chapters to each of 19 presidents, with most of those who are not covered in-depth at least briefly summarized. In compiling this sweeping history of presidential relations with the press, from George Washington to Donald Trump, Holzer acknowledges that some eras he writes about were "outside his zone of comfort and lifelong study," which could explain some of the unevenness in tone and quality of the various chapters.
Early chapters are devoted to the growing pains of a new country and a free press finding its footing. Many newspapers were not objective truth-tellers, but partisan mouthpieces for parties and presidential administrations, often "testing the boundaries of free speech" - sometimes by "breaching the boundaries of taste and truth," Holzer writes. George Washington largely left the press alone to establish its own boundaries, while the pendulum swung the other way when John Adams “chose repression over persuasion” with his support for the Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson, for his part, had a "theoretical belief in press freedom" but did more than anyone to encourage a partisan press.
From there, the book jumps to Andrew Jackson, and then to Abraham Lincoln, both of whom somewhat disturbingly suspended press freedoms during times of war - Jackson in New Orleans during the War of 1812, and Lincoln, of course, during the Civil War. Holzer, as a Lincoln expert, provides a good overview of Lincoln's wartime suspension of civil liberties and press freedom, and acknowledges criticisms of it. But he largely concludes that Lincoln can't be condemned by our modern standards, because he had to break the Constitution in order to save it.
The book begins to come alive in the chapter devoted to Theodore Roosevelt, as we enter the more modern era. The press was no longer party-controlled as it once was, presidents began to interact directly with reporters, and TR offered far greater accessibility and informality in his interactions with the press. I honestly found this chapter to be more interesting, evocative and concise in making its points, than Doris Kearns Goodwin’s The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism, an entire book that was ostensibly devoted to Roosevelt’s relations with the press.
Aside from Woodrow Wilson, who instituted the practice of regular, formal (though off-the-record) news conferences, Holzer barely mentions anyone else immediately preceding FDR, even though Harding was a former newspaper editor himself who restored regular press conferences that Wilson ended during World War I, Coolidge gave regular radio addresses that predated FDR’s more famous Fireside Chats, and Hoover established the position of presidential press secretary.
But a book that’s already lengthy can’t include everything. About FDR, Holzer astutely notes that "no one more adroitly corralled the press to advance public policy; and no press corps ever so willingly reported what a chief executive desired, or more graciously concealed what he wanted hidden."
And then we move on to Kennedy, after which every president is covered with no more gaps. LBJ is given credit for allowing journalists to report freely during wartime and not censoring or restricting their movement like other presidents before and since, though Holzer calls it a "self-defeating but admirable example." The Vietnam War, he says, is when the press started becoming more restive and more adversarial, and the days when they willingly covered up the likes of FDR’s disability or JFK’s affairs began to seem quaint.
Nixon’s adversarial attitude toward the press, and his penchant for secrecy and deceit, further emboldened reporters to no longer be as pliant as they were a generation before. “In one sense, Nixon contributed to the public good by liberating the press at last from its almost Victorian restraints," Holzer observes, but in doing so, he also unleashed a new form of "gotcha" journalism, in which some reporters began seizing on controversies just for the sake of it - especially when we get to presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for whom absurd episodes like Carter’s “killer rabbit” incident and Clinton’s $200 haircut became full-blown media scandals.
Up to this point, the book is a very readable and straightforward history, and I was still thinking in terms of five stars. But around the time of the Clinton administration, there’s a subtle change in tone, perhaps because we’re examining more recent events without the benefit of historical hindsight. Holzer begins to critique the press in a way he hasn’t before, writing that reporters "often preferred to demonize (Clinton) rather than cover him straightforwardly", he critiques the rise of “pack journalism” aimed at the Clintons, and he focuses largely on the trivial (often self-inflicted) negative stories about the Clintons that appeared in the press, as if to suggest that no news outlet ever provided any substantive coverage of Clinton at all. Holzer also, at this point, begins to inject himself into the narrative more, with first-person references to interactions he had with various presidents, and a brief description of his own politics that calls into question his own objectivity in trying to write about recent political events as history.
By the time we get to Obama, Holzer comes across as less partisan. But he begins to conflate the legitimate press with the less-restrained antics of partisan cable news pundits, opinion programs, radio talk show hosts, and conservative cable “news” outlets for whom truth takes a back seat to partisanship. And he strains to appear objective by engaging in false-equivalence bothsidesism by, for example, treating a news source like CNN and the hyperpartisan and unobjective Fox News as though they’re merely two sides of the same coin. He similarly begins to refer to objective reporters as the “liberal media” to distinguish them from “conservative media,” which must delight critics who insist you can only be one or the other. And the most jarring false equivalence is when he muses that for all of Trump’s anti-media, lying, smearing rhetoric, hey, at least he didn’t crack down on the press like Adams or Lincoln did. I can’t fathom that Holzer believes what he’s writing here - he’s just trying so hard to be nonjudgmental that it comes across as disingenuous and falls flat.
Perhaps Holzer should have stuck to the history and ended his book long before he got to the present day, because the modern chapters are the weakest, they don’t add much to our understanding of familiar recent events, and they only serve to drag down the quality of the book as a whole. And he has little to say in conclusion to sum up his story - we just end with Trump, before the pandemic, before the insurrection and before his banishment from Twitter - and that’s it.
In addition, there are the sloppy errors I referenced earlier: John C. Calhoun is identified as a Senator from Georgia. Holzer misquotes one of Nixon's most famous lines in his farewell address ("those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you die yourself.") He also misquotes Bush 41’s "kindler and gentler nation," misnames CNN’s Mary Tillotson as “Martha,” identifies Bob Livingston as Speaker of the House when he resigned before assuming the post, says Bush 43 won in 2000 by "a single vote in the Electoral College", and describes Tim Russert's famous election-night dry-erase whiteboard as being made of "white oak-tag poster board," and residing in "the Smithsonian" when it does not, and was instead displayed in the Newseum at the time of his writing. And those are only the errors that I happened to catch.
So perhaps in trying to tackle eras that were "outside his zone of comfort and lifelong study," Holzer bit off a bit more than he could chew. The history is fascinating, the individual anecdotes are captivating, the overall subject is compelling, but a more focused study of a more contained time period might have worked better in the end than trying to cover it all.
The book devotes one (in FDR’s case, two) chapters to each of 19 presidents, with most of those who are not covered in-depth at least briefly summarized. In compiling this sweeping history of presidential relations with the press, from George Washington to Donald Trump, Holzer acknowledges that some eras he writes about were "outside his zone of comfort and lifelong study," which could explain some of the unevenness in tone and quality of the various chapters.
Early chapters are devoted to the growing pains of a new country and a free press finding its footing. Many newspapers were not objective truth-tellers, but partisan mouthpieces for parties and presidential administrations, often "testing the boundaries of free speech" - sometimes by "breaching the boundaries of taste and truth," Holzer writes. George Washington largely left the press alone to establish its own boundaries, while the pendulum swung the other way when John Adams “chose repression over persuasion” with his support for the Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson, for his part, had a "theoretical belief in press freedom" but did more than anyone to encourage a partisan press.
From there, the book jumps to Andrew Jackson, and then to Abraham Lincoln, both of whom somewhat disturbingly suspended press freedoms during times of war - Jackson in New Orleans during the War of 1812, and Lincoln, of course, during the Civil War. Holzer, as a Lincoln expert, provides a good overview of Lincoln's wartime suspension of civil liberties and press freedom, and acknowledges criticisms of it. But he largely concludes that Lincoln can't be condemned by our modern standards, because he had to break the Constitution in order to save it.
The book begins to come alive in the chapter devoted to Theodore Roosevelt, as we enter the more modern era. The press was no longer party-controlled as it once was, presidents began to interact directly with reporters, and TR offered far greater accessibility and informality in his interactions with the press. I honestly found this chapter to be more interesting, evocative and concise in making its points, than Doris Kearns Goodwin’s The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism, an entire book that was ostensibly devoted to Roosevelt’s relations with the press.
Aside from Woodrow Wilson, who instituted the practice of regular, formal (though off-the-record) news conferences, Holzer barely mentions anyone else immediately preceding FDR, even though Harding was a former newspaper editor himself who restored regular press conferences that Wilson ended during World War I, Coolidge gave regular radio addresses that predated FDR’s more famous Fireside Chats, and Hoover established the position of presidential press secretary.
But a book that’s already lengthy can’t include everything. About FDR, Holzer astutely notes that "no one more adroitly corralled the press to advance public policy; and no press corps ever so willingly reported what a chief executive desired, or more graciously concealed what he wanted hidden."
And then we move on to Kennedy, after which every president is covered with no more gaps. LBJ is given credit for allowing journalists to report freely during wartime and not censoring or restricting their movement like other presidents before and since, though Holzer calls it a "self-defeating but admirable example." The Vietnam War, he says, is when the press started becoming more restive and more adversarial, and the days when they willingly covered up the likes of FDR’s disability or JFK’s affairs began to seem quaint.
Nixon’s adversarial attitude toward the press, and his penchant for secrecy and deceit, further emboldened reporters to no longer be as pliant as they were a generation before. “In one sense, Nixon contributed to the public good by liberating the press at last from its almost Victorian restraints," Holzer observes, but in doing so, he also unleashed a new form of "gotcha" journalism, in which some reporters began seizing on controversies just for the sake of it - especially when we get to presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for whom absurd episodes like Carter’s “killer rabbit” incident and Clinton’s $200 haircut became full-blown media scandals.
Up to this point, the book is a very readable and straightforward history, and I was still thinking in terms of five stars. But around the time of the Clinton administration, there’s a subtle change in tone, perhaps because we’re examining more recent events without the benefit of historical hindsight. Holzer begins to critique the press in a way he hasn’t before, writing that reporters "often preferred to demonize (Clinton) rather than cover him straightforwardly", he critiques the rise of “pack journalism” aimed at the Clintons, and he focuses largely on the trivial (often self-inflicted) negative stories about the Clintons that appeared in the press, as if to suggest that no news outlet ever provided any substantive coverage of Clinton at all. Holzer also, at this point, begins to inject himself into the narrative more, with first-person references to interactions he had with various presidents, and a brief description of his own politics that calls into question his own objectivity in trying to write about recent political events as history.
By the time we get to Obama, Holzer comes across as less partisan. But he begins to conflate the legitimate press with the less-restrained antics of partisan cable news pundits, opinion programs, radio talk show hosts, and conservative cable “news” outlets for whom truth takes a back seat to partisanship. And he strains to appear objective by engaging in false-equivalence bothsidesism by, for example, treating a news source like CNN and the hyperpartisan and unobjective Fox News as though they’re merely two sides of the same coin. He similarly begins to refer to objective reporters as the “liberal media” to distinguish them from “conservative media,” which must delight critics who insist you can only be one or the other. And the most jarring false equivalence is when he muses that for all of Trump’s anti-media, lying, smearing rhetoric, hey, at least he didn’t crack down on the press like Adams or Lincoln did. I can’t fathom that Holzer believes what he’s writing here - he’s just trying so hard to be nonjudgmental that it comes across as disingenuous and falls flat.
Perhaps Holzer should have stuck to the history and ended his book long before he got to the present day, because the modern chapters are the weakest, they don’t add much to our understanding of familiar recent events, and they only serve to drag down the quality of the book as a whole. And he has little to say in conclusion to sum up his story - we just end with Trump, before the pandemic, before the insurrection and before his banishment from Twitter - and that’s it.
In addition, there are the sloppy errors I referenced earlier: John C. Calhoun is identified as a Senator from Georgia. Holzer misquotes one of Nixon's most famous lines in his farewell address ("those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you die yourself.") He also misquotes Bush 41’s "kindler and gentler nation," misnames CNN’s Mary Tillotson as “Martha,” identifies Bob Livingston as Speaker of the House when he resigned before assuming the post, says Bush 43 won in 2000 by "a single vote in the Electoral College", and describes Tim Russert's famous election-night dry-erase whiteboard as being made of "white oak-tag poster board," and residing in "the Smithsonian" when it does not, and was instead displayed in the Newseum at the time of his writing. And those are only the errors that I happened to catch.
So perhaps in trying to tackle eras that were "outside his zone of comfort and lifelong study," Holzer bit off a bit more than he could chew. The history is fascinating, the individual anecdotes are captivating, the overall subject is compelling, but a more focused study of a more contained time period might have worked better in the end than trying to cover it all.
April 14, 2025
"It has been so impossible to contradict all their lies....that I have determined to contradict none; for while I should engage with one, they would publish twenty new ones"- Thomas Jefferson.
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governrs....The press was protected so it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people"-Associate Justice Hugo L. Black.
The Presidents vs. The Press is about the relationship between the presidents and the media. Despite having a freedom of the press, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, some presidents violated this right. Woodrow Wilson had dissenters against World War I locked up. John Adams was one of the earliest offenders and signed a law that people could not criticize his administration. Well, there was a loophole in the Alien Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson could be criticized.
Some presidents were able to use the press to their advantage like Ronald Reagan. Members of the media confronted him and asked hard questions about various scandals in his administration, yet Reagan found a way out every time. John F. Kennedy was another example of using the press to his advantage whereas Lyndon Johnson lamented the press did not favor him and gave JFK better treatment. John Quincy Adams was far more qualified than Andrew Jackson to be president, but the press painted him with a terrible personality, which helped Jackson win eventually.
This book had interesting anecdotes. Some chapters were better than others. The chapters about Jefferson, Johnson, and Nixon regarding their relationship with the media were captivating. Other chapters were uneven. Harold Holzer is a Lincoln scholar, so that is his specialty. He takes on areas in US history that are out of his usual expertise, and it shows. It is not a terrible book by any means; it lacks consistency at times. I found the chapters about the modern-day presidents to be the weakest.
I think Michael Beschloss or another historian that specialized in the American Presidency could have taken this topic and made it a phenomenal book. as I stated earlier, Holzer's lack of expertise in some areas of US history hurt this book. It is still worth reading and it is never dull.
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governrs....The press was protected so it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people"-Associate Justice Hugo L. Black.
The Presidents vs. The Press is about the relationship between the presidents and the media. Despite having a freedom of the press, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, some presidents violated this right. Woodrow Wilson had dissenters against World War I locked up. John Adams was one of the earliest offenders and signed a law that people could not criticize his administration. Well, there was a loophole in the Alien Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson could be criticized.
Some presidents were able to use the press to their advantage like Ronald Reagan. Members of the media confronted him and asked hard questions about various scandals in his administration, yet Reagan found a way out every time. John F. Kennedy was another example of using the press to his advantage whereas Lyndon Johnson lamented the press did not favor him and gave JFK better treatment. John Quincy Adams was far more qualified than Andrew Jackson to be president, but the press painted him with a terrible personality, which helped Jackson win eventually.
This book had interesting anecdotes. Some chapters were better than others. The chapters about Jefferson, Johnson, and Nixon regarding their relationship with the media were captivating. Other chapters were uneven. Harold Holzer is a Lincoln scholar, so that is his specialty. He takes on areas in US history that are out of his usual expertise, and it shows. It is not a terrible book by any means; it lacks consistency at times. I found the chapters about the modern-day presidents to be the weakest.
I think Michael Beschloss or another historian that specialized in the American Presidency could have taken this topic and made it a phenomenal book. as I stated earlier, Holzer's lack of expertise in some areas of US history hurt this book. It is still worth reading and it is never dull.
February 25, 2025
I first added “The President vs The Press” about a year after the departure of one POTUS (or PINO) with a contentious relationship with the members of the press and media that weren’t sycophants of his "alternate facts" agenda. Now I’m reading it 3 years later inexplicably after his return to the White House and the relationship continues to be aggressive (at least with those journalists who didn’t cave to his demands). The book itself covers not only this relationship but Harold Holzer highlights how the presidents always had wonky relations with members of the press since the nation’s founding.
The part I found most interesting about the book was the historical (pre 1900) examination of POTUS’ engagement with journalists, newspapers and other forms of media. It was very fascinating learning about Washington’s feud with the newspapers (in particular Benjamin Franklin’s grandson) yet refused to personally attack them back. Rather admirable as Holzer notes he was the first POTUS in the media’s crosshairs but the last to turn the other cheek. It could have been better than it is if more POTUS had done so or at least tried to do more to help prevent the political polarization of the country via the publishing of the news/opinions (Perhaps John Adams had it right when he pointed out that party-aligned newspapers didn’t give both parties equal space to argue). As far as periods that’s comparable to today’s contentious era, Andrew Jackson’s comes the closest (no surprise considering who is presently hero-worshipping Jackson). That said Abraham Lincoln’s draconian treatment of the press at points during the Civil War while justified at points then might have set a bad precedent for the moment now.
The 1700s-1800s historical portions of the book were the most engaging although the examination of how 20th and 21st century presidents adjusting to changing media were interesting as well. That said I wasn’t always engaged in these parts and my interest/engagement dipped as the book got into the period of living presidents, many of the Presidents that Holzer covered here he knew from his own work at the White House. A lot of what he covered from Bush Jr onwards was pretty repetitive if you read the preface/introduction which covered the same period in a more condensed and effective manner (i.e., Bush and Obama had a contentious relationship with reporters at the White House but were cordial and respectful and wished them well after leaving office while the current guy pouted like a brat because they weren’t in lock step with him enough and his demonization of the press will have dangerous consequences).
Its an effective enough historical book but “The Presidents vs the Press” failed to hold my attention as much as I was hoping for. Still an important read for any student of history and journalism though even if it wasn’t for me.
The part I found most interesting about the book was the historical (pre 1900) examination of POTUS’ engagement with journalists, newspapers and other forms of media. It was very fascinating learning about Washington’s feud with the newspapers (in particular Benjamin Franklin’s grandson) yet refused to personally attack them back. Rather admirable as Holzer notes he was the first POTUS in the media’s crosshairs but the last to turn the other cheek. It could have been better than it is if more POTUS had done so or at least tried to do more to help prevent the political polarization of the country via the publishing of the news/opinions (Perhaps John Adams had it right when he pointed out that party-aligned newspapers didn’t give both parties equal space to argue). As far as periods that’s comparable to today’s contentious era, Andrew Jackson’s comes the closest (no surprise considering who is presently hero-worshipping Jackson). That said Abraham Lincoln’s draconian treatment of the press at points during the Civil War while justified at points then might have set a bad precedent for the moment now.
The 1700s-1800s historical portions of the book were the most engaging although the examination of how 20th and 21st century presidents adjusting to changing media were interesting as well. That said I wasn’t always engaged in these parts and my interest/engagement dipped as the book got into the period of living presidents, many of the Presidents that Holzer covered here he knew from his own work at the White House. A lot of what he covered from Bush Jr onwards was pretty repetitive if you read the preface/introduction which covered the same period in a more condensed and effective manner (i.e., Bush and Obama had a contentious relationship with reporters at the White House but were cordial and respectful and wished them well after leaving office while the current guy pouted like a brat because they weren’t in lock step with him enough and his demonization of the press will have dangerous consequences).
Its an effective enough historical book but “The Presidents vs the Press” failed to hold my attention as much as I was hoping for. Still an important read for any student of history and journalism though even if it wasn’t for me.
September 30, 2020
A Good History That Misses An Opportunity for Useful Analysis
Visit I. David's blog at:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
I read The Presidents vs. The Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media – From the Founding Fathers to Fake News by Harold Holzer hoping that a historic perspective of the Presidents and the Media would provide some clarity on the current chaos in news reporting. I may have been hoping for too much.
First, the positives. In The Presidents vs. The Press Holzer tells the stories of how 16 selected Presidents, from George Washington to Donald Trump, responded to the media's news reports.
All of these Presidents felt that the media treated them unfairly and did not report accurately. However, most fully understood that, in a free society, they were going to have to find a way to deal with the media. So each of these Presidents tried, in their own way, to manage the message.
Holzer reviews the wide variation in the Presidents’ strategies. For example, John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 which criminalized many aspects of press reporting. Abraham Lincoln shut down presses to prevent disclosure of strategic information during the Civil War. Theodore Roosevelt befriended members of the press inviting them for informal visits during his noontime shaves. And Ronald Reagan limited his comments to the press to brief remarks made while on the move from one location to another.
Probably most effective were those Presidents who used new forms of communication to bypass the press entirely and take their message directly to the public. For example, Franklin Roosevelt used the radio for his fireside chats. John Kennedy used televised press conferences. Barak Obama prepared his own public relations productions to send out over social media. And Donald Trump makes extensive use of Twitter.
I am a news junkie that grew up in the 60s and 70s. Holzer’s recounting of press treatment of events like the Viet Nam War protests, Watergate, Billygate, Iran Contra, the Whitewater Scandal and Travelgate were like a trip down memory lane for me. They are all part of what is a well written history of how these 16 Presidents have been portrayed by the press and how they have responded. I wholly recommend this book for readers who are interested in reading such a history.
But, there are also a few negatives. This book is written from the Presidents’ perspective. It deals specifically with how each of the Presidents responded to his particular treatment by the press. Holzer pretty much refrains from giving any critique of the press’ actions. Instead, he describes specific actions taken by members of the press solely to provide a basis for the President’s response.
Holzer explains how the public’s sources of news have evolved over the years from written press, to broadcast media to cable news to social media. We now have the opportunity to obtain our news from hundreds of sources. But many of us elect sources that agree with our preconceived ideas of the truth. Holzer might have expressed his opinion of what constitutes responsible journalism in this current environment. He also might have pointed to one or more members of the press that are currently meeting his definition of what constitutes responsible journalism. I think his failure to provide this additional material is a missed opportunity.
I give this book 3.5 stars (rounded down to 3.0) because, while it constitutes a very good history of the relationship between these 16 Presidents and the press, it fails to provide the reader with what would have been a useful perspective on the press’ role in our current environment.
Visit I. David's blog at:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
I read The Presidents vs. The Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media – From the Founding Fathers to Fake News by Harold Holzer hoping that a historic perspective of the Presidents and the Media would provide some clarity on the current chaos in news reporting. I may have been hoping for too much.
First, the positives. In The Presidents vs. The Press Holzer tells the stories of how 16 selected Presidents, from George Washington to Donald Trump, responded to the media's news reports.
All of these Presidents felt that the media treated them unfairly and did not report accurately. However, most fully understood that, in a free society, they were going to have to find a way to deal with the media. So each of these Presidents tried, in their own way, to manage the message.
Holzer reviews the wide variation in the Presidents’ strategies. For example, John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 which criminalized many aspects of press reporting. Abraham Lincoln shut down presses to prevent disclosure of strategic information during the Civil War. Theodore Roosevelt befriended members of the press inviting them for informal visits during his noontime shaves. And Ronald Reagan limited his comments to the press to brief remarks made while on the move from one location to another.
Probably most effective were those Presidents who used new forms of communication to bypass the press entirely and take their message directly to the public. For example, Franklin Roosevelt used the radio for his fireside chats. John Kennedy used televised press conferences. Barak Obama prepared his own public relations productions to send out over social media. And Donald Trump makes extensive use of Twitter.
I am a news junkie that grew up in the 60s and 70s. Holzer’s recounting of press treatment of events like the Viet Nam War protests, Watergate, Billygate, Iran Contra, the Whitewater Scandal and Travelgate were like a trip down memory lane for me. They are all part of what is a well written history of how these 16 Presidents have been portrayed by the press and how they have responded. I wholly recommend this book for readers who are interested in reading such a history.
But, there are also a few negatives. This book is written from the Presidents’ perspective. It deals specifically with how each of the Presidents responded to his particular treatment by the press. Holzer pretty much refrains from giving any critique of the press’ actions. Instead, he describes specific actions taken by members of the press solely to provide a basis for the President’s response.
Holzer explains how the public’s sources of news have evolved over the years from written press, to broadcast media to cable news to social media. We now have the opportunity to obtain our news from hundreds of sources. But many of us elect sources that agree with our preconceived ideas of the truth. Holzer might have expressed his opinion of what constitutes responsible journalism in this current environment. He also might have pointed to one or more members of the press that are currently meeting his definition of what constitutes responsible journalism. I think his failure to provide this additional material is a missed opportunity.
I give this book 3.5 stars (rounded down to 3.0) because, while it constitutes a very good history of the relationship between these 16 Presidents and the press, it fails to provide the reader with what would have been a useful perspective on the press’ role in our current environment.
August 14, 2023
I loved how they organized each chapter by president it made things flow so much easier to comprehend. I also was intrigued throughout the entire book which is hard to say for non fiction books like these
September 15, 2024
The author is an excellent storyteller with nonfiction. It makes for an enjoyable read.
March 15, 2021
Absolute must-read in this era
July 26, 2025
The relationship between presidents and the press has been an issue since the beginning of the republic. Both the republic and the press have changed dramatically in the last two centuries, but that relationship is still very important. This book goes president by president (although skipping a lot in the 19th century) to look at how each tried to woo the press or came to shun it. Even Washington, who was loved by most Americans and the press, grew extremely frustrated by criticisms published in newspapers supporting the Anti-Federalists. Yet he never took any action against them, including not responding to any specific charge. Other presidents were more aggressive in managing the press, with Adams signing the infamous Sedition Act, Jackson giving newspapermen government jobs, and Lincoln and Wilson curtailing press freedom in wartime.
The book gets really interesting as new technologies change how information is transmitted to the public, weakening the tradition press as the interpreters of presidential action. Teddy Roosevelt used "yellow journalism" newspapers to get his words to a mass audience. FDR used radio to speak directly to the people. Kennedy saw the importance of television (and tailor was made for it). Lyndon Johnson and Nixon never really understood the press and were taken down by it. With Nixon and Watergate, the role of the press changed so that it was more explicitly adversarial and challenging. Gone were the days of not reporting on a president's infirmities to maintain his dignity. Instead, the press tried to hold the president accountable rather than potentially partnering with him. Reagan was able to manipulate the press to his advantage, but subsequent presidents all had adversarial relationships with it and tried to bypass it - Clinton and Bush through 24 hour cable news channels, Obama and Trump through the internet and social media. Trump went the furthest and waged open war on the press, at least verbally.
I really enjoyed this book and Holzer is a great story teller. It was very informative, especially on the sections about Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson. But it doesn't do a lot of analysis. It sometimes compares the actions of one president with another, but I would be hard pressed to find any sort of coherent argument. In fact, it doesn't have a conclusion. It merely stops with Trumps first term. So I would still recommend it as fun and informative, but maybe not as thought provoking as it could be.
I made notes on each chapter for my own reference.
Part 1- “Malignant Industry”
Holzer starts with the Founding Fathers, in this case the first three presidents. Each had an unhappy relationship with the press, but dealt with it in different ways. Washington was extremely frustrated with the press. All press at this point was partisan, and most supported Washington, but he let the vocal minority under his skin, calling them “infamous scribblers”. His only response, however, was silence as he believed a free press essential to a free society. Adams was less sanguine, passing the Alien and Sedition Acts that allowed his government to prosecute publishers that published against his administration. Popular unhappiness with this laws were probably the most important factor in his failed reelection bid. Jefferson was a consistent proponent of a free press, especially against federal restrictions. He helped publish the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves against the Alien and Sedition Acts. He supported a free press when he was president, although he was infuriated by what he considered lies and used newspapers to attack his rivals.
Part II – “A Government of Newspapers”
Andrea Jackson, as in most things, changed the relationship between the presidency and the press. He rewarded loyal newspapermen with government jobs and contracts, starting the "Spoils System" of political patronage. He also enlisted partisan press to promote his agenda and decried publications against him, but never tried to put in censorship as Adams had done. He recognized the growing importance of newspapers and did his best to capitalize on its expanding influence. Holzer then skips to Lincoln, who was the most repressive of any president thus far, including Adams. During the Civil War, Lincoln suppressed dissenting press—shutting down papers, arresting editors, seizing presses, and controlling telegraph wires
librarycatalog.ecu.edu
Part III – “From the Bully Pulpit to the Fireside”
Teddy Roosevelt loved the press, probably because he was an enormous egomaniac. One journalist said that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. But he was also inconsistent. He had standing rules that all discussion were off the record unless he said otherwise and he punished those he saw as breaking his trust. This including barring one reporter and newspaper from the White House, although the rest of the press kept the banned reporter informed. He also would sometimes deny bad press that he had already confirmed. Yet he always wanted to be in the headlines, which was fairly easy as he had aa larger than life presence. He was courted to be a newspaper editor after his presidency, but refused, only to regret that decision near the end of his life.
Chapter 7: Woodrow Wilson
Wilson disliked the press and viewed it as intellectual jousting. But he recognized its importance and was the first president to have regular press conferences. After being barely reelected on the idea that he kept the US out of the war in Europe, he entered the war in Europe and stopped the press conferences. Once in the war, he put up very restrictive press controls, even more than Lincoln, to control how the public understood the war. He dismantled the censorship apparatus almost immediately after the armistice. When he was incapacitated by a stroke, the press kept it secret for months, possibly out of a sense of deference to the office or a sense of avoiding panic.
Chapters 8 & 9: Franklin D. Roosevelt (I & II)
FDR was a “public‑relations wizard”, establishing great relations with the White House press and developing understandings that everything was off the record unless he said otherwise. The White House press withheld embarrassing coverage of him, including that he couldn't walk even though that was widely known. The hosted frequent press conferences with them. His masterstroke was the "Fireside Chat", where he spoke directly to the public on radio and spoke in a very informal and friendly manner, despite his patrician accent. This endeared him to the public so that when 3/4 of newspapers endorsed his opponents (which happened in all several elections) he won comfortably anyway. It is worth noting that the war took its toll on him, so when he came back from the Yalta conference, he looked to be a broken man. Nevertheless, the press did not convey his shocking decline.
Part IV – “Far Greater Public Information”
JFK mastered television and cultivated a glamorous, controlled media image. He was the first regularly televised president and the second, after Eisenhower, to have on-the-record press conferences. He had "movie-star good looks" and was an excellent speaker. He cultivated the press by having regular televised press conferences, although his answers were sometimes less than candid. The had a good relationship with the White House press that kept them from publishing about his physical infirmities. That changed after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the press largely felt betrayed by his lack of candor. But whatever animosity the press developed towards Kennedy evaporated with his assassination. The press tried to outdo each other on praise and memorials, as well as touching individual stories. This has made Kennedy into a cultural icon, even if his success in policy-making was mixed.
Chapter 11: Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson originally worked very hard to court the media, but his lack of candor, especially about the Vietnam War, undermined the initially good relationship. He understood that the press was important and he had to work with them, but didn't really understand how the press worked. As a result, he tried to woo or intimidate journalists and was then surprised if they published something negative about him. He was extremely thin skinned and took all criticism personally. In the end, his deteriorating relationship with the press and the deteriorating situation in Vietnam severely undermined his popularity, preventing him from seeking reelection.
Chapter 12: Richard Nixon
Nixon hated the press, especially the print variety, thinking it was always against him. He wasn't exactly wrong on that, but also brought some of that on himself. He had his good moments, like the "Checkers Speech", which cemented him as a VP candidate. And there were a lot of rough moments, like his "retirement" rant in 1962. When he was president, he viewed the press flatly as an enemy that was out to get him. 60 journalists made it on his "enemies list". In the end, the press brought him down because of its relentless investigation of Watergate. Nixon's completely adversarial relationship with the press, following Johnson's "credibility gap", completely changed the press's relationship with the president. Most of the press now viewed itself as a bulwark against government corruption and misinformation. The days of the press leaving out an embarrassing story about the president were gone with gotcha journalism taking its place.
Part V – “Truth Is the Glue”
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Ford tried his best to get a good relationship with the press, but he sank that quickly by pardoning Nixon. It also probably sank his changes in the 1976 election. Carter replaced him, but distrusted the press, thinking it was looking for any excuse to embarrass him as a "country bumpkin". Carter did not know how to handle the press, but his presidency was overtaken by other events that he couldn't overcome, leading to a loss to "The Great Communicator".
Chapter 14: Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush
Reagan was the essence of style over substance. His administration handled the media, dictating the agenda, while it kept him away from the camera except for heavily scripted events. In a way, it was odd, because Reagan seemed comfortable in the interviews he did. The administration made a lot of misstep, but it never seemed to do much damage to Reagan. His popularity only dipped slightly after the Iran-Contra affair. His nickname "The Great Communicator" was earned essentially because he was an actor who knew how to deliver lines and create a favorable image. This may have been because he was the most likable President (from the press's point of view) since Kennedy. He argued that he restored some of America's faith in itself and the government.
George H.W. Bush, on the other hand, had a serious style problem. He hated the press and they did him no favors. A 1987 Newsweek profile was titled "Fighting the Wimp Factor", which was a label that stuck even though the article was favorable. Then when president, he seemed unsympathetic and out of touch while Americans were facing some economic problems. And, of course, his "No new taxes" promise at the convention was a serious self-inflicted wound that would haunt him, even though the new taxes were necessary. This undid the popularity he gained from the successful Gulf War, after which his approval rating was briefly over 90%.
Chapter 15: Bill Clinton
Clinton had problems with the media before he got to his presidential campaign, labelled "Slick Willy" in 1980. But they were constantly adversarial once he started his campaign and then got worse in the White House. He was the first president to contend with 24-hour cable news, which seemed to be more mean spirited and gotcha oriented. Clinton had a lot of charisma, so his administration had him on television a lot, bypassing newspapers as the interpreters of Presidential actions. The media focused heavily on scandal and sensationalism, which Clinton gave them plenty of with various affairs. In the end, he maintained his popularity more than most presidents, but got less credit for his many achievements than he, and a lot of historians, felt he deserved.
Chapter 16: George W. Bush
Bush was kind of a basket case with the media but it seemed to work out for him for a while. His malapropisms made him look inadequate to the presidency, but the media didn't dig into his policies as much as it could have and probably should have. They nearly gave him a free pass for the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars, but it more critical as Iraq started to go south. Katrina was another PR disaster and Bush's approval never cleared 40% after that. Bush's policies were generally poorly thought out and his folksy amateur way of dealing with the press didn't cover it for long. By the 2008 financial crisis, even when he did something positive, namely stimulus for banks, the press largely glossed over it.
Chapter 17: Barack Obama
Obama entered office with great sympathy from the press, but with great antipathy from Republicans. Obama used new media to bypass traditional press while also limiting its access to people in the White House. It promised greater transparency but failed to deliver, aggressively prosecuting leaks. His use of the internet, social media and appearances on entertainment shows tried to sideline the traditional media as the gatekeepers of news.
Chapter 18: Donald Trump
Trump went further than Obama in using new media, particularly twitter, going directly to the people with his words. The effect was amplified because the media broadcast his posts. Trump was in constant conflict with the traditional press ("print media") eventually calling it an "enemy of the American people". Part of his frustration with the media was that it kept pointing out his inaccuracies, exaggerations and outright lies. More than any other president, and possibly more than all of them combined, he undermined the public's trust in news.
The book gets really interesting as new technologies change how information is transmitted to the public, weakening the tradition press as the interpreters of presidential action. Teddy Roosevelt used "yellow journalism" newspapers to get his words to a mass audience. FDR used radio to speak directly to the people. Kennedy saw the importance of television (and tailor was made for it). Lyndon Johnson and Nixon never really understood the press and were taken down by it. With Nixon and Watergate, the role of the press changed so that it was more explicitly adversarial and challenging. Gone were the days of not reporting on a president's infirmities to maintain his dignity. Instead, the press tried to hold the president accountable rather than potentially partnering with him. Reagan was able to manipulate the press to his advantage, but subsequent presidents all had adversarial relationships with it and tried to bypass it - Clinton and Bush through 24 hour cable news channels, Obama and Trump through the internet and social media. Trump went the furthest and waged open war on the press, at least verbally.
I really enjoyed this book and Holzer is a great story teller. It was very informative, especially on the sections about Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson. But it doesn't do a lot of analysis. It sometimes compares the actions of one president with another, but I would be hard pressed to find any sort of coherent argument. In fact, it doesn't have a conclusion. It merely stops with Trumps first term. So I would still recommend it as fun and informative, but maybe not as thought provoking as it could be.
I made notes on each chapter for my own reference.
Part 1- “Malignant Industry”
Holzer starts with the Founding Fathers, in this case the first three presidents. Each had an unhappy relationship with the press, but dealt with it in different ways. Washington was extremely frustrated with the press. All press at this point was partisan, and most supported Washington, but he let the vocal minority under his skin, calling them “infamous scribblers”. His only response, however, was silence as he believed a free press essential to a free society. Adams was less sanguine, passing the Alien and Sedition Acts that allowed his government to prosecute publishers that published against his administration. Popular unhappiness with this laws were probably the most important factor in his failed reelection bid. Jefferson was a consistent proponent of a free press, especially against federal restrictions. He helped publish the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves against the Alien and Sedition Acts. He supported a free press when he was president, although he was infuriated by what he considered lies and used newspapers to attack his rivals.
Part II – “A Government of Newspapers”
Andrea Jackson, as in most things, changed the relationship between the presidency and the press. He rewarded loyal newspapermen with government jobs and contracts, starting the "Spoils System" of political patronage. He also enlisted partisan press to promote his agenda and decried publications against him, but never tried to put in censorship as Adams had done. He recognized the growing importance of newspapers and did his best to capitalize on its expanding influence. Holzer then skips to Lincoln, who was the most repressive of any president thus far, including Adams. During the Civil War, Lincoln suppressed dissenting press—shutting down papers, arresting editors, seizing presses, and controlling telegraph wires
librarycatalog.ecu.edu
Part III – “From the Bully Pulpit to the Fireside”
Teddy Roosevelt loved the press, probably because he was an enormous egomaniac. One journalist said that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. But he was also inconsistent. He had standing rules that all discussion were off the record unless he said otherwise and he punished those he saw as breaking his trust. This including barring one reporter and newspaper from the White House, although the rest of the press kept the banned reporter informed. He also would sometimes deny bad press that he had already confirmed. Yet he always wanted to be in the headlines, which was fairly easy as he had aa larger than life presence. He was courted to be a newspaper editor after his presidency, but refused, only to regret that decision near the end of his life.
Chapter 7: Woodrow Wilson
Wilson disliked the press and viewed it as intellectual jousting. But he recognized its importance and was the first president to have regular press conferences. After being barely reelected on the idea that he kept the US out of the war in Europe, he entered the war in Europe and stopped the press conferences. Once in the war, he put up very restrictive press controls, even more than Lincoln, to control how the public understood the war. He dismantled the censorship apparatus almost immediately after the armistice. When he was incapacitated by a stroke, the press kept it secret for months, possibly out of a sense of deference to the office or a sense of avoiding panic.
Chapters 8 & 9: Franklin D. Roosevelt (I & II)
FDR was a “public‑relations wizard”, establishing great relations with the White House press and developing understandings that everything was off the record unless he said otherwise. The White House press withheld embarrassing coverage of him, including that he couldn't walk even though that was widely known. The hosted frequent press conferences with them. His masterstroke was the "Fireside Chat", where he spoke directly to the public on radio and spoke in a very informal and friendly manner, despite his patrician accent. This endeared him to the public so that when 3/4 of newspapers endorsed his opponents (which happened in all several elections) he won comfortably anyway. It is worth noting that the war took its toll on him, so when he came back from the Yalta conference, he looked to be a broken man. Nevertheless, the press did not convey his shocking decline.
Part IV – “Far Greater Public Information”
JFK mastered television and cultivated a glamorous, controlled media image. He was the first regularly televised president and the second, after Eisenhower, to have on-the-record press conferences. He had "movie-star good looks" and was an excellent speaker. He cultivated the press by having regular televised press conferences, although his answers were sometimes less than candid. The had a good relationship with the White House press that kept them from publishing about his physical infirmities. That changed after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the press largely felt betrayed by his lack of candor. But whatever animosity the press developed towards Kennedy evaporated with his assassination. The press tried to outdo each other on praise and memorials, as well as touching individual stories. This has made Kennedy into a cultural icon, even if his success in policy-making was mixed.
Chapter 11: Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson originally worked very hard to court the media, but his lack of candor, especially about the Vietnam War, undermined the initially good relationship. He understood that the press was important and he had to work with them, but didn't really understand how the press worked. As a result, he tried to woo or intimidate journalists and was then surprised if they published something negative about him. He was extremely thin skinned and took all criticism personally. In the end, his deteriorating relationship with the press and the deteriorating situation in Vietnam severely undermined his popularity, preventing him from seeking reelection.
Chapter 12: Richard Nixon
Nixon hated the press, especially the print variety, thinking it was always against him. He wasn't exactly wrong on that, but also brought some of that on himself. He had his good moments, like the "Checkers Speech", which cemented him as a VP candidate. And there were a lot of rough moments, like his "retirement" rant in 1962. When he was president, he viewed the press flatly as an enemy that was out to get him. 60 journalists made it on his "enemies list". In the end, the press brought him down because of its relentless investigation of Watergate. Nixon's completely adversarial relationship with the press, following Johnson's "credibility gap", completely changed the press's relationship with the president. Most of the press now viewed itself as a bulwark against government corruption and misinformation. The days of the press leaving out an embarrassing story about the president were gone with gotcha journalism taking its place.
Part V – “Truth Is the Glue”
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Ford tried his best to get a good relationship with the press, but he sank that quickly by pardoning Nixon. It also probably sank his changes in the 1976 election. Carter replaced him, but distrusted the press, thinking it was looking for any excuse to embarrass him as a "country bumpkin". Carter did not know how to handle the press, but his presidency was overtaken by other events that he couldn't overcome, leading to a loss to "The Great Communicator".
Chapter 14: Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush
Reagan was the essence of style over substance. His administration handled the media, dictating the agenda, while it kept him away from the camera except for heavily scripted events. In a way, it was odd, because Reagan seemed comfortable in the interviews he did. The administration made a lot of misstep, but it never seemed to do much damage to Reagan. His popularity only dipped slightly after the Iran-Contra affair. His nickname "The Great Communicator" was earned essentially because he was an actor who knew how to deliver lines and create a favorable image. This may have been because he was the most likable President (from the press's point of view) since Kennedy. He argued that he restored some of America's faith in itself and the government.
George H.W. Bush, on the other hand, had a serious style problem. He hated the press and they did him no favors. A 1987 Newsweek profile was titled "Fighting the Wimp Factor", which was a label that stuck even though the article was favorable. Then when president, he seemed unsympathetic and out of touch while Americans were facing some economic problems. And, of course, his "No new taxes" promise at the convention was a serious self-inflicted wound that would haunt him, even though the new taxes were necessary. This undid the popularity he gained from the successful Gulf War, after which his approval rating was briefly over 90%.
Chapter 15: Bill Clinton
Clinton had problems with the media before he got to his presidential campaign, labelled "Slick Willy" in 1980. But they were constantly adversarial once he started his campaign and then got worse in the White House. He was the first president to contend with 24-hour cable news, which seemed to be more mean spirited and gotcha oriented. Clinton had a lot of charisma, so his administration had him on television a lot, bypassing newspapers as the interpreters of Presidential actions. The media focused heavily on scandal and sensationalism, which Clinton gave them plenty of with various affairs. In the end, he maintained his popularity more than most presidents, but got less credit for his many achievements than he, and a lot of historians, felt he deserved.
Chapter 16: George W. Bush
Bush was kind of a basket case with the media but it seemed to work out for him for a while. His malapropisms made him look inadequate to the presidency, but the media didn't dig into his policies as much as it could have and probably should have. They nearly gave him a free pass for the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars, but it more critical as Iraq started to go south. Katrina was another PR disaster and Bush's approval never cleared 40% after that. Bush's policies were generally poorly thought out and his folksy amateur way of dealing with the press didn't cover it for long. By the 2008 financial crisis, even when he did something positive, namely stimulus for banks, the press largely glossed over it.
Chapter 17: Barack Obama
Obama entered office with great sympathy from the press, but with great antipathy from Republicans. Obama used new media to bypass traditional press while also limiting its access to people in the White House. It promised greater transparency but failed to deliver, aggressively prosecuting leaks. His use of the internet, social media and appearances on entertainment shows tried to sideline the traditional media as the gatekeepers of news.
Chapter 18: Donald Trump
Trump went further than Obama in using new media, particularly twitter, going directly to the people with his words. The effect was amplified because the media broadcast his posts. Trump was in constant conflict with the traditional press ("print media") eventually calling it an "enemy of the American people". Part of his frustration with the media was that it kept pointing out his inaccuracies, exaggerations and outright lies. More than any other president, and possibly more than all of them combined, he undermined the public's trust in news.
November 15, 2021
The historical relationship between our country’s presidents and the press is an important topic, especially in this age of immediate excessive information and disinformation (a.k.a. lies.) With the exclusion of President Washington’s first term, the press has been a thorn in presidents’ sides during their tenures. News organizations serve an essential function in our democracy but not all of the material they present to the public is essential. For-profit news is an amalgamation of public service and business viability while other “news” entities were and still are simply propaganda machines tailored for their respective political allies. ‘The Presidents vs. the Press’ explains the evolution of both subjects by highlighting the most notable interactions between them. Mr. Holzer does not cover all forty-five presidents but only the ones he considered most salient.
It is notable that the caca between the two hit the acrimonious fan almost from the get-go. Much of the discussion in the book revolves around the press’s opinion pieces or exposing material the presidents wanted to keep secret and how presidents responded or tried to manipulate the Fourth Estate. Holy Citizen Kane, newspapers during the colonial era were nasty little partisan pests. No president was left unscathed. Sometimes public anger led to violence towards newspapers and their publishers. The book also shows how presidents manipulated news organizations. The author highlights George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and all the presidents from John Kennedy to Foghorn Leghorn Trump. There are qualities in them that are admirable and other facets of their personalities that are as repulsive as Gollum from Lord of the Rings. News organizations evolved as did the presidents to new forms of communication and large social disruptions. At times, the presidents and the press were in cahoots about withholding information from the public, while other times some presidents came down hard on the Fourth Estate through censorship, fines, and imprisonment. Mr. Holzer chose the presidents who altered the dynamics on how they handled information and the press. New formats including newspapers, radio, television, cable news, talk radio, Fox News, the internet, and social platforms such as Twitter challenged both sides as they adapted to the new communication landscape. There was always griping by the old forms of communication as new formats jostled into the already crowded mix. The book ends at the beginning of Trump’s last year in office, so Twitter had not yet permanently cancelled his account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” after the January six assault on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Holzer’s work also includes 16 pages of color photos.
‘The Presidents vs. the Press’ gives the reader an interesting understanding about the challenges facing both parties. It is not simply an analysis of their relationship but also includes some colorful funny stories. No president portrayed in the book was immune from wigging out over the press coverage of their administration. Mr. Holzer gives a fair account of each person. My only disappointment with the book was it did not address Facebook’s impact. What I found ironic was that the more sophisticated both presidents and journalists became in handling information, the more superficial was the outcome. Today we are presented a dizzying array of information sources with many simply being propaganda and intentionally misleading or outright fabricating stuff but they disguise themselves as news sources. There is a difference between news and punditry that is not explored well enough in ‘The Presidents vs. the Press.’ We now live in a world of confirmation bias, where a lot of news is tailored towards your personal outlook. The information confirms your beliefs without challenging your perceptions. The universal acceptance of objective truth has become a victim of the Internet and social platforms have, knowingly or unknowingly, placed democracy in its crosshairs. ‘The Presidents vs. the Press’ may give you a better understanding of the dynamics at play in their relationship and make you a more discerning citizen.
It is notable that the caca between the two hit the acrimonious fan almost from the get-go. Much of the discussion in the book revolves around the press’s opinion pieces or exposing material the presidents wanted to keep secret and how presidents responded or tried to manipulate the Fourth Estate. Holy Citizen Kane, newspapers during the colonial era were nasty little partisan pests. No president was left unscathed. Sometimes public anger led to violence towards newspapers and their publishers. The book also shows how presidents manipulated news organizations. The author highlights George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and all the presidents from John Kennedy to Foghorn Leghorn Trump. There are qualities in them that are admirable and other facets of their personalities that are as repulsive as Gollum from Lord of the Rings. News organizations evolved as did the presidents to new forms of communication and large social disruptions. At times, the presidents and the press were in cahoots about withholding information from the public, while other times some presidents came down hard on the Fourth Estate through censorship, fines, and imprisonment. Mr. Holzer chose the presidents who altered the dynamics on how they handled information and the press. New formats including newspapers, radio, television, cable news, talk radio, Fox News, the internet, and social platforms such as Twitter challenged both sides as they adapted to the new communication landscape. There was always griping by the old forms of communication as new formats jostled into the already crowded mix. The book ends at the beginning of Trump’s last year in office, so Twitter had not yet permanently cancelled his account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” after the January six assault on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Holzer’s work also includes 16 pages of color photos.
‘The Presidents vs. the Press’ gives the reader an interesting understanding about the challenges facing both parties. It is not simply an analysis of their relationship but also includes some colorful funny stories. No president portrayed in the book was immune from wigging out over the press coverage of their administration. Mr. Holzer gives a fair account of each person. My only disappointment with the book was it did not address Facebook’s impact. What I found ironic was that the more sophisticated both presidents and journalists became in handling information, the more superficial was the outcome. Today we are presented a dizzying array of information sources with many simply being propaganda and intentionally misleading or outright fabricating stuff but they disguise themselves as news sources. There is a difference between news and punditry that is not explored well enough in ‘The Presidents vs. the Press.’ We now live in a world of confirmation bias, where a lot of news is tailored towards your personal outlook. The information confirms your beliefs without challenging your perceptions. The universal acceptance of objective truth has become a victim of the Internet and social platforms have, knowingly or unknowingly, placed democracy in its crosshairs. ‘The Presidents vs. the Press’ may give you a better understanding of the dynamics at play in their relationship and make you a more discerning citizen.
July 19, 2025
I first "met" Harold Holzer in an appearance on C-Span's Q&A. Holzer is one of the top Lincoln historians in the country and has been a guest on C-Span in connection with Lincoln celebrations, but now we see him as the author of a book about the relationship between the Presidents and the Press, or more accurately in modern times, the Media. Naturally Lincoln is the subject of one chapter but other prominent Presidents are included, plus every President from FDR to Trump's first term. Holzer's book covers his first term through 2019.
This is an illuminating book that teaches us, as so many history books do, that there is "nothing new under the sun." The Press and Presidents have had contemptuous relationships since George Washington with enough friction between the parties to start a forest fire.
One thing is clear: there are no innocent bystanders. Arguably, the President with the best relationship with the Press was Theodore Roosevelt; again, arguably, the worst might well be the current President as of this writing: Donald Trump.
Below are passages from the book or my comments and notes taken as I read:
It is small wonder that Trump has a picture of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office.
P. 60.
Some of these phrases describe Jackson and Trump but I have yet to discover someone who speaks for Trump. Karoline Leavitt does so as press secretary but she bows to Trump when he is around.
P. 81
Re. William Seward and Henry Raymond (New York Times),
NEITHER MAN EVER AGAIN WAVERED IN HIS SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
It has been often written that Seward repeatedly tried to wrest power from Lincoln, believing himself to be more qualified to make Executive decisions. However, Holzer’ s account is in accord with Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on the Lincoln Presidency, TEAM OF RIVALS.
Page 271
Associate Justice Hugo Black in his majority (6-3) opinion on the Pentagon Papers case:
“ The press was protected so it could serve the governed, not the governors. The press was protected so it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."
Holzer describes the pursuit of truth by the press in one instance as Javertlike, referring to the policeman, the villain in Victor Hugo’s novel, and more famously as a Broadway musical, Les Miserable.
Page 329
Holzer cites Bush’s low 37% popular vote in the 1992 election, comparing it to Taft’s low vote against Wilson in 1912. What he did not mention was that both elections had a prominent third party candidate. In 1992 it was Ross Perot; four score years before it was the ever popular Theodore Roosevelt.
Page 429
Regarding a Trump rally in El Paso, Texas in 2019 in which a BBC cameraman was assaulted by a MAGA supporter:
ELEANOR MONTAGUE, A BBC WASHINGTON NEWS EDITOR, TWEETED THAT THE EL PASO AUDIENCE HAD BEEN "WHIPPED INTO A FRENZY AGAINST THE MEDIA BY TRUMP AND OTHER SPEAKERS ALL NIGHT."
While the targets here were the media, this behavior by Trump was repeated on January 6, 2021, inspiring the insurrection against the Capitol.
Five stars slightly waning
This is an illuminating book that teaches us, as so many history books do, that there is "nothing new under the sun." The Press and Presidents have had contemptuous relationships since George Washington with enough friction between the parties to start a forest fire.
One thing is clear: there are no innocent bystanders. Arguably, the President with the best relationship with the Press was Theodore Roosevelt; again, arguably, the worst might well be the current President as of this writing: Donald Trump.
Below are passages from the book or my comments and notes taken as I read:
It is small wonder that Trump has a picture of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office.
P. 60.
Some of these phrases describe Jackson and Trump but I have yet to discover someone who speaks for Trump. Karoline Leavitt does so as press secretary but she bows to Trump when he is around.
P. 81
Re. William Seward and Henry Raymond (New York Times),
NEITHER MAN EVER AGAIN WAVERED IN HIS SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
It has been often written that Seward repeatedly tried to wrest power from Lincoln, believing himself to be more qualified to make Executive decisions. However, Holzer’ s account is in accord with Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on the Lincoln Presidency, TEAM OF RIVALS.
Page 271
Associate Justice Hugo Black in his majority (6-3) opinion on the Pentagon Papers case:
“ The press was protected so it could serve the governed, not the governors. The press was protected so it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."
Holzer describes the pursuit of truth by the press in one instance as Javertlike, referring to the policeman, the villain in Victor Hugo’s novel, and more famously as a Broadway musical, Les Miserable.
Page 329
Holzer cites Bush’s low 37% popular vote in the 1992 election, comparing it to Taft’s low vote against Wilson in 1912. What he did not mention was that both elections had a prominent third party candidate. In 1992 it was Ross Perot; four score years before it was the ever popular Theodore Roosevelt.
Page 429
Regarding a Trump rally in El Paso, Texas in 2019 in which a BBC cameraman was assaulted by a MAGA supporter:
ELEANOR MONTAGUE, A BBC WASHINGTON NEWS EDITOR, TWEETED THAT THE EL PASO AUDIENCE HAD BEEN "WHIPPED INTO A FRENZY AGAINST THE MEDIA BY TRUMP AND OTHER SPEAKERS ALL NIGHT."
While the targets here were the media, this behavior by Trump was repeated on January 6, 2021, inspiring the insurrection against the Capitol.
Five stars slightly waning
September 9, 2020
Preeminent Lincoln historian Harold Holzer broadens his view to examine the relationship between many of our nation's more prominent presidents and the press that covers them. While there is a tendency to view our present situation as an unfettered attack on the media, presidents have always had a contentious love/hate interconnection with newspapers and new media. John Adams's sedition acts sought to hold newspapermen liable for treason, Lincoln temporarily shut down duplicitous newspapers, and Nixon, well, Nixon had his own issues with the press.
Holzer also delves into the presidents who successfully mastered new forms of communication. Abraham Lincoln made use of the new "instant communication" technology of telegraphy. FDR mastered the radio broadcast. Kennedy became a star on television. Obama made use of the power of the internet as Facebook and websites spread the news without the need of classical media intermediaries. And of course we have the current situation where a barrage of morning tweets can determine the news cycle of the day, albeit by flagrant and repeated concoctions of "alternative facts" (aka, lies).
The book deals with each of eighteen presidents even handedly and insightfully. Readers will learn much that they didn't know about the past, and reinforce their biases of the present. A book well worth reading.
Holzer also delves into the presidents who successfully mastered new forms of communication. Abraham Lincoln made use of the new "instant communication" technology of telegraphy. FDR mastered the radio broadcast. Kennedy became a star on television. Obama made use of the power of the internet as Facebook and websites spread the news without the need of classical media intermediaries. And of course we have the current situation where a barrage of morning tweets can determine the news cycle of the day, albeit by flagrant and repeated concoctions of "alternative facts" (aka, lies).
The book deals with each of eighteen presidents even handedly and insightfully. Readers will learn much that they didn't know about the past, and reinforce their biases of the present. A book well worth reading.
June 5, 2022
This was my first book by Harold Holzer but it will not be my last. He has a very enjoyable and readable writing style. He is also quite generous in in sharing of favorable compliments, sprinkling his positive observations in the book, for example, in the Bill Clinton chapter followed immediately by the same in the George W. Bush chapter. The history in the book is outstanding. It is worth reading the acknowledgments to see who he consulted as subject matter experts on the various presidents covered in the book. The book does not address each and every president; that would be unnecessary. Starting with Kennedy, all are included which accounts for a little more than half of the book. And then there is the Trump chapter. Here is an example of some of the truly great writing in this book:
“In fact, the greatest threat to the traditional equilibrium that usually exists between the press and our presidents comes from neither the rogue belligerence of an independent media nor the jarring bellicosity of a headstrong president. It comes with the loss of a universal acceptance of objective truth.”
Professor Holzer is accurate in his assessment that we at least need to try to agree on the basic facts—truth.
Well done. JIM
“In fact, the greatest threat to the traditional equilibrium that usually exists between the press and our presidents comes from neither the rogue belligerence of an independent media nor the jarring bellicosity of a headstrong president. It comes with the loss of a universal acceptance of objective truth.”
Professor Holzer is accurate in his assessment that we at least need to try to agree on the basic facts—truth.
Well done. JIM
October 3, 2020
This book could not have been published at a more crucial moment. Given the vitriolic demeanor President Donald Trump has given to free press in America, Hollzer takes us back through the life and times of 19 Presidents and examined their interaction with press. He did not just detail events between journalists and Commander-in-Chiefs. Rather he analyzed what their interactions meant for the populous and the ways in which the Presidents would use Constitutional powers to limit the access of the press. The book was a quick and insightful read, one that helped me interpret the actions of the current President. Though the book ends around the end of Trump's second term campaign, the book provides enough leverage so one can judge how the Presidents current actions can be justified currently. It also allows readers to understand the importance of the sentiments Trump has has with various news outlets and show that past presidents have expressed similar grievances and committed vicious action against the free press. An outstanding and monumental book that should entice future historians and social scientists to examine this confusing relationship.
October 19, 2020
It wasn't just the current White House occupant who experienced a hostile relationship with the press. And distinguished Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer isn't only about Lincoln and the Civil War. In this study of our Presidents and the press he focuses on "the biggies" starting with Washington, moves through the 19th. century-Jackson and Lincoln-and into the 20th. century with Teddy, on to Woodrow and FDR and forward. (What no newspaper editor Harding? Well Warren is not a major player save for the coat closet.) From complaining George through tormented Abe-who carried favorable news clippings in his pocket when he went to Ford's Theatre-and FDR, who perhaps played the press like no other, we see the tumultuous relationship of President vs. Press in our (hopefully still) free society. Kennedy did not have that easy a time of it, and Nixon carried that huge chip on his shoulder, Oh! and we have LBJ in his humorous vulgarities. Obama is perhaps surprisingly very critically surveyed, while the current occupant, well, he could play the NYC tabloids but the D.C. political gang, that's another story. And that story is still being written.
January 20, 2024
Hozier presents a lively treatise on how our presidents not only engaged with the Fourth Estate, but elevated technology and non-traditional platforms to bring their messages directly to voters - bypassing the White House press corps.
I was incredible captivated, especially in the exploration of Jefferson’s ambivalence towards the press; FDR’s leverage of radio and his “Fireside Chats”; JFK’s abbreviated but historic made-for-TV presidency; LBJ and Nixon’s ever-present and varied anxieties over their news coverage; and the statistics which illustrate Obama’s failed promise of transparency, even as he embraced social media.
The final chapter, diving deep on the war between Donald Trump and American mainstream media, is serious and consequential, arguing why our First Amendment and freedom of the press matters as we once again prepare to elect our next president in 2024.
A fantastic read!
I was incredible captivated, especially in the exploration of Jefferson’s ambivalence towards the press; FDR’s leverage of radio and his “Fireside Chats”; JFK’s abbreviated but historic made-for-TV presidency; LBJ and Nixon’s ever-present and varied anxieties over their news coverage; and the statistics which illustrate Obama’s failed promise of transparency, even as he embraced social media.
The final chapter, diving deep on the war between Donald Trump and American mainstream media, is serious and consequential, arguing why our First Amendment and freedom of the press matters as we once again prepare to elect our next president in 2024.
A fantastic read!
January 12, 2021
Interesting perspectives and analysis how various Presidential administrations handled press coverage throughout our nation’s history. Based on this book, FDR (with his Fireside Chats) and JFK with his intellect and humor were very good at dealing with the press and also communicating with the American public. Donald Trump has been a disaster.
It was interesting to see how various Press Secretaries in the various administrations made out. Most of them did not have long tenures. I enjoyed the book as the author kept things interesting with inside stories throughout its 443 pages.
Trump has little use for the press. Very few press conferences. He uses Twitter to get his message out. Hopefully starting with Joe Biden, there will be a renewed civility between the President and the Press. But I’m not counting on it.
It was interesting to see how various Press Secretaries in the various administrations made out. Most of them did not have long tenures. I enjoyed the book as the author kept things interesting with inside stories throughout its 443 pages.
Trump has little use for the press. Very few press conferences. He uses Twitter to get his message out. Hopefully starting with Joe Biden, there will be a renewed civility between the President and the Press. But I’m not counting on it.
January 2, 2021
This is a well-researched and footnoted history of the always-prickly relationship between American Presidents and the press. While it doesn't cover all of the Presidents (and I'm not sure that there would be much to say about Fillmore or Pierce), it does go from Washington to Trump. There is a consistency in the relationships, and it appears that each President wanted to be Henry II and give the press a Beckett treatment. However, the antipathy seems to have grown exponentially as the news cycle become compressed and instant communication became possible. As we continue to listen to accusations of lies and fake news from opposing parties, it helps to have the perspective that nothing is new; we are just for more aware of it.
October 12, 2020
Another reviewer said this tome was biased in favor of the presidents. I'm not so certain, because for most of the book, the author details how presidents attempted to manipulate the press or whatever medium was then growing. I wish the author had given examples of when the printed press presented the facts, as it often does, as in "Four Swiss Guards test positive," or "Man derails A train at 14th Street," or "Hillary Clinton earned 65,853,814 votes."
---
In 1973 we hosted two French university students for a month. They were amazed that U. S. newspapers were generally non-partisan. Despite the howls from the right, I find that true of many daily papers now.
---
In 1973 we hosted two French university students for a month. They were amazed that U. S. newspapers were generally non-partisan. Despite the howls from the right, I find that true of many daily papers now.
November 5, 2020
Harold Holzer does a great job digging up obscure as well known interactions presidents have had with the press, dating all the way back to GW, who was perhaps the only one who didn’t scold them publicly. From then on, it was all downhill beginning with Adams and the Sedition Act to Lincoln imprisoning journalists. Of course there were those,like FDR, who the press loved to a large extent. We get the sense of how presidents co-opted the press by granting them plush positions in their administrations. If the point of the book was to convince the reader that Trump was a relative pussycat compared to his predecessors, I get it. In digging deep Holzer is entertaining and a terrific historian.
April 26, 2021
Professor Holzer is incredible. Those of us lucky enough to take his class through Pace University/GLI are in awe of the stories he has to tell about the presidents. He knows so many and has been in this arena for so long, his book is just phenomenal and filled with great information and anecdotes.
We, his students, have been begging him to please write a second book with all the presidents he didn’t feature, and then to write a third book which would be his memoir. Hopefully he will rethink that because at this point he is saying no, but we know that they would both be bestsellers. What an amazing author and a fantastic book!
We, his students, have been begging him to please write a second book with all the presidents he didn’t feature, and then to write a third book which would be his memoir. Hopefully he will rethink that because at this point he is saying no, but we know that they would both be bestsellers. What an amazing author and a fantastic book!
February 15, 2025
This was a sweeping book in its scope, but mixed in its execution. Holzer sets out to trace the relationship between the president and the news media throughout American history, and the subsequent discussion is at times insightful but other times cursory. Much of the book was weighted towards present times, and here Holzer's personal opinions at times intruded - proving yet again it's difficult to evaluate living presidents and administrations. In the end, there wasn't really a unifying theme to the narrative, other than the observation the presidents and the press have had a fractious relationship from the start of our nation...
January 18, 2026
An incredibly interesting book that not only shows that many of the problems we're seeing with the press today (being highly partisan for example) have existed since the dawn of the country and are also unprecedented. I really liked the way the book explored how certain presidents really took command of certain new forms of media, and I found the book to be very even handed. I especially enjoyed the chapter about President Obama's sidelining of traditional media. As someone who considers him to be the best president in my lifetime, it was still nice to see where he went wrong, and some of the mistakes of his presidency.
June 23, 2021
This book is a very in-depth study of the presidency in the relationship and evolution of the press. As one might suspect the author picks and chooses which president he speaks about. These presidents include the founding fathers, Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK Reagan, Clinton, Barack Obama and of course Trump. If one is interested in this book I would recommend watching the Q&A interview with the author he highlights the important takeaways from the book it will save you time and in my opinion much energy.
January 16, 2021
Excellent Historical Perspective of the Press and Presidents
An incredibly researched and informative narrative of the Press and their relationships with POTUS from Washington to Trump. The insights gained from this book will inform my opinions relative to the Press as well as POTUS and government officials for years to come.
The chapters covering Nixon, Clinton, Obama and Trump are MUST reads. Absolutely loved this book!
An incredibly researched and informative narrative of the Press and their relationships with POTUS from Washington to Trump. The insights gained from this book will inform my opinions relative to the Press as well as POTUS and government officials for years to come.
The chapters covering Nixon, Clinton, Obama and Trump are MUST reads. Absolutely loved this book!
April 24, 2021
I'm really interested in the media these days, and in reading histories about the presidents from different angles, so this is perfect for me. By different angles, I mean books about the chiefs of staff or national security advisors, etc. Each gives a layer of history that other books don't really cover. So I found this book really fascinating. So much of history really does rhyme! It's a timely and well-researched book, I recommend it.
August 30, 2023
Filled with fascinating anecdotes and excellent quotes, Holzer does a fantastic job of examining the nature of the relationship between the Presidents and the Press throughout American history, emphasizing its highs and lows and the revolutionary technology that redefines it. I really enjoyed every chapter and have a much greater appreciation for this dimension of political history, especially as presidents face existential crises, both foreign and domestic, as well as on the personal frontier.
November 21, 2024
Engaging read, and very doable on Audio without feeling like you're missing out on who's who and other details by not having the text in front of you. Holzer is critical of all presidents he examines, regardless of party. Yet, he also demonstrates the positive sides of presidential working relationships when applicable. The "vs." implies it is only about the animosity but it isn't all conflict. However, this animosity goes back to the beginning, not just 2016.
October 26, 2020
Freedom of the press is something America touts as unique compared to other countries. This covers the relationship of every president and their own relationship to the press with the First Amendment in mind. Fascinating and informative. Fans of presidential history and journalist ethics will especially find this work of interest.
April 2, 2022
This will surely go down as the definitive history on presidential relations with the media, and Harold Holzer has updated it at a critical time. For all the attention on Donald Trump’s demolition of trust in the institution, it’s good to remember, as Holzer so thoroughly chronicles here, that every president since Washington has had conflicts with the journalists who cover the most important office in the world. It’s the presidents’ reaction to those conflicts that separates the statesmen from those who would erode democracy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews