What do you think?
Rate this book
Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All – A Veteran Correspondent's Call for Patriotic Skepticism to Restore Democracy and Public Trust
At a time when the world has been blindsided by failures of intelligence, a veteran CBS News correspondent reveals how the news media has betrayed our trust and endangered our democracy. Tom Fenton is the senior European correspondent for CBS News. In his long journalistic experience, he has reported on everything from the fall of the Shah of Iran to the crumbling of communism in East Germany to the bombing of Israel during the first Gulf War. Today he has covered the movements of al Qaeda throughout Europe–a story he was tracking before 9/11. And in the three years since, he has come to a sobering the American news media–and network TV news in particular–has abdicated its responsibility to the American people. As Fenton points out, much of America still gets its news from the networks. But in the years leading to 9/11 the coverage of terrorism was sporadic at best, focusing on acts of terror rather than the people and movements that caused them. It was Washington's job to connect the dots, Fenton argues, but it was the news business's job to track the story and watchdog the government's vigilance–and both sides failed. "By the time of the Bush–Kerry election," Fenton writes, "for the first time, the news media had an even worse credibility gap" than the government's. Lulled into complacency by the Cold War, gutted by corporate bottom–lining bottom feeders, the news media missed the story of the century–just as they'd missed hundreds of others in the years before, from Kosovo to Chechnya. As a frequent voice in the wilderness himself–who tried unsuccessfully to interest CBS in an Osama bin Laden interview in the 1990s–Fenton charges that the news media must change its perspective from that of an entertainment–industry offshoot to that of a keeper of the public trust. And he argues that his industry must foster a new patriotic skepticism, one that will both inform the people and help Washington defend the country better. Tom Fenton's passionate argument for change in the political sector is being embraced by readers on all sides. Since its publication in the United States Bad News has won wide and critical acclaim from such publications as Publisher's Weekly, Washington Post, and Christian Science Monitor.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
3 people are currently reading
73 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 9, 2008
Tom Fenton is a bona-fide Clinton hater, as he makes eminently clear many, many times in this book, offering negative, biased, one-sided views of complicated events. There are, however, nuggets of useful information scattered amongst the hurled mud. I appreciated his description of the decline in foreign reporting as evidenced by the use of packaging.
P 12
The London Bureau of CBS News, where I have spent more than a quarter century, doesn’t do much reporting any more. What it does is called packaging. We take in pictures shot by people we do not know, and wrap them in facts gathered by anonymous employees in news agencies owned by others. Call it the media’s version of outsourcing. All the television networks now do most of their “reporting” this way, to save money on old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting by full-time correspondents. And as a result, the networks can no longer vouch for much of the foreign news they put on the air. …they take it on trust. Don’t shoot it, don’t report it—just wrap it up and slap the CBS eye on it.
Fenton’s bias emerges here and there, despite his call for this being a non-partisan look at the news. He mentions Dan Rather several times in the opening chapter, noting his error, but never quite getting around to the fact that the substance of what Rather reported was actually true.
P 13
There’s no doubt that the Abu Ghraib story played well to the liberal bias of the Times when the paper finally woke up. There’s no question that political biases do exist among editors, producers, and reporters. They naturally affect the choice and spin of stories, as my former CBS News colleague Bernard Goldberg has noted.
Gee, so Bernie is a buddy. Hmmm. Goldberg being a committed right-winger, and personal hatchet man towards Dan Rather.
The instances in which Fenton takes a “blame Clinton” line are too many to allow us to quote them all. Here is a sampling:
He decries Clinton’s support for Yeltsin’s maintenance of power in Russia without once mentioning what other possibilities might have presented. Was it not possible that Yeltsin was the least awful alternative?
He gripes about the reduction in intelligence funding during the 90’s, implying that this was all on account of Clinton, when it was largely a product of right wing spending cuts, led by Newt Gingrich
He gripes about Clinton’s response to the African bombings, sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan and taking out the warehouse in Somalia, but makes no mention of the fact that every time Clinton was faced with a situation in which military force was an option, he was assaulted from the right for wagging the dog if he even contemplated using the military.
Despite the bare-fanged revulsion at Clinton, there is considerable substance to the book. He talks about how the holy scripture of the bottom line has become king of all kings, with cuts in expensive overseas operations an easy target for bean counters. Fenton argues that taking a long view, it is in the corporations’ best self-interest to sustain foreign news machines. He argues that ignorance is, ultimately, more expensive. What if reporting about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden had been given more play? It is conceivable, in this view, that a public that had been alerted to the danger of international Muslim fundamentalist extremism might have noticed a bit more when some Saudis began applying for flight schools. There has been a substantial cost resulting from 9/11, not the least of which is in increased transportation, fuel and security costs. What about the fact that this gave the Bushies the excuse they were looking for to go into Iraq, with the concomitant costs?
There is a lot of information about little-known details of foreign politics:
In the Balkan conflict, the perceived victim Armenians had themselves butchered Serbs in WW II and were actively engaged in trying to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Serbs.
The Iraqi Kurds had been used by the USA to suppress Shiite and Sunni insurgents
There was an opportunity for the USA to be involved in securing a non-fundamentalist southern border to Russia when the local populations were shedding their religions as well as their ties to Russia and dreaming of American consumerism. The fundamentalists were allowed a clear field and worked their magic in Chechnya and Bosnia.
Russia sought to control the newly independent Stans by ensuring that there was no outlet for their natural resources, most importantly oil, except through Russia. The USA tried to contain that desire by dealing with the Taliban, so that oil lines could be built through Afghanistan, free of Russian control. (p 41) – “the Russians responded by fomenting their own fundamentalists against their previous colonies. That allowed Moscow to re-station troops to “protect” the republics against what they called “destabilization.” In short they created an excuse for re-occupying these republics.
P 162 – Our ignorance of…geostrategic importance allows our government to operate freely without input or check from us. But it also allows others to maneuver against our interests, without Americans knowing or pressuring their government to respond. That kind of public ignorance does allow an unintended political spin to endure. It has the effect of keeping alive received, and often false or outdated, assumptions. In the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, virtually no American media would carry stories suggesting that the instability in Russia’s periphery was a direct result of Russian meddling. Why? Because the received opinion in America held that the Russian army and the Russian state were just too poor to mount an effective foreign policy. Russia was too busy trying to remain democratic and capitalist. In the meantime, in many newly independent ex Soviet states, internal strife and civil wars broke out apparently spontaneously. Yet, in most cases, the outcome favored Russian power. In fact, in Moldavia, in Georgian Abkhazia, in Uzbekistan, in Tajikstan, in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russian military might intervened to cause unrest, and then to settle it. In the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict of the early 1990s, Russians manned parts of the front lines on both sides; they supplied both sides with arms; they ran the intelligence and communications on both sides; and they helped Armenia win the civil war. To most Americans, it seemed like an obscure and irrelevant conflict with the daunting name of Nagorno-Karabagh. Yet Azerbaijan holds rights to massive amounts of oil in the Caspian Sea. A powerful and rich independent Azerbaijan supplying the west with oil could offset the oil leverage of Russia and the Middle Eastern countries. …Russia and Iran became so friendly over the matter that it soon spilled over into nuclear cooperation. The result? The impending Iranian nuclear threat that dominates headlines today.
P 167 – The Chechens won their first war of independence in the Yeltsin era without any help from fundamentalists. It was a nationalist war pure and simple. But Russian authorities couldn’t live with Chechen independence—it blocked Russia’s control over Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Ultimately, it blocked their veto over oil supplies in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea. So they restarted the war.
P 169 - Russia keeps a base in Georgia by main force, despite Georgian protests. And it maintains a threat over Azerbaijan via the Armenians. But the United States also has a base in Georgia and massive pipeline investments from top American oil companies in Azerbaijan. If Russia launched raids into either country, it would soon conflict with American interests—and Russia still deploys a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at American shores.
He also goes into detail about the history and ethnography of Iraq, noting the presence, for instance, of a Turkoman minority that makes up ten percent of the country’s total, the role of Kurds
P 46
When skimpier news resources chase an ever more unstable world, the outcome is a kind of herd reporting where all the reporters and news channels chase after the same Big Story, or Big Scandal, and neglect the rest
He talks with each of the big three anchors, asking each what they earn (none would say, but it is presumed to be in the $15 to $20 million range) and if they think that redirecting this largesse would help. It would appear that each of the three has in fact attempted to broach the subject with their corporate management. The answer is that anything they give back would simply go into corporate profits, that none would be used to support foreign reporting. A sad state of affairs.
Fenton provides a wealth of detail about the underlying politics of some of the hottest spots on the planet, adding texture and complexity to issues that are treated my most media editors as much simpler situations. This merits a re-read or two to get what is really going on in, say Russia and its former Soviet, now supposedly independent border states and games Russia is playing with their internal politics. Armenia and Azerbaijan merit a close look. There are many.
He also provided ideas of what might be done to help make America a better informed place. He advocates increasing the network nightly news programs from half an hour to one hour, maybe even having an early evening headline service followed by an hour-long report at 10 pm. He also argues that today’s technology allows reporters to work from the field with far less resources than in days of yore. Hand-held cameras are a major part of this, as is satellite communication.
P 12
The London Bureau of CBS News, where I have spent more than a quarter century, doesn’t do much reporting any more. What it does is called packaging. We take in pictures shot by people we do not know, and wrap them in facts gathered by anonymous employees in news agencies owned by others. Call it the media’s version of outsourcing. All the television networks now do most of their “reporting” this way, to save money on old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting by full-time correspondents. And as a result, the networks can no longer vouch for much of the foreign news they put on the air. …they take it on trust. Don’t shoot it, don’t report it—just wrap it up and slap the CBS eye on it.
Fenton’s bias emerges here and there, despite his call for this being a non-partisan look at the news. He mentions Dan Rather several times in the opening chapter, noting his error, but never quite getting around to the fact that the substance of what Rather reported was actually true.
P 13
There’s no doubt that the Abu Ghraib story played well to the liberal bias of the Times when the paper finally woke up. There’s no question that political biases do exist among editors, producers, and reporters. They naturally affect the choice and spin of stories, as my former CBS News colleague Bernard Goldberg has noted.
Gee, so Bernie is a buddy. Hmmm. Goldberg being a committed right-winger, and personal hatchet man towards Dan Rather.
The instances in which Fenton takes a “blame Clinton” line are too many to allow us to quote them all. Here is a sampling:
He decries Clinton’s support for Yeltsin’s maintenance of power in Russia without once mentioning what other possibilities might have presented. Was it not possible that Yeltsin was the least awful alternative?
He gripes about the reduction in intelligence funding during the 90’s, implying that this was all on account of Clinton, when it was largely a product of right wing spending cuts, led by Newt Gingrich
He gripes about Clinton’s response to the African bombings, sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan and taking out the warehouse in Somalia, but makes no mention of the fact that every time Clinton was faced with a situation in which military force was an option, he was assaulted from the right for wagging the dog if he even contemplated using the military.
Despite the bare-fanged revulsion at Clinton, there is considerable substance to the book. He talks about how the holy scripture of the bottom line has become king of all kings, with cuts in expensive overseas operations an easy target for bean counters. Fenton argues that taking a long view, it is in the corporations’ best self-interest to sustain foreign news machines. He argues that ignorance is, ultimately, more expensive. What if reporting about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden had been given more play? It is conceivable, in this view, that a public that had been alerted to the danger of international Muslim fundamentalist extremism might have noticed a bit more when some Saudis began applying for flight schools. There has been a substantial cost resulting from 9/11, not the least of which is in increased transportation, fuel and security costs. What about the fact that this gave the Bushies the excuse they were looking for to go into Iraq, with the concomitant costs?
There is a lot of information about little-known details of foreign politics:
In the Balkan conflict, the perceived victim Armenians had themselves butchered Serbs in WW II and were actively engaged in trying to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Serbs.
The Iraqi Kurds had been used by the USA to suppress Shiite and Sunni insurgents
There was an opportunity for the USA to be involved in securing a non-fundamentalist southern border to Russia when the local populations were shedding their religions as well as their ties to Russia and dreaming of American consumerism. The fundamentalists were allowed a clear field and worked their magic in Chechnya and Bosnia.
Russia sought to control the newly independent Stans by ensuring that there was no outlet for their natural resources, most importantly oil, except through Russia. The USA tried to contain that desire by dealing with the Taliban, so that oil lines could be built through Afghanistan, free of Russian control. (p 41) – “the Russians responded by fomenting their own fundamentalists against their previous colonies. That allowed Moscow to re-station troops to “protect” the republics against what they called “destabilization.” In short they created an excuse for re-occupying these republics.
P 162 – Our ignorance of…geostrategic importance allows our government to operate freely without input or check from us. But it also allows others to maneuver against our interests, without Americans knowing or pressuring their government to respond. That kind of public ignorance does allow an unintended political spin to endure. It has the effect of keeping alive received, and often false or outdated, assumptions. In the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, virtually no American media would carry stories suggesting that the instability in Russia’s periphery was a direct result of Russian meddling. Why? Because the received opinion in America held that the Russian army and the Russian state were just too poor to mount an effective foreign policy. Russia was too busy trying to remain democratic and capitalist. In the meantime, in many newly independent ex Soviet states, internal strife and civil wars broke out apparently spontaneously. Yet, in most cases, the outcome favored Russian power. In fact, in Moldavia, in Georgian Abkhazia, in Uzbekistan, in Tajikstan, in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russian military might intervened to cause unrest, and then to settle it. In the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict of the early 1990s, Russians manned parts of the front lines on both sides; they supplied both sides with arms; they ran the intelligence and communications on both sides; and they helped Armenia win the civil war. To most Americans, it seemed like an obscure and irrelevant conflict with the daunting name of Nagorno-Karabagh. Yet Azerbaijan holds rights to massive amounts of oil in the Caspian Sea. A powerful and rich independent Azerbaijan supplying the west with oil could offset the oil leverage of Russia and the Middle Eastern countries. …Russia and Iran became so friendly over the matter that it soon spilled over into nuclear cooperation. The result? The impending Iranian nuclear threat that dominates headlines today.
P 167 – The Chechens won their first war of independence in the Yeltsin era without any help from fundamentalists. It was a nationalist war pure and simple. But Russian authorities couldn’t live with Chechen independence—it blocked Russia’s control over Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Ultimately, it blocked their veto over oil supplies in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea. So they restarted the war.
P 169 - Russia keeps a base in Georgia by main force, despite Georgian protests. And it maintains a threat over Azerbaijan via the Armenians. But the United States also has a base in Georgia and massive pipeline investments from top American oil companies in Azerbaijan. If Russia launched raids into either country, it would soon conflict with American interests—and Russia still deploys a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at American shores.
He also goes into detail about the history and ethnography of Iraq, noting the presence, for instance, of a Turkoman minority that makes up ten percent of the country’s total, the role of Kurds
P 46
When skimpier news resources chase an ever more unstable world, the outcome is a kind of herd reporting where all the reporters and news channels chase after the same Big Story, or Big Scandal, and neglect the rest
He talks with each of the big three anchors, asking each what they earn (none would say, but it is presumed to be in the $15 to $20 million range) and if they think that redirecting this largesse would help. It would appear that each of the three has in fact attempted to broach the subject with their corporate management. The answer is that anything they give back would simply go into corporate profits, that none would be used to support foreign reporting. A sad state of affairs.
Fenton provides a wealth of detail about the underlying politics of some of the hottest spots on the planet, adding texture and complexity to issues that are treated my most media editors as much simpler situations. This merits a re-read or two to get what is really going on in, say Russia and its former Soviet, now supposedly independent border states and games Russia is playing with their internal politics. Armenia and Azerbaijan merit a close look. There are many.
He also provided ideas of what might be done to help make America a better informed place. He advocates increasing the network nightly news programs from half an hour to one hour, maybe even having an early evening headline service followed by an hour-long report at 10 pm. He also argues that today’s technology allows reporters to work from the field with far less resources than in days of yore. Hand-held cameras are a major part of this, as is satellite communication.
September 8, 2019
Tom Fenton had been veteran foreign correspondent for CBS news. He brings out the ills of today's news media regarding decline of ground level reporting, lack of hard/serious news; news turning into show biz; Management's contempt for audience intelligence etc.
He beautifully highlights how serious reporting can foresee future events and can also possibly forestall mishaps. His focus is on "context". That every news item has to have context in order to make people understand the big picture. Without this, channels might cover this or that big event/story, but it wouldn't lead to any better understanding of the situation which can be made use of.
He also highlights the role of correspondents in a sense that long standing correspondents know the strategic importance of even a small event. Editorial policy should not dictate what a correspondent should cover, on the contrary, correspondent's input should affect editorial policy.
Contrary to general logic that more free media would mean better news, how the competition actually reduced the quality of in depth news is worth seeing. Role of State in this and spinning of news by government is explaining in short but effectively.
This book is mainly written about lack of foreign news in American media, but I could easily draw parallels to Indian media and domestic news covering. This gives many insights about how and why news media has deteriorated and how it can be improved.
He beautifully highlights how serious reporting can foresee future events and can also possibly forestall mishaps. His focus is on "context". That every news item has to have context in order to make people understand the big picture. Without this, channels might cover this or that big event/story, but it wouldn't lead to any better understanding of the situation which can be made use of.
He also highlights the role of correspondents in a sense that long standing correspondents know the strategic importance of even a small event. Editorial policy should not dictate what a correspondent should cover, on the contrary, correspondent's input should affect editorial policy.
Contrary to general logic that more free media would mean better news, how the competition actually reduced the quality of in depth news is worth seeing. Role of State in this and spinning of news by government is explaining in short but effectively.
This book is mainly written about lack of foreign news in American media, but I could easily draw parallels to Indian media and domestic news covering. This gives many insights about how and why news media has deteriorated and how it can be improved.
July 16, 2009
I looked forward to reading this book as it is a discussion on the quality and quantity of news - television mostly as that is the media Fenton comes from - presented to the American public and why the news business sucketh mightily.
I was not even 3 pages in when the typos began smacking me in the face. They grew more egregious with every chapter until they distracted me so much that I started looking for them instead of reading the text. It's like no one looked at the freaking thing before or after it went to press. I'm not picking on the index (though it is a mess as well) - I refer to typos like:
"When here in the untied States..." (yes, misspelled AND miscapped)
"...each others broadcasts.1They went ..." (no idea why the "1" is there but I am dying to know how spellcheck would have missed that if they'd bother to use it)
Is it SO hard to do people? Why undercut what is a very good argument for taking the news media to task and a plan with which to do it - with these careless, annoying and ultimately damaging to the argument (because I'm now utterly distracted by them AND the publisher - who is should come as no surprise is the "get it out on the shelves NOW NOW NOW or I'll eat your children" Judith "Hell-Demon" Regan)
Bad editing, misprints and carelessness grows worse every damn day - in fiction, non-fiction, hard covers, paperback editions, reprints. The kind of thing you expect and get in BadFic. And which I am sadly coming to expect (and get more and more in commercial titles as well.)
I'd love to recommend the book to anyone who loathes the way the news has been dumbed down, missed the boat, caters to the lowest common interest and intelligence. Because it makes it's case in between the errors. But frankly, why subject anyone to this shoddiness.
I was not even 3 pages in when the typos began smacking me in the face. They grew more egregious with every chapter until they distracted me so much that I started looking for them instead of reading the text. It's like no one looked at the freaking thing before or after it went to press. I'm not picking on the index (though it is a mess as well) - I refer to typos like:
"When here in the untied States..." (yes, misspelled AND miscapped)
"...each others broadcasts.1They went ..." (no idea why the "1" is there but I am dying to know how spellcheck would have missed that if they'd bother to use it)
Is it SO hard to do people? Why undercut what is a very good argument for taking the news media to task and a plan with which to do it - with these careless, annoying and ultimately damaging to the argument (because I'm now utterly distracted by them AND the publisher - who is should come as no surprise is the "get it out on the shelves NOW NOW NOW or I'll eat your children" Judith "Hell-Demon" Regan)
Bad editing, misprints and carelessness grows worse every damn day - in fiction, non-fiction, hard covers, paperback editions, reprints. The kind of thing you expect and get in BadFic. And which I am sadly coming to expect (and get more and more in commercial titles as well.)
I'd love to recommend the book to anyone who loathes the way the news has been dumbed down, missed the boat, caters to the lowest common interest and intelligence. Because it makes it's case in between the errors. But frankly, why subject anyone to this shoddiness.
September 28, 2010
This was an interesting polemic from a retired journalist, the subject of which is the decline of reporting and what it means to our republic. I agree with Fenton that the news has been highjacked by entertainment and that the American public is being drawn into a dangerous solopsism. I am aghast at what passes for the news on the major networks. Awful -- it's complete news-lite. Fenton is correct in that little international news gets through -- one has to go to the BBC for that. Even Al Jazeera English does a better job of presenting news of other countries -- although I imagine with a slant toward what it means to the middle east. But hey -- we slant the news as well.
The issue here is that this describes the dumbing down of the U.S. citizenry by people who are interested, not in presenting news, but in the bottom line. And Fenton makes a good case for what it means in terms of an electorate who are ignorant of what their elected representatives are doing on their behalf.
It confirmed a lot of what I have observed and what I believe to be happening -- and our politicians are exploiting this ignorance on a daily basis. Just watch the nitwits who rail against "socialized medicine" and health care reform but haven't thought through that Medicare and the VA is government paid for health care. Other examples are legion.
My issue with this book is with his pounding away at the topic over and over and over. OK, we got the point. Editors please note.
The issue here is that this describes the dumbing down of the U.S. citizenry by people who are interested, not in presenting news, but in the bottom line. And Fenton makes a good case for what it means in terms of an electorate who are ignorant of what their elected representatives are doing on their behalf.
It confirmed a lot of what I have observed and what I believe to be happening -- and our politicians are exploiting this ignorance on a daily basis. Just watch the nitwits who rail against "socialized medicine" and health care reform but haven't thought through that Medicare and the VA is government paid for health care. Other examples are legion.
My issue with this book is with his pounding away at the topic over and over and over. OK, we got the point. Editors please note.
Read
July 2, 2007I'm reading this now. If you are interested in what is going on in the world and do not appreciate the lack of informative news we get in this country, then you will like this book. A heads up though: this book revolves around broadcast journalism. What I found to be very interesting yesterday when I was reading it was that Tom Fenton had lined up an interview with an Islamic radical years ago, at the time this radical was not well known, his name was Osama bin Laden. CBS decided that bin Ladan would never amount to anything and would never affect the United States and killed the project. It is amazing how decisions are made for us by executives at the highest level of television. The information that we could have had but because it these stories were "depressing" or "cut into the bottom line" we never saw them. SOME broadcast journalists were attempting to warn the American people years prior to 9/11 that 9/11 attacks were being plotted by people with the means to do so; some from places such as Oklahoma Mosques. An eye opeing book.
September 12, 2012
I read Tom Fenton's book, and I think the overall messages of Tom Fentons book is that "there are thing(s) to know, event(s) to cover, secret(s) to uncover and disclose, places to go, people to see, and things to do (outside of the United States)and why doesn't anyone else see that? Tom Fentons book is the lament of the adventurer, the traveler, the one who leaves small town U.S. for the razzle dazzle of the big city--or as someone else said, "its hard to go back to small town U.S. (news) when you have been to Paris (and have seen real action)" that may affect Americans.
July 21, 2007
interesting, but by far not the best book on the subject, though he makes some insightful comments. what i like most about books/essays on media issues is the 'textual evidence' they provide, and although fenton makes some good points or enlightens the reader on a topic that was buried or missing in the news, he doesn't cite. which really really REALLY bugs me.
still, he is a 'media insider' (former CBS reporter) and therefore someone who i can (most likely) learn from.
still, he is a 'media insider' (former CBS reporter) and therefore someone who i can (most likely) learn from.
May 11, 2009
The basic premise of the book is sound - our current way of receiving international news in the U.S. is fraught with problems. The proliferation of news sources is helpful only if we're willing to sort/sift through the bias (both liberal & conservative) in order to find the "truth."
Unfortunately, Tom Fenton tends to come back & hammer the same points over & over... it finally comes off as strident & overwrought.
Unfortunately, Tom Fenton tends to come back & hammer the same points over & over... it finally comes off as strident & overwrought.
September 29, 2010
Very informative. Author thoroughly examines the reasons why Americans are so underserved by the commercial news media and the consequences of that. Drags a bit, but still worth a read, especially in today's world of 24 hour garbage "news."
June 10, 2007
Repetitive, boring and full of typos.
May 8, 2013
Reading this for a course on media I'm preparing to teach. Upsetting more than anything. We're on our own to determine what truth is in this world.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews