What do you think?
Rate this book
The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media
New York Times Bestseller
With a New Afterword
“A comic book with zest and brains―one that just might help a reader understand the brave new world.” ― The New Yorker A million listeners trust NPR’s Brooke Gladstone to guide them through the complexities of the modern media. Bursting onto the page in vivid comics by acclaimed artist Josh Neufeld, this brilliant radio personality guides us through two millennia of media history, debunking the notion that “The Media” is an external force beyond our control and equipping us to be savvy consumers and shapers of the news. An invaluable introduction to how the media works from one of the acknowledged masters of the industry, this tenth anniversary edition brings the story up to date, with new illustrations and an afterword that offers a deep examination of the rise of social media and the public’s responsibility in a time of division and disinformation. 2 illustrations
With a New Afterword
“A comic book with zest and brains―one that just might help a reader understand the brave new world.” ― The New Yorker A million listeners trust NPR’s Brooke Gladstone to guide them through the complexities of the modern media. Bursting onto the page in vivid comics by acclaimed artist Josh Neufeld, this brilliant radio personality guides us through two millennia of media history, debunking the notion that “The Media” is an external force beyond our control and equipping us to be savvy consumers and shapers of the news. An invaluable introduction to how the media works from one of the acknowledged masters of the industry, this tenth anniversary edition brings the story up to date, with new illustrations and an afterword that offers a deep examination of the rise of social media and the public’s responsibility in a time of division and disinformation. 2 illustrations
224 pages, Paperback
First published May 23, 2011
91 people are currently reading
2839 people want to read
About the author
Brooke Gladstone
6 books76 followersBrooke Gladstone is an American journalist and media analyst. She is cohost of NPR's On the Media and a former senior editor at Weekend Edition and All Things Considered. She lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 508 reviews
December 29, 2016
Everything I've been reading lately is a reaction to November's presidential election — I'm either trying to understand what happened, or I'm trying to escape from reality. This book falls under trying to understand.
I am deeply disturbed by the role that fake news played in America's election, and I was glad I found Brooke Gladstone's book at the library. The Influencing Machine is a history of the media and how its impact has evolved over time. Published in 2011, the book is highly relevant and insightful about our current news landscape. Check out this prescient passage:
OMG, right? No wonder I'm freaking out. However, like most things related to the election, I get horrified and then try to calm down by looking at the grand sweep of history (which is hopefully bending toward justice, despite recent setbacks). Gladstone helps by reminding the reader that our media has previously been mired in the muck:
There is a lot of good information in this book, which is told in the form of a comic, with illustrations by Josh Neufeld (I really liked his book about Hurricane Katrina, A.D.: New Orleans After the Deluge). The comic format made this an enjoyable read, and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to read more about the history and influence of the media.
More Favorite Quotes
"The media machine is a delusion. What we're really dealing with is a mirror: an exalting, degrading, tedious, and transcendent funhouse mirror of America. Actually, media is a plural noun: we're dealing with a whole mess of mirrors. They aren't well calibrated; they're fogged, and cracked. But you're in there, reflected somewhere, and so is everyone else (including people you dislike)."
"American governments will always lash out at discordant speech when they feel threatened, either by an external enemy or by an enemy within — and no one who can write or speak is immune from its sting. The press is merely the loudest canary in the coal mine. Of course, governments reasonably argue that when the nation faces a mortal threat, certain rights must be suspended, and in such times many citizens agree. But civil libertarians argue back that the nation is equally threatened by the suspension of rights that define us ... The Constitution makes no distinction between the speech of a fractious, self-interested, fitfully heroic people and its fractious, self-interested, fitfully heroic press. That's because there never really was a distinction, and now that everyone carries a potential printing press in a back pocket or purse, there's no use pretending that there is."
[On the history of speech suppression in America]
"Two steps forward usually follow each step backward. We learn from our mistakes. Then we forget and learn again."
"Journalism does tend to attract a certain kind of person. Cynics. Pests. Obnoxious inquisitors. Terriers nipping at the ankles of their betters. [Helen Thomas says] We never tried to win a popularity contest. We know we're not loved. Even liked. That doesn't matter. The whole attitude toward us has been so cyclical. After President Nixon started his anti-media campaign, people would come up and, well, spit on you, literally. They said, 'Why don't you tell the truth?' After Watergate, people came up to the press and said, 'You saved the country.'"
"To well and truly report a war — amidst official lies, commercial pressures, horror, trauma, principles, and patriotism — is to be at war with oneself. Objectivity is essential. Objectivity is impossible."
"Journalist Robert Wright believes that technology, especially information technology, paved the way from barbarism to global civilization — but 'technology is no guarantor of moral progress or civility.'"
I am deeply disturbed by the role that fake news played in America's election, and I was glad I found Brooke Gladstone's book at the library. The Influencing Machine is a history of the media and how its impact has evolved over time. Published in 2011, the book is highly relevant and insightful about our current news landscape. Check out this prescient passage:
I've been reporting on the media for some 25 years, apparently none of them good years. The concentration of media ownership, the blurring of news and opinion, the yawning news hole created by 24-hour news cycles ... scarifying local coverage ... shriveled foreign coverage ... liberal bias ... conservative bias ... celebrities ... scandal ... echo chambers ... arrogance ... elitism ... bloggers with no standards ...
I see our most hallowed journalistic institutions crumbling, I see the business model that relied on mass audiences being displaced, with stunning speed, by one that survives by aggregating millions of tiny, targeted audience fragments.
The reality that anyone with a cell phone can now presume to make, break or fabricate the news has shaken our citadels of culture and journalism to the core. The once mighty gatekeepers watch in horror as libelous, manifestly unprofessional websites flood the media ether with unadulterated id.
OMG, right? No wonder I'm freaking out. However, like most things related to the election, I get horrified and then try to calm down by looking at the grand sweep of history (which is hopefully bending toward justice, despite recent setbacks). Gladstone helps by reminding the reader that our media has previously been mired in the muck:
We've been here before: the incivility, the inanities, the obsessions, and the broken business models. In fact, it's been far worse and the Republic survives. The irony is that the more people participate in the media, the more they hate the media. The greater the participation, the greater the paranoia that the media are in control.
But I've watched journalists cover countless catastrophes, elections, political gridlock, moral panics, and several wars. I've seen how public opinion coalesces around the issues dominating the news, and I can tell you that no one is in control. There is no conspiracy. Even though the media are mostly corporate-owned, their first allegiance is to their public because, if they lose that allegiance, they lose money.
Sometimes the press leads the public; sometimes the public leads the press. The media, at least the mainstream media, don't want to get too far ahead. They just don't want to be left behind.
There is a lot of good information in this book, which is told in the form of a comic, with illustrations by Josh Neufeld (I really liked his book about Hurricane Katrina, A.D.: New Orleans After the Deluge). The comic format made this an enjoyable read, and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to read more about the history and influence of the media.
More Favorite Quotes
"The media machine is a delusion. What we're really dealing with is a mirror: an exalting, degrading, tedious, and transcendent funhouse mirror of America. Actually, media is a plural noun: we're dealing with a whole mess of mirrors. They aren't well calibrated; they're fogged, and cracked. But you're in there, reflected somewhere, and so is everyone else (including people you dislike)."
"American governments will always lash out at discordant speech when they feel threatened, either by an external enemy or by an enemy within — and no one who can write or speak is immune from its sting. The press is merely the loudest canary in the coal mine. Of course, governments reasonably argue that when the nation faces a mortal threat, certain rights must be suspended, and in such times many citizens agree. But civil libertarians argue back that the nation is equally threatened by the suspension of rights that define us ... The Constitution makes no distinction between the speech of a fractious, self-interested, fitfully heroic people and its fractious, self-interested, fitfully heroic press. That's because there never really was a distinction, and now that everyone carries a potential printing press in a back pocket or purse, there's no use pretending that there is."
[On the history of speech suppression in America]
"Two steps forward usually follow each step backward. We learn from our mistakes. Then we forget and learn again."
"Journalism does tend to attract a certain kind of person. Cynics. Pests. Obnoxious inquisitors. Terriers nipping at the ankles of their betters. [Helen Thomas says] We never tried to win a popularity contest. We know we're not loved. Even liked. That doesn't matter. The whole attitude toward us has been so cyclical. After President Nixon started his anti-media campaign, people would come up and, well, spit on you, literally. They said, 'Why don't you tell the truth?' After Watergate, people came up to the press and said, 'You saved the country.'"
"To well and truly report a war — amidst official lies, commercial pressures, horror, trauma, principles, and patriotism — is to be at war with oneself. Objectivity is essential. Objectivity is impossible."
"Journalist Robert Wright believes that technology, especially information technology, paved the way from barbarism to global civilization — but 'technology is no guarantor of moral progress or civility.'"
November 4, 2011
Disappointing. This book is not "visionary," nor is it particularly "opinionated"as it has been billed; it is certainly not a "manifesto" as that implies the book is articulating some idea outside of normal liberal-establishment orthodoxy. And man, you need some outsized blinders on to consider that orthodoxy coherent.
Gladstone starts the book by saying there is nothing "conspiratorial" about mainstream media - a remark I can only imagine is an unnamed naming of Manufacturing Consent, which, whatever, but she doesn't even get into such standard Communications Theory hallmarks like Agenda-Setting as that would complicate her premise. Her premise, by the way, is that "we" get the media "we deserve." No, "we" don't. "We" get the media that accumulated capital has decided we get. We get the media that our country's dominant ideology allows. And the fact that we're allowed to respond online doesn't change the inherent structure of it.
Her metaphor of the media as a mirror to our society is so off-base, even if it's a fun-house mirror, that I have a hard time considering it intellectually honest.
The other main problem with this book is that it's completely unclear what age-range it is directed toward. I've come to the conclusion that it's meant for a precocious 9th-grader. I don't know if this is a product of an unconscious-bias regarding comics that Gladstone has - that she had to write down to the medium, something you see often when people outside comics write them - or if she was courting the high-school demographic, which would be admirable if it was clear that she was doing that.
I like On The Media by the way, and comics even more. This combination is the worst of both worlds. As in, the illustrator seems more intent on drawing Gladstone's cleavage than in developing an intriguing illustrative style - that kind of comics.
That this book comes with such amazing blurbs by such eminent personalities speaks more about the media than the book itself does.
Gladstone starts the book by saying there is nothing "conspiratorial" about mainstream media - a remark I can only imagine is an unnamed naming of Manufacturing Consent, which, whatever, but she doesn't even get into such standard Communications Theory hallmarks like Agenda-Setting as that would complicate her premise. Her premise, by the way, is that "we" get the media "we deserve." No, "we" don't. "We" get the media that accumulated capital has decided we get. We get the media that our country's dominant ideology allows. And the fact that we're allowed to respond online doesn't change the inherent structure of it.
Her metaphor of the media as a mirror to our society is so off-base, even if it's a fun-house mirror, that I have a hard time considering it intellectually honest.
The other main problem with this book is that it's completely unclear what age-range it is directed toward. I've come to the conclusion that it's meant for a precocious 9th-grader. I don't know if this is a product of an unconscious-bias regarding comics that Gladstone has - that she had to write down to the medium, something you see often when people outside comics write them - or if she was courting the high-school demographic, which would be admirable if it was clear that she was doing that.
I like On The Media by the way, and comics even more. This combination is the worst of both worlds. As in, the illustrator seems more intent on drawing Gladstone's cleavage than in developing an intriguing illustrative style - that kind of comics.
That this book comes with such amazing blurbs by such eminent personalities speaks more about the media than the book itself does.
May 26, 2017
This is a book about Rhetoric, which gets such short shrift these days that I don't have a shelf for it. It was an assigned text for Veronica, and I see something catching lying around, I have to snake it from other family members, otherwise they wouldn't know where to look for it. If you're unfamiliar with rhetoric, this makes a fabulous introduction, and if you already know about it, you'll enjoy how everything is tied to modern media. The graphic novel format makes it feel lighter than it would otherwise, a delightful way to slip in education. Gladstone knows whereof she writes: she's been covering media for NPR for quite a few years. Excellent.
Copy borrowed from high school text collection
Copy borrowed from high school text collection
November 28, 2011
A lively and informative book on the history of public media. I have a few quibbles along the way, but I'm willing to ignore them because I'm learning some interesting history, competently arranged to get me from points A and B to points U and V with the dots nicely connected. The trouble is that I totally reject the conclusion Gladstone presents, that "We get the media we deserve."
That's bogus. We the people don't control journalism -- despite the nice point she makes that journalism does spend a fair amount of effort trying to be what people will like. The power of the press is still controlled by the person who owns the press, and that person is not the average human on the street or the farm or the iPhone. I'm not responsible for the greed-driven politics of Rupert Murdoch. I didn't ask for him and I don't deserve him. The stupefying evil of Fox News is no more the fault of their audience than a car crash is the fault of the driver who is rear-ended. Do we get the car crashes we deserve? Do we get the hurricanes we deserve? Did we get the war in Iraq we deserved?
I could go on, but I risk talking myself into dropping this book's rating yet another star.
That's bogus. We the people don't control journalism -- despite the nice point she makes that journalism does spend a fair amount of effort trying to be what people will like. The power of the press is still controlled by the person who owns the press, and that person is not the average human on the street or the farm or the iPhone. I'm not responsible for the greed-driven politics of Rupert Murdoch. I didn't ask for him and I don't deserve him. The stupefying evil of Fox News is no more the fault of their audience than a car crash is the fault of the driver who is rear-ended. Do we get the car crashes we deserve? Do we get the hurricanes we deserve? Did we get the war in Iraq we deserved?
I could go on, but I risk talking myself into dropping this book's rating yet another star.
February 25, 2018
অসাধারণ একটা বই, অসাধারণ একটা কমিক্স, অসাধারণ একটা ননফিকশন। I'm glad that I read it O:)
বইয়ের মুখ্য চরিত্র আমেরিকান মিডিয়া এবং জার্নালিজম । How American govt., military, media, reporters, editors, readers and other characters playing it all along. It's a complex symbiotic relationship. World war I,II, Vietnam war, American civil war, Iran-Iraq war - সহ সব যুদ্ধে মেইনস্ট্রিম মিডিয়ার রিপোর্টিং এনালাইসিস, কনশাস এবং সাবকনশাস বায়াস গুলো চমৎকার সব সিকোয়েনশিয়াল আর্ট দিয়ে দেখানো হয়েছে।
বইয়ের শেষের দিক টা Sapiens টাইপ এবং Dan Ariely এর বইগুলোর মত, অনেকগুলো সাইকোলজিক্যাল এবং নিউরোসাইন্স স্টাডিজের রেজাল্টগুলো জড়ো করা।
I know it's an abrupt ending. But overall I rejoiced the book <3
বইয়ের মুখ্য চরিত্র আমেরিকান মিডিয়া এবং জার্নালিজম । How American govt., military, media, reporters, editors, readers and other characters playing it all along. It's a complex symbiotic relationship. World war I,II, Vietnam war, American civil war, Iran-Iraq war - সহ সব যুদ্ধে মেইনস্ট্রিম মিডিয়ার রিপোর্টিং এনালাইসিস, কনশাস এবং সাবকনশাস বায়াস গুলো চমৎকার সব সিকোয়েনশিয়াল আর্ট দিয়ে দেখানো হয়েছে।
বইয়ের শেষের দিক টা Sapiens টাইপ এবং Dan Ariely এর বইগুলোর মত, অনেকগুলো সাইকোলজিক্যাল এবং নিউরোসাইন্স স্টাডিজের রেজাল্টগুলো জড়ো করা।
I know it's an abrupt ending. But overall I rejoiced the book <3
Read
June 7, 2011Engaging and entertaining, but I disagree with the central claim of the book that "We get the media we deserve." Who are "we" and what does it mean for us to "deserve" our media? What is missing is any kind of sustained examination of the specifically economic (as opposed to technological) frameworks within which the media operate and the way those frameworks affect their performance.
February 3, 2025
Raised lots of interesting questions. Neufeld's art was good and sometimes unexpectedly clever and funny.
February 2, 2015
Il medium fumetto è da sempre un mezzo di comunicazione molto più versatile e potente di quanto un "non iniziato" possa pensare.
Accanto a storie supereroistiche, a letteratura per immagini quale Sandman, a capolavori dell'umorismo come Peanuts o Calvin e Hobbes, esistono anche fumetti che usano l'immagine esclusivamente come parziale supporto visivo alle parole.
Ecco quindi un capolavoro come Maus, che visivamente è ridotto all'osso, ma ecco anche un saggio (non saprei definirlo altrimenti) come Armi di persuasione di massa.
Scritto dalla giornalista americana Brooke Gladstone e disegnato da Josh Neufuld, siamo di fronte a un'analisi approfondita dell'etica giornalistica, del modo in cui le notizie vengono scelte, comunicate, approfondite (o meno), ma anche di come i consumatori di notizie influiscono su tali dinamiche di scelta.
Siamo fin troppo abituati a dare la colpa ai giornalisti, ai giornali, per la qualità delle notizie che ci vengono trasmesse, ma la verità (innegabile ma proprio per questo spesso sottaciuta) è che i soli colpevoli siamo noi.
Siamo noi a scegliere cosa vogliamo leggere o meno, noi a decidere quali notizie ci attirano, noi ad alimentare la voglia di sangue, di scandali, di notizie superficiali.
Siamo noi i colpevoli.
Che i giornalisti si macchino spesso di etica opinabile, che diano notizie non approfondite, che non rettifichino falsità è un dato di fatto.
Ma è un dato di fatto anche che è sempre successo.
Così come è sempre successo che un cospirazionista cercherà sempre e solo "informazioni" che confermino le sue idee, che un "ignorante" sia sempre più radicato nelle proprie convinzioni anche quando gli si dimostra il contrario.
Non c'è un giornalismo buono e non esiste un giornalismo cattivo. Esistono solo giornali che rispondono alla domanda e al mercato.
La differenza la possiamo fare solo noi.
Premiando la responsabilità, premiando la qualità, premiano il "buon giornalismo".
Il messaggio è solo uno: "abbiamo i media che ci meritiamo"
Un volume da leggere per capire.
O forse no.
Perché seguendo la logica detta sopra, chi lo troverà interessante aveva probabilmente già in sé il seme per capirne le dinamiche, gli altri continueranno a ragionare di complottismi e giornalai e stampa asservita.
Voi, comunque, dategli una possibilità.
Accanto a storie supereroistiche, a letteratura per immagini quale Sandman, a capolavori dell'umorismo come Peanuts o Calvin e Hobbes, esistono anche fumetti che usano l'immagine esclusivamente come parziale supporto visivo alle parole.
Ecco quindi un capolavoro come Maus, che visivamente è ridotto all'osso, ma ecco anche un saggio (non saprei definirlo altrimenti) come Armi di persuasione di massa.
Scritto dalla giornalista americana Brooke Gladstone e disegnato da Josh Neufuld, siamo di fronte a un'analisi approfondita dell'etica giornalistica, del modo in cui le notizie vengono scelte, comunicate, approfondite (o meno), ma anche di come i consumatori di notizie influiscono su tali dinamiche di scelta.
Siamo fin troppo abituati a dare la colpa ai giornalisti, ai giornali, per la qualità delle notizie che ci vengono trasmesse, ma la verità (innegabile ma proprio per questo spesso sottaciuta) è che i soli colpevoli siamo noi.
Siamo noi a scegliere cosa vogliamo leggere o meno, noi a decidere quali notizie ci attirano, noi ad alimentare la voglia di sangue, di scandali, di notizie superficiali.
Siamo noi i colpevoli.
Che i giornalisti si macchino spesso di etica opinabile, che diano notizie non approfondite, che non rettifichino falsità è un dato di fatto.
Ma è un dato di fatto anche che è sempre successo.
Così come è sempre successo che un cospirazionista cercherà sempre e solo "informazioni" che confermino le sue idee, che un "ignorante" sia sempre più radicato nelle proprie convinzioni anche quando gli si dimostra il contrario.
Non c'è un giornalismo buono e non esiste un giornalismo cattivo. Esistono solo giornali che rispondono alla domanda e al mercato.
La differenza la possiamo fare solo noi.
Premiando la responsabilità, premiando la qualità, premiano il "buon giornalismo".
Il messaggio è solo uno: "abbiamo i media che ci meritiamo"
Un volume da leggere per capire.
O forse no.
Perché seguendo la logica detta sopra, chi lo troverà interessante aveva probabilmente già in sé il seme per capirne le dinamiche, gli altri continueranno a ragionare di complottismi e giornalai e stampa asservita.
Voi, comunque, dategli una possibilità.
February 17, 2016
A lot of reviewers found this book frustrating and disappointing, and I can certainly see why. The jaunty comic book style drawings and the irreverent tone make it look like it's going to be an all out Michael Moore style attack on the status quo and the mainstream media, but the more you read the less you can figure out where the author really stands on anything.
While giving the history of journalism and censorship in an entertaining way, ideologically Brooke Gladstone is inconsistent, erratic, and incoherent. In other words, she's all over the map. One minute she's ridiculing journalists who don't openly declare what side they're on, sneering that they've made "The Great Refusal." The next minute she's sneering at journalists who support their government and the ideals of the society that produced them. There's no logic in dismissing the idea that anyone can be impartial and then attacking journalists who aren't impartial.
Nevertheless this book is worth glancing through because there's a lot of fascinating information about American history. I knew about John Adams and the Sedition Act, for example, but I had no idea that the modern "press pass" and the "press release" were both invented by Edward Stanton, the Secretary of War under Abraham Lincoln!
While giving the history of journalism and censorship in an entertaining way, ideologically Brooke Gladstone is inconsistent, erratic, and incoherent. In other words, she's all over the map. One minute she's ridiculing journalists who don't openly declare what side they're on, sneering that they've made "The Great Refusal." The next minute she's sneering at journalists who support their government and the ideals of the society that produced them. There's no logic in dismissing the idea that anyone can be impartial and then attacking journalists who aren't impartial.
Nevertheless this book is worth glancing through because there's a lot of fascinating information about American history. I knew about John Adams and the Sedition Act, for example, but I had no idea that the modern "press pass" and the "press release" were both invented by Edward Stanton, the Secretary of War under Abraham Lincoln!
May 18, 2018
I’m a big fan of Brooke Gladstone’s radio show, so when she mentioned this book on the air, I immediately ordered it from my library. I was surprised that it turned out to be in comic book/graphic form, but that turned out to be an added boon. The pictures allow for more snark, which gave a whimsical tone to an otherwise heavy topic.
Brooke’s specialty is media analysis, and she did a thorough job of it here, covering such topics as the use of Alien and Sedition Acts throughout American history and the evolution of television war coverage between Vietnam and Iraq. She also quotes from many thinkers. Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman were no surprise, but imagine my pleasure at seeing George Eliot, not just quoted but depicted in cartoon!
Though written in 2011, the book perfectly describes some of the factors that gave rise to the Trump presidency: fake news, news as entertainment, and Internet-enabled echo chambers. It did not specifically foresee the problem of social media manipulation by Russian bots or Cambridge Analytica, but the analysis shows that media reporter that she is, Brooke Gladstone she has had her ear to the ground all along.
Because of this, perhaps I can let myself believe her optimistic conclusion. She argues that media in general, and the Internet specifically, contains the cure for the disease it is causing. After all, aren’t we all here on Goodreads discussing books? So perhaps people aren’t always so stupid and gullible after all. We just have to remember where our weaknesses lie and deliberately counteract them. It’s work, but it’s worth it. As Brooke reminds us, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “the price of democracy is eternal vigilance.”
Brooke’s specialty is media analysis, and she did a thorough job of it here, covering such topics as the use of Alien and Sedition Acts throughout American history and the evolution of television war coverage between Vietnam and Iraq. She also quotes from many thinkers. Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman were no surprise, but imagine my pleasure at seeing George Eliot, not just quoted but depicted in cartoon!
Though written in 2011, the book perfectly describes some of the factors that gave rise to the Trump presidency: fake news, news as entertainment, and Internet-enabled echo chambers. It did not specifically foresee the problem of social media manipulation by Russian bots or Cambridge Analytica, but the analysis shows that media reporter that she is, Brooke Gladstone she has had her ear to the ground all along.
Because of this, perhaps I can let myself believe her optimistic conclusion. She argues that media in general, and the Internet specifically, contains the cure for the disease it is causing. After all, aren’t we all here on Goodreads discussing books? So perhaps people aren’t always so stupid and gullible after all. We just have to remember where our weaknesses lie and deliberately counteract them. It’s work, but it’s worth it. As Brooke reminds us, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “the price of democracy is eternal vigilance.”
August 14, 2022
The Influencing Machine is one of those books with big ideas and fascinating insights that's so dense and remarkable that by the time you've finished you can't remember a single fun fact. Brain overload.
Brooke Gladstone takes a hard look at the media, which by the end includes social media. Do we trust the media? Why or why not? And how has that changed over time? And should we trust the media? There's so much to think about here. Bias, disclosure, reporting methods, government control. It's going to be hard to pick up a newspaper again without thinking "who is going to benefit from this news and how does that distort it?"
It's safe to say I enjoyed The Influencing Machine because my cat vomited directly on the cover and I cleaned it off and kept reading rather than consigning the book to the local landfill. That said, it's a dense read that might not be completely suited to the graphic medium. The narrative jumps around through eras and topics and could definitely be more coherent/trimmed. The Influencing Machine captured my whole attention, but it was a tough one to tackle.
Brooke Gladstone takes a hard look at the media, which by the end includes social media. Do we trust the media? Why or why not? And how has that changed over time? And should we trust the media? There's so much to think about here. Bias, disclosure, reporting methods, government control. It's going to be hard to pick up a newspaper again without thinking "who is going to benefit from this news and how does that distort it?"
It's safe to say I enjoyed The Influencing Machine because my cat vomited directly on the cover and I cleaned it off and kept reading rather than consigning the book to the local landfill. That said, it's a dense read that might not be completely suited to the graphic medium. The narrative jumps around through eras and topics and could definitely be more coherent/trimmed. The Influencing Machine captured my whole attention, but it was a tough one to tackle.
October 5, 2012
This book offers a robust opinion on the state of the media and explains why there is still a lot of work to do but no reason to despair. A lot of insight is gleaned from the history of journalism but also from technology experts like Clay Shirky or Cass Sunstein. The author is also the co-host of On The Media. Here are my lecture notes.
# The Influencing Machine
The influencing machine is a typical invention of the mind that is trying to explain in a somewhat paranoiac way how ideas are spreading. Critics of the media will often sound paranoiac as they compare the media to an influencing machine. But this machine is a delusion: "what we're really dealing with is a mirror: an exalting, degrading, tedious, and transcendent funhouse mirror of America." (loc.47)
So we long for objectivity, even if that objectivity might be an elusive goal. In fact, it's always been an elusive goal. The earliest journalists, the scribes, worked for their masters and so had to toe the line. And early history of journalism is rife with biased coverage. And legal restrictions on the press like the Alien and Sedition Acts made things worse. Political leaks have also been around for hundreds of years.
In fact, "everything we hate about the media today was present at its creation: its corrupt or craven practitioners, its easy manipulation by the powerful, its capacity for propagating lies, its penchant for amplifying rage." (loc.64)
So again, we long for objectivity but it is an elusive goal. W.B Yeates said "there is nothing in them (journalists!) but tittering, jeering emptiness. They have all made what Dante calls 'The Great Refusal'." (loc.98) Which is to say, journalists are sissies who refuse to commit to anything.
# Media biases
The author then gives up on objectivity and goes on to list biases that we actually should worry about:
- Commercial Bias: news needs to sell
- Bad news bias: threatening news is more interesting
- Status quo bias: things are working as they are—radical viewpoints are ignored
- Access bias: reporters need access to report on something—reporters are forced to enter a give and take relationship with the ones they cover
- Visual bias: newspapers favor topics that photograph well
- Narrative bias: stories are written to have a beginning/middle/end
- Fairness bias: giving both sides equal coverage when one does not deserve it
The author continues on a historical panorama and explains that every new technology was decried as harmful but that in the end humanity survived. About information overload, she paraphrases Clay Shirky: "the reason we don't experience information overload in a bookstore or a library is that we're used to the cataloging system. So, the real question is, how do we design filters for the Web that let us find our way through this particular abundance of information?"
The author states that humanity will not be tomorrow what it is today. People make things and the things people make influence the people that made them. We should then embrace better access to information that technology brought us and learn to handle the glut better.
# What we can do
Three things we should all do to improve the media:
Trust reporters who demonstrate fairness and reliability
Spend some time reading primary sources once in a while
Attract attention to under-reported news
In the end, we get the media we deserve.
# The Influencing Machine
The influencing machine is a typical invention of the mind that is trying to explain in a somewhat paranoiac way how ideas are spreading. Critics of the media will often sound paranoiac as they compare the media to an influencing machine. But this machine is a delusion: "what we're really dealing with is a mirror: an exalting, degrading, tedious, and transcendent funhouse mirror of America." (loc.47)
So we long for objectivity, even if that objectivity might be an elusive goal. In fact, it's always been an elusive goal. The earliest journalists, the scribes, worked for their masters and so had to toe the line. And early history of journalism is rife with biased coverage. And legal restrictions on the press like the Alien and Sedition Acts made things worse. Political leaks have also been around for hundreds of years.
In fact, "everything we hate about the media today was present at its creation: its corrupt or craven practitioners, its easy manipulation by the powerful, its capacity for propagating lies, its penchant for amplifying rage." (loc.64)
So again, we long for objectivity but it is an elusive goal. W.B Yeates said "there is nothing in them (journalists!) but tittering, jeering emptiness. They have all made what Dante calls 'The Great Refusal'." (loc.98) Which is to say, journalists are sissies who refuse to commit to anything.
# Media biases
The author then gives up on objectivity and goes on to list biases that we actually should worry about:
- Commercial Bias: news needs to sell
- Bad news bias: threatening news is more interesting
- Status quo bias: things are working as they are—radical viewpoints are ignored
- Access bias: reporters need access to report on something—reporters are forced to enter a give and take relationship with the ones they cover
- Visual bias: newspapers favor topics that photograph well
- Narrative bias: stories are written to have a beginning/middle/end
- Fairness bias: giving both sides equal coverage when one does not deserve it
The author continues on a historical panorama and explains that every new technology was decried as harmful but that in the end humanity survived. About information overload, she paraphrases Clay Shirky: "the reason we don't experience information overload in a bookstore or a library is that we're used to the cataloging system. So, the real question is, how do we design filters for the Web that let us find our way through this particular abundance of information?"
The author states that humanity will not be tomorrow what it is today. People make things and the things people make influence the people that made them. We should then embrace better access to information that technology brought us and learn to handle the glut better.
# What we can do
Three things we should all do to improve the media:
Trust reporters who demonstrate fairness and reliability
Spend some time reading primary sources once in a while
Attract attention to under-reported news
In the end, we get the media we deserve.
December 1, 2020
An enjoyable trip through some of the primary criticisms against the modern media. I especially appreciated the descriptions about the various biases that creep into reporting, including narrative bias, bad news bias, access bias, and status quo bias. These make an illuminating retort against default assumptions about liberal bias guiding reportage. Brooke Gladstone delivers a lot of material in a really engaging way. The frequent detours into modern American history to provide context were also great. I learned a lot!
April 30, 2012
This was book 8 for the YALSA Best Books challenge. And yet again it has taken me awhile to write what I thought about it. I think this book has so much information and so many ideas, it just takes time to thoroughly think through everything and digest it all.
So this is a book about media and how it influences (thus the name of the book) the world. It starts from the very basic history about how people learned "news" clear back in the day when ancient civilizations "wrote" things down. Then it goes through various bits of history up until now with information, facts, quotes, and whatnot that shaped or impacted the media that we have now. And since it is a graphic novel, it goes without saying that there are a lot of pictures to assist in conveying the ideas.
I liked it. I enjoyed it being a non-fiction graphic novel. I liked seeing all the ways that information and rights were connected. The illustrations were great. I especially loved seeing the Brooke Gladstone character in all the historical scenes. It made me smile. The thing about this book is that there was so much to digest, I think I will have to read it again in order to wrap my head around it all. If anyone needs proof that graphic novels aren't for sissy readers, they should be introduced to this book.
So this is a book about media and how it influences (thus the name of the book) the world. It starts from the very basic history about how people learned "news" clear back in the day when ancient civilizations "wrote" things down. Then it goes through various bits of history up until now with information, facts, quotes, and whatnot that shaped or impacted the media that we have now. And since it is a graphic novel, it goes without saying that there are a lot of pictures to assist in conveying the ideas.
I liked it. I enjoyed it being a non-fiction graphic novel. I liked seeing all the ways that information and rights were connected. The illustrations were great. I especially loved seeing the Brooke Gladstone character in all the historical scenes. It made me smile. The thing about this book is that there was so much to digest, I think I will have to read it again in order to wrap my head around it all. If anyone needs proof that graphic novels aren't for sissy readers, they should be introduced to this book.
November 1, 2012
Gladstone is both narrator and visual tour guide, popping up throughout Neufeld's comic panels as both her contemporary self and camouflaged alongside historical figures.
The comic book format permitted me to read and learn about a subject I would not have attempted in a formal book format; the graphic format makes sense as a way to ease the "pain".
Beginning with the Incas, Herodotus, and the Acta Diurna of the Roman Senate, she wends her way to the present. The history’s always interesting, and her discussion on objectivity, and what psychological research has revealed about how people receive news and opinion is amazing.
One of the most intriguing sections deals with bias: commercial, bad news, status quo, access, visual, narrative, and fairness. This leads nicely into a discussion of war journalism. Throughout I was scandalized by the tidbits of information about falsehoods, lies, and tampering that goes on in the media.
This is definitely an interesting and easy way to read about a complex, interesting subject that has an effect on us all.
The comic book format permitted me to read and learn about a subject I would not have attempted in a formal book format; the graphic format makes sense as a way to ease the "pain".
Beginning with the Incas, Herodotus, and the Acta Diurna of the Roman Senate, she wends her way to the present. The history’s always interesting, and her discussion on objectivity, and what psychological research has revealed about how people receive news and opinion is amazing.
One of the most intriguing sections deals with bias: commercial, bad news, status quo, access, visual, narrative, and fairness. This leads nicely into a discussion of war journalism. Throughout I was scandalized by the tidbits of information about falsehoods, lies, and tampering that goes on in the media.
This is definitely an interesting and easy way to read about a complex, interesting subject that has an effect on us all.
January 22, 2018
The Influencing Machine is a fascinating journey through US news history, contextualising many modern complaints about the media, and showing how these are problems that have plagued the media for decades. It's a call to action about how people engage with the news, with a positive look at the way that technology is shifting how we absorb and access information. My one main criticism is that Gladstone did not engage with criticisms about capitalism and the media, specifically control over the media by a few, powerful companies. I know that many other sources deal with this problem, but Gladstone, rather than refer people elsewhere, was rather dismissive of the point. However, all in all, this is an informative, thought-provoking book for those interesting in some introductory media criticism.
February 28, 2023
Update: read the new 2021 edition and it’s also excellent.
I LOVED this book. It was right up my alley. It ties together history, philosophy, media, and Marshall McLuhan (and many other luminaries). Gladstone does an excellent job of showing us how we create, express, interpret, and consume the information around us and what effect that has on us. At times the book can be a bit hurried, but overall the graphics work really well and her writing is excellent. I highly recommend it. Plus, the book itself has so many great quotes and ideas from other thinkers that it's a bit like an illustrated annotated bibliography.
I LOVED this book. It was right up my alley. It ties together history, philosophy, media, and Marshall McLuhan (and many other luminaries). Gladstone does an excellent job of showing us how we create, express, interpret, and consume the information around us and what effect that has on us. At times the book can be a bit hurried, but overall the graphics work really well and her writing is excellent. I highly recommend it. Plus, the book itself has so many great quotes and ideas from other thinkers that it's a bit like an illustrated annotated bibliography.
June 25, 2018
Brooke Gladstone takes on an incredibly ambitious venture - to trace media and journalism from its origins to today's hypercharged soup. And also explain media's evolution through the ages leading up to today. All of this in 200 pages. OF A GRAPHIC NOVEL.
Let's get the art out of the way - it's a masterstroke decision to make this book a graphic novel. Josh Neufeld has managed to translate Brooke's vision perfectly in the form of beautiful illustrations sprinkled with generous doses of humour. Despite being a graphic novel, the book goes deeper than surface-level on many occasions.
'What is good _news_?' was a question that I wanted answers to. And this book is Step 1/∞ towards that answer. Brooke definitely gets you thinking about some key questions around objective journalism, the shift towards transparency as a means towards balanced reporting, sampling bias, conflict-based news, news depicting extremities and a few other journalistic biases.
In my simple understanding, Brooke also tries to tie together media through the ages - in a way that suggests that concerns over media are very similar since ever. And that media is a pretty good reflection of how the current ages are.
On first look, it's a must-read thanks to its high amount of new ideas and friendly format. My interrupted reading of this book left me with holes in my understanding - I shall be rereading this.
Let's get the art out of the way - it's a masterstroke decision to make this book a graphic novel. Josh Neufeld has managed to translate Brooke's vision perfectly in the form of beautiful illustrations sprinkled with generous doses of humour. Despite being a graphic novel, the book goes deeper than surface-level on many occasions.
'What is good _news_?' was a question that I wanted answers to. And this book is Step 1/∞ towards that answer. Brooke definitely gets you thinking about some key questions around objective journalism, the shift towards transparency as a means towards balanced reporting, sampling bias, conflict-based news, news depicting extremities and a few other journalistic biases.
In my simple understanding, Brooke also tries to tie together media through the ages - in a way that suggests that concerns over media are very similar since ever. And that media is a pretty good reflection of how the current ages are.
On first look, it's a must-read thanks to its high amount of new ideas and friendly format. My interrupted reading of this book left me with holes in my understanding - I shall be rereading this.
May 13, 2018
This engaging, thought-provoking book came out in 2011 but every page drips with relevant insights into the complexities of the current news climate.
It provides important historical and cultural perspectives reminding us that so much of what we taking to be unprecedented in American history have been there from the very beginning – including angry accusations from presidents about fake news. The terms have changed, but the underlying tensions are the same.
“Everything we hate about the media today was present at its creation: its corrupt or craven practitioners, its easy manipulation by the powerful, its capacity for propagating lies, its penchant for amplifying rage.
Also present was everything we admire — and require — from the media: factual information, penetrating analysis, probing investigation, truth spoken to power.
Same as it ever was.”
Brooke Gladstone teamed up with illustrator Josh Neufeld to create the graphic novel style survey course. It manages to blend the seriousness of the issue with a light touch and plenty of humor. Many important thinkers are represented here and there are pages of footnotes so readers can keep digging on their own.
And readers who are new to the author's On the Media podcast will want to subscribe immediately.
The theme of news-related anxiety and how to navigate it is finding it's way into more of my attentional fitness talks and coaching sessions. I've decided to add a Goodreads bookshelf to start curating titles related to this critically important and timely issue.
Thanks, Brooke!
It provides important historical and cultural perspectives reminding us that so much of what we taking to be unprecedented in American history have been there from the very beginning – including angry accusations from presidents about fake news. The terms have changed, but the underlying tensions are the same.
“Everything we hate about the media today was present at its creation: its corrupt or craven practitioners, its easy manipulation by the powerful, its capacity for propagating lies, its penchant for amplifying rage.
Also present was everything we admire — and require — from the media: factual information, penetrating analysis, probing investigation, truth spoken to power.
Same as it ever was.”
Brooke Gladstone teamed up with illustrator Josh Neufeld to create the graphic novel style survey course. It manages to blend the seriousness of the issue with a light touch and plenty of humor. Many important thinkers are represented here and there are pages of footnotes so readers can keep digging on their own.
And readers who are new to the author's On the Media podcast will want to subscribe immediately.
The theme of news-related anxiety and how to navigate it is finding it's way into more of my attentional fitness talks and coaching sessions. I've decided to add a Goodreads bookshelf to start curating titles related to this critically important and timely issue.
Thanks, Brooke!
November 17, 2018
A thorough examination of the role of media--newspapers, television, pop culture--in our world and our understanding of the world. There are passages on cognitive bias and perception that I want to scan in for my middle-school media literacy classes. The book is aimed squarely at adults--I'll probably need to be careful which passages I share, for both context and content--but it's accessibly written so you don't need to be a PhD in order to understand it. It's not entirely layman's terms, but it's not loaded with academic jargon and journalistic minutiae.
Worth a read for a fuller, more nuanced look at how journalism shapes perception.
Worth a read for a fuller, more nuanced look at how journalism shapes perception.
Read
November 7, 2019The first “graphic text” (grown-up comic book) I’ve ever read. Very clever and thoughtful; unafraid of complexity; prepared to look at history and its many contradictions to try to extract meaning. Full of pithy quotes from many observers and commentators. Perhaps the funniest is this, from GK Chesterton: ‘Journalism largely consists of saying “Lord Jones is dead” to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.’
September 11, 2023
Don’t let the graphic novel setup fool you — this is a deep book, and more vital and relevant now than it was when it was first published. Things have never been “cool” between government and the people who report on them—and keep government accountable. It is that ability to hold the officials accountable that makes our nation strong.
November 13, 2025
Didn’t quite get the point of the book and had to read it for school, but parts of the book would come to mind randomly throughout the day so it might not have been all bad.
December 11, 2011
Newspapers (now broadened to "the media") influence public opinion and the course of political affairs. This deft little book tells the story of media and influence, historically and technologically, and manages to be not just readable but also extremely difficult to put down. I read it in one sitting and got a lot from it. It is easy to read because it is both well-written and well-illustrated--most of the book is in the form of a comic: panels, pictures, captions. The potentially dry topics are made interesting because the words and the illustrations go hand-in-hand.
The book explores the relationship between politicians, public, media, and technology. English parliamentarians who legally constrain presses; American free presses; the rapid introduction (and reintroduction and reintroduction) of censorship bills by Presidents; contempt for journalists; the trends and herd mentality of reporters; news that just isn't true; the different types of bias that could manifest in journalism; can journalists have opinions and still be fair or objective; what the hell IS objectivity; how political war machines use journalists; how journalists are complicit in those machines; transparency as a substitute for objectivity; cognitive biases; the ineffectiveness of facts to change opinions; and more. It's thoughtful difficult stuff, but always seems natural and interesting because every point is illustrated (literally and metaphorically) with eye-watering examples from history. (And she uses the word "feculent", which I love)
Some bits I particularly liked:
The story of the atomic bomb was deeply disturbing and provocative. Of course, the US government worked hard to hush up news of the damage done by the bomb. Journalists were kept out of the area and censored. The newspapers were fed a rabidly pro-atomic line by a pet journo stooge. But, eventually, when the news of the massive human damage (civilian centers were bombed, not military bases) the public were finally horrified. That horror is what the government sought to avoid, yet it's precisely that horror which ensured public opinion went against dropping more of them and which, it seems plausible to me, helped to prevent further such horrors. This is the power of news at its best: a moral force, a preventative to unchecked power.
The best part of the book for me, though, was Daniel Hallin's donut:
I'm already seeing the world and the articles I read online in a different light. I couldn't ask any more from this magnificent book.
The book explores the relationship between politicians, public, media, and technology. English parliamentarians who legally constrain presses; American free presses; the rapid introduction (and reintroduction and reintroduction) of censorship bills by Presidents; contempt for journalists; the trends and herd mentality of reporters; news that just isn't true; the different types of bias that could manifest in journalism; can journalists have opinions and still be fair or objective; what the hell IS objectivity; how political war machines use journalists; how journalists are complicit in those machines; transparency as a substitute for objectivity; cognitive biases; the ineffectiveness of facts to change opinions; and more. It's thoughtful difficult stuff, but always seems natural and interesting because every point is illustrated (literally and metaphorically) with eye-watering examples from history. (And she uses the word "feculent", which I love)
Some bits I particularly liked:
By the 17th century, many urban Europeans can rely on weekly or even some daily papers for news of the world. But not the news of the country in which they're printed. That's because printers operate at the pleasure of the authorities, and the authorities do not find local coverage pleasurable. First, England bans newspapers for six years. Parliament rules that every printed word must be approved--licensed--before publication. In 1644, John Milton complains. "We must not think to make a commodity of all the knowledge in the Land, to mark and license it like our broad cloth, and our wool packs. Believe it, Lords and Commons, they who counsel ye to such a suppressing, do as good as bid ye suppress yourselves."
Eventually the courts revoke prior restraint, but printers can still be ruined by the charge of "seditious libel" for publishing criticism of the government. And truth is no defense. Legal doctrine holds that "the greater the truth the greater the libel"--the greater the threat to Divine Right.
[Thomas Jefferson] writes this in 1799: "Our citizens may be deceived for a while, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." He writes this in 1807: "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." What happened to Tom? In 1801, Tom becomes President. The press hates presidents.
"Journalists are like dogs--whenever anything moves they begin to bark." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
The story of the atomic bomb was deeply disturbing and provocative. Of course, the US government worked hard to hush up news of the damage done by the bomb. Journalists were kept out of the area and censored. The newspapers were fed a rabidly pro-atomic line by a pet journo stooge. But, eventually, when the news of the massive human damage (civilian centers were bombed, not military bases) the public were finally horrified. That horror is what the government sought to avoid, yet it's precisely that horror which ensured public opinion went against dropping more of them and which, it seems plausible to me, helped to prevent further such horrors. This is the power of news at its best: a moral force, a preventative to unchecked power.
The best part of the book for me, though, was Daniel Hallin's donut:
Historian Daniel Hallin divides the journalists' world into three spheres. The donut hole is the sphere of consensus, "the region of motherhood and apple pie". Unquestionable values and unchallengeable truths. The donut is journalism's sweet spot: the sphere of legitimate controversy. Here issues are undecided, debated, probed. The sphere of deviance is the air around the donut. Limbo. The place for people and opinions that the "mainstream of the society reject as unworthy of being heard." In fact, says Hallin, the press plays gatekeeper, by defining and defending "the limits of acceptable political conduct."
I'm already seeing the world and the articles I read online in a different light. I couldn't ask any more from this magnificent book.
November 18, 2022
This was a very interesting, and engaging history of how the world and the media have interacted. Thought provoking and entertaining.
August 12, 2016
This is a terrific primer on media history and one reporter’s take on how average citizens can promote a free, open news environment. Aided by Josh Neufeld’s clever illustrations, Brooke Gladstone takes the reader on a whirlwind journey through media history’s most tenuous moments, setting her sights on the perennial conflict between authoritarian power, which has traditionally sought to suppress non-propagandist news, and the heroic but flawed individuals and organizations who have fought the long struggle for a free and protected press. Though she doesn’t delve deeply into any single topic, Gladstone offers an eclectic set of perspectives that sift the right questions from a broad range of sources rather than perpetuating the illusion that any single source has the right answers.
Its comic book aesthetic and simple language make this text accessible to all kinds of readers; it’s a great potential resource for junior high and high school history and language arts teachers. Gladstone provides a handy list of media biases and an overview of psychological biases as understood by contemporary social scientists and neuroscientists. She doesn’t shy away from the reality that figuring out who to trust is no cakewalk, especially when the biggest potential deceiver is your own brain.
At the heart of Gladstone’s message is her desire to switch out one cultural metaphor for another. She claims that most people think of the news media as an “influencing machine” that alters (and to some extent controls) the minds of consumers. This machine is variously portrayed as a means of population control for shadowy cabals with aspirations of world domination, corrupt governments, or super-wealthy elitists eager to propagate their personal worldviews. Gladstone rejects this metaphor, arguing instead that the media is better understood as a mirror, one that reflects and amplifies the virtues and flaws of its consumers. She makes the case that media distributors, even ones that seem indestructible, are ultimately subject to the preferences of their audience: us. Citizens should take up the responsibility of learning about and interacting with valuable media sources and reject those that pander to the lowest common denominator.
I generally agree with Gladstone’s views and think the mirror metaphor is a useful way of talking about the media’s role in a free society. However, I think the media can be understood as both an influencing machine and a mirror, depending on context. I certainly don’t think the mirror metaphor applies to autocratic regimes where the government has complete control over the news cycle (e.g. North Korea). And closer to home, it’s hard to argue that the personal preferences of powerful media executives don’t exert a disproportionate influence on public policy.
We can’t ignore the potential for private media companies to become so large and influential that they can buy government influence and/or begin breaking down the barrier between service providers and content producers. If your cable/internet provider is also your primary content producer (or can favor certain content providers over others), and there is not viable competition from other providers (as is currently the case in most of the US), it becomes increasingly difficult for users to make the bottom-up consumption choices for which Gladstone advocates. This is the crux of the ongoing net neutrality debate, and it’s unclear if Gladstone’s call for informed media consumption would have the same harnessing effect on media companies operating in a post-net neutrality world. Another source of anxiety is the question of how media freedom changes in the face of the US government’s recent hostility toward whistle-blowers. There are future scenarios in which the influencing machine shatters the societal mirror.
Overall, Gladstone and Neufeld aptly highlight our simplest and most useful modes of media analysis. The Influencing Machine has no pretensions of being more than it is. What it lacks in depth it makes up in accessibility and historical scope. Its message––that the power to enact progress resides less in the machinations of institutions and social networks than in everyday choices made by common people––is timely and true. True enough, anyway.
This review was originally published on my blog, words&dirt.
Its comic book aesthetic and simple language make this text accessible to all kinds of readers; it’s a great potential resource for junior high and high school history and language arts teachers. Gladstone provides a handy list of media biases and an overview of psychological biases as understood by contemporary social scientists and neuroscientists. She doesn’t shy away from the reality that figuring out who to trust is no cakewalk, especially when the biggest potential deceiver is your own brain.
At the heart of Gladstone’s message is her desire to switch out one cultural metaphor for another. She claims that most people think of the news media as an “influencing machine” that alters (and to some extent controls) the minds of consumers. This machine is variously portrayed as a means of population control for shadowy cabals with aspirations of world domination, corrupt governments, or super-wealthy elitists eager to propagate their personal worldviews. Gladstone rejects this metaphor, arguing instead that the media is better understood as a mirror, one that reflects and amplifies the virtues and flaws of its consumers. She makes the case that media distributors, even ones that seem indestructible, are ultimately subject to the preferences of their audience: us. Citizens should take up the responsibility of learning about and interacting with valuable media sources and reject those that pander to the lowest common denominator.
I generally agree with Gladstone’s views and think the mirror metaphor is a useful way of talking about the media’s role in a free society. However, I think the media can be understood as both an influencing machine and a mirror, depending on context. I certainly don’t think the mirror metaphor applies to autocratic regimes where the government has complete control over the news cycle (e.g. North Korea). And closer to home, it’s hard to argue that the personal preferences of powerful media executives don’t exert a disproportionate influence on public policy.
We can’t ignore the potential for private media companies to become so large and influential that they can buy government influence and/or begin breaking down the barrier between service providers and content producers. If your cable/internet provider is also your primary content producer (or can favor certain content providers over others), and there is not viable competition from other providers (as is currently the case in most of the US), it becomes increasingly difficult for users to make the bottom-up consumption choices for which Gladstone advocates. This is the crux of the ongoing net neutrality debate, and it’s unclear if Gladstone’s call for informed media consumption would have the same harnessing effect on media companies operating in a post-net neutrality world. Another source of anxiety is the question of how media freedom changes in the face of the US government’s recent hostility toward whistle-blowers. There are future scenarios in which the influencing machine shatters the societal mirror.
Overall, Gladstone and Neufeld aptly highlight our simplest and most useful modes of media analysis. The Influencing Machine has no pretensions of being more than it is. What it lacks in depth it makes up in accessibility and historical scope. Its message––that the power to enact progress resides less in the machinations of institutions and social networks than in everyday choices made by common people––is timely and true. True enough, anyway.
This review was originally published on my blog, words&dirt.
April 4, 2012
Inspired by Scott McCloud, Brooke Gladstone was brimming with ideas about the history of journalism and the impact, evolution, and continuing relevance of the media. So she called up Josh Neufeld out of the blue (with help from her agents) and asked him to help her unburden herself. What resulted was this excellent manifesto. I just picked this off the library shelves out of curiosity and then we got this week's Muse magazine, which coincidentally includes an excerpt from the book. So then I had to go grab it back from my 4th grader, despite the fact that all Gladstone's references to bias, gatekeepers, and cognitive dissonance would seem to find a better landing place among college graduates. I'm happy for him to read it if he likes, but this one is Samuel Clemens, not Mark Twain.
Gladstone covers virtually every aspect of free speech you can think of, save, I dunno, maybe three. She doesn’t get into law, theory, or the arts. Rather, she’s driven to answer what she perceives as the public’s eternal love-fear relationship with the published and broadcast word. That polarity infects every page of this book, Gladstone swings between good news and bad news, tracking studies, claims, counterclaims, threats, movements, achievements and diminishments, highlights and lowlights, and finally peering into the wired-in future. I'd offer a preview, but it's just too dense for that, just watch this promo video.
Her message is fair: as media consumers we should trust, but verify what we read and hear. Cassandras have been around forever citing the various evils of an unfettered press, but in the main, the boons outweigh the bogeymen. “Our” press will always remain courageous, honest, and true; while “theirs” will ever be incompetent, libelous, seditious drivel. The trick to unpacking reality from our Rashomon comfort bubble lies in remaining open (just enough) to multiple sources, especially primary sources.
In surveying and distilling her sources (which are extensive and range in writings from Plato to Kurzweil, with stops at John Milton; Thomas’ Paine, Jefferson, and... ugh... Helen; including nods to Albert Camus; Marshall McLuhan; and Douglas Adams (“Don’t Panic!”); and with imagery spanning from Williams Hogarth and Hearst all the way to The Watchmen), Gladstone offers two good reasons to remain optimistic in today’s helter-skelter welter of information sensation and noise. We are all media consumers. We are all the media. People are social animals whose experience of the universe is essentially mediated, so provided we continue our collective journey on the planet, we must all remain tuned in to us.
What a great book. You can read it in one night, but will find something new in it every night, as every page is jam-packed with goodies. The only downside I can think of is that annoying Booby McFerrin ditty that’s stuck in my head. Now every time I pass the little metal kiosks by the metro, I’ll be hearing a little voice that endlessly repeats, “Don’t worry. Be happy.”
Gladstone covers virtually every aspect of free speech you can think of, save, I dunno, maybe three. She doesn’t get into law, theory, or the arts. Rather, she’s driven to answer what she perceives as the public’s eternal love-fear relationship with the published and broadcast word. That polarity infects every page of this book, Gladstone swings between good news and bad news, tracking studies, claims, counterclaims, threats, movements, achievements and diminishments, highlights and lowlights, and finally peering into the wired-in future. I'd offer a preview, but it's just too dense for that, just watch this promo video.
Her message is fair: as media consumers we should trust, but verify what we read and hear. Cassandras have been around forever citing the various evils of an unfettered press, but in the main, the boons outweigh the bogeymen. “Our” press will always remain courageous, honest, and true; while “theirs” will ever be incompetent, libelous, seditious drivel. The trick to unpacking reality from our Rashomon comfort bubble lies in remaining open (just enough) to multiple sources, especially primary sources.
In surveying and distilling her sources (which are extensive and range in writings from Plato to Kurzweil, with stops at John Milton; Thomas’ Paine, Jefferson, and... ugh... Helen; including nods to Albert Camus; Marshall McLuhan; and Douglas Adams (“Don’t Panic!”); and with imagery spanning from Williams Hogarth and Hearst all the way to The Watchmen), Gladstone offers two good reasons to remain optimistic in today’s helter-skelter welter of information sensation and noise. We are all media consumers. We are all the media. People are social animals whose experience of the universe is essentially mediated, so provided we continue our collective journey on the planet, we must all remain tuned in to us.
What a great book. You can read it in one night, but will find something new in it every night, as every page is jam-packed with goodies. The only downside I can think of is that annoying Booby McFerrin ditty that’s stuck in my head. Now every time I pass the little metal kiosks by the metro, I’ll be hearing a little voice that endlessly repeats, “Don’t worry. Be happy.”
June 11, 2016
"The more people participate in the media, the more they hate the media. The greater the participation, the greater the paranoia that the media are in control."
Fascinating read from Brooke Gladstone, the radio journalist, and Josh Neufeld, the illustrator (who worked with me briefly back in the 1990s! cool guy!). Not only do they discuss bias, war, and technology, they also get into the idea of what makes us truly human and where technology can lead us. Of course, there's only so much they can get into in a 160-page comic book, but there's extensive sourcing if you want to learn more.
Other interesting nuggets:
"Mostly, reporters are celebrated or condemned not because of the importance or truth of their story, but according to whether their story suits the public's mood."
A "Goldilocks number" is one that's high enough to capture the public imagination but not so high as to be absurd. In most cases it isn't true. For example:
* "More than 7,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past 30 years!" = true but not terribly interesting
* More than 7,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past three years!" = untrue but attention-getting; can be linked to one president's immigration policies
* More than 700,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past 30 years!" = untrue and so far off that the average person thinks, "That can't be right"
"Stories have beginnings, middles, and ends. Some news stories, science stories for instance, never really end. They're all middle. It's a narrative nightmare."
"In an era when everything is asserted and anything denied, we really need to know who we are and how our brains work."
"Obviously, people make things, but less obviously, things also make people. The idea that humans and their tools 'co-evolved' is now widely accepted by anthropologists." (The theory is that people started walking upright when they figured out how to use clubs to hunt and as self-defense.)
"I am generally a dark individual, but I think this is a great time to be alive. Our limits are purely human. Our enemies are not the digital bits that dance across our screens but the neural impulses that animate our lizard brains." (I disagree with her that our limits are purely human--one asteroid could wipe us out--but it's an intriguing idea.)
Fascinating read from Brooke Gladstone, the radio journalist, and Josh Neufeld, the illustrator (who worked with me briefly back in the 1990s! cool guy!). Not only do they discuss bias, war, and technology, they also get into the idea of what makes us truly human and where technology can lead us. Of course, there's only so much they can get into in a 160-page comic book, but there's extensive sourcing if you want to learn more.
Other interesting nuggets:
"Mostly, reporters are celebrated or condemned not because of the importance or truth of their story, but according to whether their story suits the public's mood."
A "Goldilocks number" is one that's high enough to capture the public imagination but not so high as to be absurd. In most cases it isn't true. For example:
* "More than 7,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past 30 years!" = true but not terribly interesting
* More than 7,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past three years!" = untrue but attention-getting; can be linked to one president's immigration policies
* More than 700,000 cases of leprosy have been reported in the United States in the past 30 years!" = untrue and so far off that the average person thinks, "That can't be right"
"Stories have beginnings, middles, and ends. Some news stories, science stories for instance, never really end. They're all middle. It's a narrative nightmare."
"In an era when everything is asserted and anything denied, we really need to know who we are and how our brains work."
"Obviously, people make things, but less obviously, things also make people. The idea that humans and their tools 'co-evolved' is now widely accepted by anthropologists." (The theory is that people started walking upright when they figured out how to use clubs to hunt and as self-defense.)
"I am generally a dark individual, but I think this is a great time to be alive. Our limits are purely human. Our enemies are not the digital bits that dance across our screens but the neural impulses that animate our lizard brains." (I disagree with her that our limits are purely human--one asteroid could wipe us out--but it's an intriguing idea.)
December 13, 2017
I love non-fiction graphic novels because they do a great job at explaining complicated ideas. In this case, how the media influences us. She makes a number of good points:
Media consolidation has drastically reduced variety. A handful of corporations feed us the same heavily filtered spiel. It's been a race to the bottom as journalists have been replaced with entertainers reading teleprompters. We obsess over polls, even though they're NEVER right, and listen to "experts" who are really just bullshit artists trying to sell themselves as "pundits" and "strategists."
More and more folks are living in bubbles. We joke about Fox News but folks on the left fall for fake news just as much. Just look at the wild-eyed Russian conspiracy theories.
Technology is changing things. Google, Facebook and Twitter now openly brag about censoring results and reading your private messages. Whistleblowers like Wikileaks and Edward Snowden have taken enormous fire for exposing just how widespread surveillance is. Datamining is normal now. Advances in VR and nanotechnology may lead to a world where our very eyes are connect to the internet and filter reality through parameters.
The new ways we are processing information are literally changing our brains. Maybe we're getting smarter. Maybe we're getting dumber. But today's generation of kids are different from their grandparents and future generations may be more alien than we realize.
Definitely a lot of things to think about.
Media consolidation has drastically reduced variety. A handful of corporations feed us the same heavily filtered spiel. It's been a race to the bottom as journalists have been replaced with entertainers reading teleprompters. We obsess over polls, even though they're NEVER right, and listen to "experts" who are really just bullshit artists trying to sell themselves as "pundits" and "strategists."
More and more folks are living in bubbles. We joke about Fox News but folks on the left fall for fake news just as much. Just look at the wild-eyed Russian conspiracy theories.
Technology is changing things. Google, Facebook and Twitter now openly brag about censoring results and reading your private messages. Whistleblowers like Wikileaks and Edward Snowden have taken enormous fire for exposing just how widespread surveillance is. Datamining is normal now. Advances in VR and nanotechnology may lead to a world where our very eyes are connect to the internet and filter reality through parameters.
The new ways we are processing information are literally changing our brains. Maybe we're getting smarter. Maybe we're getting dumber. But today's generation of kids are different from their grandparents and future generations may be more alien than we realize.
Definitely a lot of things to think about.
February 5, 2013
Gladstone used graphic non-fiction to deftly communicate the historical, psychological and sociological truths of the media's influence in society. From Caesar's Acta Diurna, the first daily news which pressured the Roman Senators to be accountable (and reminiscent of the Daily Stand-Up Meeting) to the digitally borne diseases stemming from the homophily echo chamber (where people only consume media "facts" that substantiate their entrenched belief systems resulting in polarization), our relationship with information has been as much about our own emotions as about anything objective. This phenomena, as skillfully presented by Gladstone, is about more than media influence. Call it communication skill, knowledge management, data-driven decision making or salesmanship, the bottom line is the cure is in the continued search for clarity - the continued creation and critical consumption of information - be it in a business setting or in our living rooms.
There are many great quotes in this book, but perhaps the most important one is from one of our founding fathers, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
There are many great quotes in this book, but perhaps the most important one is from one of our founding fathers, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 508 reviews