What do you think?
Rate this book
Unreliable Sources: How the Twentieth Century Was Reported
Through many decades of groundbreaking journalism, John Simpson has become not only one of the most recognisable and trusted British personalities, but has transferred his skill to books with multiple bestselling success. With his new book he turns his eye to how Great Britain has been transformed by its free press down the years. He shows how, while the press likes to pretend it`s independent, they have enjoyed the power they have over the events they report and have at times exercised it irresponsibly. He examines how it changed the world and changed itself over the course of the last hundred years, from the creation of the Daily Mail and the first stokings of anti-German sentiment in the years leading up to the First World War, to the Sun`s propping up of the Thatcher government, and beyond. In this self-analysis from one of the pillars of modern journalism some searching questions are asked, including whether the press can ever be truly free and whether we would desire it to be so. Always incisive, brilliantly readable and never shy of controversy, Lies Like Truth sees John Simpson at the height of his game as one of Britain`s foremost commentators.
593 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
17 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
About the author
John Cody Fidler-Simpson
23 books52 followersJohn Cody Fidler-Simpson CBE is an English foreign correspondent. He is world affairs editor of BBC News, the world's biggest broadcast news service. One of the most travelled reporters ever, he has spent all his working life at the corporation. He has reported from more than 120 countries, including thirty war zones, and has interviewed numerous world leaders.
Simpson was born in Cleveleys, Lancashire; his family later moved to Dunwich, Suffolk. His great grandfather was Samuel Franklin Cowdery (later known as Samuel Franklin Cody), an American showman in the style of Buffalo Bill Cody, who became a British citizen and was an early pioneer of manned flight in the UK. Simpson reveals in his autobiography that his father was an anarchist. That didn't prevent him from getting a top-notch education: he was sent to Dulwich College Preparatory School and St Paul's, and read English at Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he was editor of Granta magazine. In 1965 he was a member of the Magdalene University Challenge team. A year later Simpson started as a trainee sub-editor at BBC radio news.
Simpson became a BBC reporter in 1970. He describes in his autobiography how on his very first day the then prime minister Harold Wilson, angered by the sudden and impudent, as he saw it, appearance of the novice's microphone, punched him in the stomach.
Simpson was the BBC's political editor from 1980 till 1981. He presented the Nine O'Clock News from 1981 till 1982 and became diplomatic editor in 1982. He had also served as a correspondent in South Africa, Brussels and Dublin. He became BBC world affairs editor in 1988.
Simpson was born in Cleveleys, Lancashire; his family later moved to Dunwich, Suffolk. His great grandfather was Samuel Franklin Cowdery (later known as Samuel Franklin Cody), an American showman in the style of Buffalo Bill Cody, who became a British citizen and was an early pioneer of manned flight in the UK. Simpson reveals in his autobiography that his father was an anarchist. That didn't prevent him from getting a top-notch education: he was sent to Dulwich College Preparatory School and St Paul's, and read English at Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he was editor of Granta magazine. In 1965 he was a member of the Magdalene University Challenge team. A year later Simpson started as a trainee sub-editor at BBC radio news.
Simpson became a BBC reporter in 1970. He describes in his autobiography how on his very first day the then prime minister Harold Wilson, angered by the sudden and impudent, as he saw it, appearance of the novice's microphone, punched him in the stomach.
Simpson was the BBC's political editor from 1980 till 1981. He presented the Nine O'Clock News from 1981 till 1982 and became diplomatic editor in 1982. He had also served as a correspondent in South Africa, Brussels and Dublin. He became BBC world affairs editor in 1988.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 30, 2020
'Homo homini lupus' Man behaves like a wolf to fellow man.
Profound statement that sums up what I felt the book was about. It is a well researched masterpiece of Simpson that explores British media reporting in the 20th Century. From the Boer war to the Iraqi war you get to delve into how journalists and media houses reported stories. Can we truly rely on media houses when they are biased? Media houses are owned by enterprises, with vested interests...they then change the narrative to suit their needs. The truth is twisted or hidden. For example During the first world war, The Allied suffered huge losses, soldiers survived in deplorable conditions but the newspapers painted a whole different picture to the public. The power the media has in influencing public perception is huge but when the stories told are twisted then therein lies the danger of misleading masses.
Should we then believe the media? I say there is always two sides to a coin, explore both and make an informed choice.
Brilliant book for those who are interested in media studies, journalism etc. A huge book unfortunately, probably couldn't be avoided. There is a lot more I could write about this book but I choose not to so your lazy ass can get it and read it. Cheers!
Profound statement that sums up what I felt the book was about. It is a well researched masterpiece of Simpson that explores British media reporting in the 20th Century. From the Boer war to the Iraqi war you get to delve into how journalists and media houses reported stories. Can we truly rely on media houses when they are biased? Media houses are owned by enterprises, with vested interests...they then change the narrative to suit their needs. The truth is twisted or hidden. For example During the first world war, The Allied suffered huge losses, soldiers survived in deplorable conditions but the newspapers painted a whole different picture to the public. The power the media has in influencing public perception is huge but when the stories told are twisted then therein lies the danger of misleading masses.
Should we then believe the media? I say there is always two sides to a coin, explore both and make an informed choice.
Brilliant book for those who are interested in media studies, journalism etc. A huge book unfortunately, probably couldn't be avoided. There is a lot more I could write about this book but I choose not to so your lazy ass can get it and read it. Cheers!
November 23, 2019
With a journalist’s frequent gift for bringing history alive, John Simpson employs many anecdotes and quotations from newspapers of the day to analyse the reporting in Britain of the major events from the Boer War around 1900 to the controversial Iraqi War of 2003.
I was most interested in the first half of the C20, that is the period I had not lived through so could not recall, and was intrigued to learn that the tabloid “red tops” of today were known around 1900 as the “yellow press” after a US comic strip. The phrase was coined by the New York Press to describe the sensational, exaggerated and often misleading form of popular journalism which was copied in Britain by newspaper owners like the Harmsworth family.
Although not apparently as influential as Murdoch in his heyday, the early C20 tycoons clearly interfered a good deal in the content of the newspapers they owned. For instance, Lord Rothermere, an ardent admirer of Hitler from the 1920s, wrote an editorial for his Daily Mail in 1933 stating, “The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany”.
Rothermere was “the loudest supporter” in Fleet Street of Franco, announcing before the fateful Spanish Civil War that he was “the bright spot on the horizon”. At the same time, the press baron favoured the rise of Oswald Moseley, personally writing an article for the Mail entitled “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” without criticising their fascist tendencies. Yet when World War Two began in earnest, the tone changed and a Daily Mail journalist once praised as “the man who knows the Nazi leaders” was writing about the “staggering heroism” of the “weary but indomitable” British soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk in an exercise portrayed positively as an achievement.
John Simpson is scathing about the journalists who, from the safety of hotels well away from the battle lines, invented reports based on second-hand sources, praising the bravery of soldiers in “Boy’s Own” terms rather than recounting accurately the true grim conditions. Admittedly, communication was harder to conduct in the early C20, and throughout there have been the constraints of state censorship, and the need to “maintain morale”, combined with the prejudices of overweaning newspaper magnates as described above. Yet, as recently as 1999, Murdoch’s “Sun”, amongst others, was apparently distorting facts in reporting of the bombing of Serbia in its “Clobba Slobba” articles, in an attempt to keep the public “on side”.
Battles are the dominant theme, with the exception of the Abdication crisis over Edward VIII’s desire to marry the twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. In this case, while the US press was reporting the scandal in detail, British newspapers were “victims of a more than usually painful attack of discretional lock-jaw” which was self-imposed since neither the government nor the police had applied any ban to reporting of the affair. Although it was asserted some years after the event that the Mirror had dared to break the story of the affair, John Simpson suggests that, despite having accumulated plenty of evidence, every single British newspaper “failed in its duty to tell people what was really going on, because its editor thought it would be intrusive, distasteful , disloyal or damaging to do so”. This may be compared with reporting on the Royal Family since the 1980s, culminating in no-holds-barred criticisms of Prince Andrew and discussion of the future of the monarchy during the December 2019 general election.
John Simpson suggests that it was probably during the Suez Crisis in the 1950s that newspapers began the attempt to analyse events seriously rather than simply outline the facts, or slavishly toe the government line. A surprising number of titles survived the century, with Murdoch playing a positive role in keeping, for instance, the Times going, although his political and commercial interests seem to have encroached on its independence. Simpson condemns the downward drive in standards which misused modern technology from the 1980s, such as illegal phone taps to infringe excessively on personal privacy. He argues that the Guardian and the Telegraph “probably come out of it best” in terms of independent-minded journalism.
I was a little disappointed by the conclusion which seems somewhat rushed, with a last-minute focus on the Iraq War which justifies a chapter in its own right, giving more space to expand on the influence of “spin doctors” and a “dodgy dossier” with the false claim that Saddam Hussein had the power to attack the UK “in 45 minutes”, which misled MPs to vote for war without the approval of the UN.
I would like Simpson to have included more about the role of the more “impartial” BBC, often seen by the printed press as a threat. Published in 2010, the book is now somewhat dated as regards the growing importance of the internet as a source of news. Inevitably, there is not enough space to explain fully the political background to many of the situations covered, but at least it inspires the reader to find out more about them.
I was most interested in the first half of the C20, that is the period I had not lived through so could not recall, and was intrigued to learn that the tabloid “red tops” of today were known around 1900 as the “yellow press” after a US comic strip. The phrase was coined by the New York Press to describe the sensational, exaggerated and often misleading form of popular journalism which was copied in Britain by newspaper owners like the Harmsworth family.
Although not apparently as influential as Murdoch in his heyday, the early C20 tycoons clearly interfered a good deal in the content of the newspapers they owned. For instance, Lord Rothermere, an ardent admirer of Hitler from the 1920s, wrote an editorial for his Daily Mail in 1933 stating, “The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany”.
Rothermere was “the loudest supporter” in Fleet Street of Franco, announcing before the fateful Spanish Civil War that he was “the bright spot on the horizon”. At the same time, the press baron favoured the rise of Oswald Moseley, personally writing an article for the Mail entitled “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” without criticising their fascist tendencies. Yet when World War Two began in earnest, the tone changed and a Daily Mail journalist once praised as “the man who knows the Nazi leaders” was writing about the “staggering heroism” of the “weary but indomitable” British soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk in an exercise portrayed positively as an achievement.
John Simpson is scathing about the journalists who, from the safety of hotels well away from the battle lines, invented reports based on second-hand sources, praising the bravery of soldiers in “Boy’s Own” terms rather than recounting accurately the true grim conditions. Admittedly, communication was harder to conduct in the early C20, and throughout there have been the constraints of state censorship, and the need to “maintain morale”, combined with the prejudices of overweaning newspaper magnates as described above. Yet, as recently as 1999, Murdoch’s “Sun”, amongst others, was apparently distorting facts in reporting of the bombing of Serbia in its “Clobba Slobba” articles, in an attempt to keep the public “on side”.
Battles are the dominant theme, with the exception of the Abdication crisis over Edward VIII’s desire to marry the twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. In this case, while the US press was reporting the scandal in detail, British newspapers were “victims of a more than usually painful attack of discretional lock-jaw” which was self-imposed since neither the government nor the police had applied any ban to reporting of the affair. Although it was asserted some years after the event that the Mirror had dared to break the story of the affair, John Simpson suggests that, despite having accumulated plenty of evidence, every single British newspaper “failed in its duty to tell people what was really going on, because its editor thought it would be intrusive, distasteful , disloyal or damaging to do so”. This may be compared with reporting on the Royal Family since the 1980s, culminating in no-holds-barred criticisms of Prince Andrew and discussion of the future of the monarchy during the December 2019 general election.
John Simpson suggests that it was probably during the Suez Crisis in the 1950s that newspapers began the attempt to analyse events seriously rather than simply outline the facts, or slavishly toe the government line. A surprising number of titles survived the century, with Murdoch playing a positive role in keeping, for instance, the Times going, although his political and commercial interests seem to have encroached on its independence. Simpson condemns the downward drive in standards which misused modern technology from the 1980s, such as illegal phone taps to infringe excessively on personal privacy. He argues that the Guardian and the Telegraph “probably come out of it best” in terms of independent-minded journalism.
I was a little disappointed by the conclusion which seems somewhat rushed, with a last-minute focus on the Iraq War which justifies a chapter in its own right, giving more space to expand on the influence of “spin doctors” and a “dodgy dossier” with the false claim that Saddam Hussein had the power to attack the UK “in 45 minutes”, which misled MPs to vote for war without the approval of the UN.
I would like Simpson to have included more about the role of the more “impartial” BBC, often seen by the printed press as a threat. Published in 2010, the book is now somewhat dated as regards the growing importance of the internet as a source of news. Inevitably, there is not enough space to explain fully the political background to many of the situations covered, but at least it inspires the reader to find out more about them.
September 3, 2022
I've given it 5 stars, but I'll preface by saying that you must have an interest in history, or media, or politics.
I wish there had been more news events covered, though I can forgive this as the book already surpasses 500 pages. It's a fascinating view on how media affects our perception, and maybe even our own history and how we remember it. Most events are ones you've heard of.
Yet at times, I felt I lost track. I had to go back and think. That is why this book won't be for everyone. Simpson will tell you what's going on but he doesn't hold your hand. You'll need to think yourself about how bias, politics and preference all play into the reporting. If you do, you'll enjoy the mental doors this book opens for you to explore and think about. If you don't, this is quite a hard book to follow. It's not a casual description of history, it aims a little higher, but you'll be rewarded by the end with a sixth sense knowledge of media and reporting.
5/5
I wish there had been more news events covered, though I can forgive this as the book already surpasses 500 pages. It's a fascinating view on how media affects our perception, and maybe even our own history and how we remember it. Most events are ones you've heard of.
Yet at times, I felt I lost track. I had to go back and think. That is why this book won't be for everyone. Simpson will tell you what's going on but he doesn't hold your hand. You'll need to think yourself about how bias, politics and preference all play into the reporting. If you do, you'll enjoy the mental doors this book opens for you to explore and think about. If you don't, this is quite a hard book to follow. It's not a casual description of history, it aims a little higher, but you'll be rewarded by the end with a sixth sense knowledge of media and reporting.
5/5
March 23, 2022
think any one of the chapters here might have benefitted from being expanded out into a full on book but some of the stuff here is great, and goes well beyond the standard war reporter stories you normally get
March 17, 2023
A fascinating account of both British journalism in the 20th century and of the main events in British history during that period. Also full of interesting anecdotes. Well worth reading.
November 18, 2013
John Simpson has undertaken a huge task in reviewing media treatment of major events from the Boer War to the Iraq wars, and has done so with eminent fairness and authority. It is a fine achievement.
Many of the events in the second half of the book he has been close to, or involved in directly, but he never gives himself a central role. Inevitably, the BBC features often but the allocation of praise and blame is clear-eyed and even handed.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of an unbiased standpoint can be seen in his treatment of the Murdoch press. Simpson finds little admirable about its methods or its output but he does not fail to point out that without Murdoch's victory over the print unions with the coup of his move to Wapping in the seventies we might not have much of a newspaper industry left.
Many of the events in the second half of the book he has been close to, or involved in directly, but he never gives himself a central role. Inevitably, the BBC features often but the allocation of praise and blame is clear-eyed and even handed.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of an unbiased standpoint can be seen in his treatment of the Murdoch press. Simpson finds little admirable about its methods or its output but he does not fail to point out that without Murdoch's victory over the print unions with the coup of his move to Wapping in the seventies we might not have much of a newspaper industry left.
December 1, 2016
A fascinating insight from an author who is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom, either in his news reports or tackling such a Herculean task as this.
Taking the development of press reportage across key milestones in history, this is filled with vignettes and anecdotes, which provide greater appreciation for the developments he is analysing.
I was left having had a great read, but also thinking this would make a wonderful broadcast series - with him as the presenter, of course.
Enjoyable and illuminating.
Taking the development of press reportage across key milestones in history, this is filled with vignettes and anecdotes, which provide greater appreciation for the developments he is analysing.
I was left having had a great read, but also thinking this would make a wonderful broadcast series - with him as the presenter, of course.
Enjoyable and illuminating.
October 25, 2013
A brilliant analysis of how news ends up being written or presented, the pressure of the proprietors or other interests and influences, with a case study of the British media covered prominent events of the 20th century as well as the one in the closing years of the one before it and how the establishment and people - including those being featured - reacted. Another gem from Mr Simpson
June 11, 2011
Interesting links between media and politics
July 5, 2020
A brilliantly researched book on how the press reflected key events in Britsh history from the Boer War through to the 21st century and how British Governmens sought to control the coverage.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews