Amazon.com
These are tough times for journalism. Newsroom executives' bonuses tend to be based on their company's profit margin. Journalists are constantly jockeying for the time and space necessary to tell their stories as they see fit. Only 47 percent of Americans even read a newspaper. And Time and Newsweek--news magazines, remember?--"were seven times more likely to have the same cover story as People magazine in 1997 than in 1977."
It's no wonder that in 1997, the Committee of Concerned Journalists formed to "engage journalists and the public in a careful examination of what journalism was supposed to be." The Elements of Journalism reports the results of that study, which included 21 public forums (attended by 3,000 people), in-depth interviews with 100 journalists, editorial content studies, and research into the history of journalism. Part of what the committee members learned, they already knew. Journalism is complicated business: journalists are paid by management but work for the citizens; they tend to be self-taught (there is little evidence of mentoring and much disdain for journalism schools); and they need to be objective even when they're not impartial. This has always been the case. But the committee also detected a trend, one abundantly evident to anyone who has tried to find news on the evening TV news: "news was becoming entertainment and entertainment news."
"Unless we can grasp and reclaim the theory of a free press," warn Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, the book's authors, "journalists risk allowing their profession to disappear." Through their discussions with journalists, the Committee of Concerned Journalists defined nine "clear principles" of journalism, which Kovach and Rosenstiel explore in great detail. The first principle is, "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth." The last: "Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience." In between come issues of loyalty, verification, independence, and power monitoring, among others.
Invigorating reading for newsroom interns, jaded reporters, and anyone else who needs to be reminded of the rigorousness, integrity, and meaning of journalism. --Jane Steinberg
Book Description
The Book That Every Citizen and Journalist Should Read
“What this book does better than any single book on media history, ethics, or practice is
weave . . . [together] why media audiences have fled and why new technology and megacorporate ownership are putting good journalism at risk.” —Rasmi Simhan, Boston Globe
“Kovach and Rosenstiel’s essays on each [element] are concise gems, filled with insights worthy of becoming axiomatic. . . . The book should become essential reading for journalism professionals and students and for the citizens they aim to serve.” —Carl Sessions Stepp, American Journalism Review
“If you think journalists have no idea what you want . . . here is a book that agrees with you. Better—it has solutions. The Elements of Journalism is written for journalists, but any citizen who wonders why the news seems trivial or uninspiring should read it.” —Marta Salij, Detroit Free Press
The elements of journalism are:
* Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
* Its first loyalty is to citizens.
* Its essence is a discipline of verification.
* Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
* It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
* It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
* It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
* It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
* Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Customer Reviews:
Abstract/Strategic overview; Journalist's, not public's, perspective.......2007-01-05
This book is probably a good overview for someone new to these issues. However, for someone like me who has been interested in these issues for years, there is little here that you wouldn't have already seen in the newspaper coverage of this topic. I had hope of finding some pithy characterizations of the issues, but this book contained none that I hadn't already seen. However, for the newbie, this book does a good job at collecting and presenting them (and citing sources). And it is very readable.
My biggest disappointment was that the authors chose to exclude the issues of fairness and balance - as a person involved in events covered by the press, this is my biggest source of frustration with journalists. The most common problem is with the structure of an article: One side's position and arguments are given, and repeated, in the beginning and middle of the article, with other points of view not appearing until near the very end. When I try to talk to the journalist about the well-known problems with this structure, my comments are routinely dismissed with "But its all in there."
Note: By "fairness" and "balance" I mean what is understood by normal people and not the bizarre, discredited definitions used by journalists. Rather than try to rehabilitate these terms (a difficult task), the authors attempt, unsuccessfully, to introduce replacements (for example, "proportionality" which is presented by an unsatisfying metaphor).
My second disappointment was that the portion of the title "and the Public Should Expect" is an empty promise: The book is entirely focused on the journalist's perspective.
I did find it interesting the number of times that the authors commented that journalists were *not* trained in key aspects of their job but had to figure it out for themselves. This confirmed intuitions developed from my experience with journalists.
Captures all important elements of journalism.......2006-08-10
After reading Lippman's Public Opinion, this book provided a good review of what has happend in recent years.
The journalism is heading for a new direction, while preserving the old core values.
No stone is left unturned in this book with regard to journalism.
very good.......2006-02-20
I received the book in a good delay, and it was in perfect condition!
Great finish, no start........2005-03-21
I read this book as a first year grad student studying journalism. It's an interesting read - probably the only book I read that whole semester that I actually liked. It leaves the reader with a sense of purpose and commitment to the craft of journalism.
Then I went out and start reporting in the real world. I immediately realized "Elements of Journalism" is hopelessly idealistic. The book has a great vision for where the profession should be, but no suggestions on how to get there.
absolutely loved it.......2004-11-25
For my journalism class, I had to choose a book of merit about the media. "The Elements of Journalism" doesn't disappoint. This book takes the form of an instructional guide in that its objective does tell what journalists should be doing in order to create an effective press and what the public should expect from it. I find "The Elements of Journalism" to be of great use since it outlines what every budding journalist should follow to maintain ethics, objectivity, and truth in their work. It even describes man's history with the need for communication and a briefing of journalism's role in history. The book is written with clarity and the topics flow together. I also noticed that Kovach and Rosentiel developed many "theories" of the media-which all seem true too.
What will always stay with me is the "The Theory of the Interlocking Public"-that states that everyone has an interest and is an expert in something. We need to be knowledgeable about the realistic description of how people interact with the news in order to present information as accurately as possible so that an individual group is not drawn to an article but a WHOLE variety of people depending on their level of knowledge about the world. Good journalism targets each level. I always remember this while writing an article for the paper.
As for what citizens should expect from the press, I admired the quote "The marketplace fails if we as citizens are passive, willing to put up with a diminishing product because we have no alternative. It works only if we act with a voice and a reason." It basically means that the purpose of a press (to convey the information that people need to be sovereign) will deteriorate if the people don't take action and speak up in what they believe in and hold true.
And, I can go on and on....because this book is so full of insightful information. I recommend it for anybody interested in the workings of the media.
Book Description
In two previous books, Janet Malcolm explored the hidden sides of, respectively, institutional psychoanalysis and Freudian biography. In this book, she examines the psychopathology of journalism. Using a strange and unprecedented lawsuit as her larger-than-life example -- the lawsuit of Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted murderer, against Joe McGinniss, the author of Fatal Vision, a book about the crime -- she delves into the always uneasy, sometimes tragic relationship that exists between journalist and subject. In Malcolm's view, neither journalist nor subject can avoid the moral impasse that is built into the journalistic situation. When the text first appeared, as a two-part article in The New Yorker, its thesis seemed so radical and its irony so pitiless that journalists across the country reacted as if stung.
Her book is a work of journalism as well as an essay on journalism: it at once exemplifies and dissects its subject. In her interviews with the leading and subsidiary characters in the MacDonald-McGinniss case -- the principals, their lawyers, the members of the jury, and the various persons who testified as expert witnesses at the trial -- Malcolm is always aware of herself as a player in a game that, as she points out, she cannot lose. The journalist-subject encounter has always troubled journalists, but never before has it been looked at so unflinchingly and so ruefully. Hovering over the narrative -- and always on the edge of the reader's consciousness -- is the MacDonald murder case itself, which imparts to the book an atmosphere of anxiety and uncanniness. The Journalist and the Murderer derives from and reflects many of the dominant intellectual concerns of our time, and it will have a particular appeal for those who cherish the odd, the off-center, and the unsolved.
Customer Reviews:
How far should they go?.......2007-05-30
Joe McGinniss put himself on the map writing the classic 1969 book, THE SELLING OF A PRESIDENT. That book detailed how Richard Nixon was sold to the public like any other consumer product. It's worth reading if you can find a copy. The Nixon book was such a hit and McGinniss was so young he couldn't find material good enough to follow it up and his next few books were mediocre.
Determined to find another worthy subject, he tackled the case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, a man accused of killing his wife and children. That story became the bestselling FATAL VISION and this book, THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER, chronicles the techniques that McGinniss used to get close to McDonald, and how he pretended to support McDonald through the years of legal proceedings although he always thought him to be guilty and wanted a guilty verdict for a better book. McGinniss' technique led to unfettered access to legal files, evidence, but most importantly access to McDonald. They'd drink together, strategize together and were pals during the experience.
The central question is how far can a journalist go to get the story? Although a jury found McDonald guilty of murder, a later jury found in favor of McDonald in his suit against McGuinniss because they felt that his techniques were so underhanded and self-serving that even a murderer deserved better. The book shows the divide between the win-at-any-cost media and the public that grows weary of the techniques used against people to create news. Does the public have the right to know enough that journalists can lie to subjects to bring the story to press?
This short book makes you question a number of journalistic techniques and it doesn't hurt either that McDonald has strong supporters and could possibly be innocent of the murders, at least in the context of this book.
There's more where this came from ..........2004-11-10
Ms. Malcolm slices off the hand that feeds her
With regard to item "a)" from "...pointless exercise," MacDonald v. McGuiness was over when Ms. Malcolm got involved. According to Fatal Justice by Palmer & Bost, McGuiness's lawyers threw a post-trial press conference for the court of public opinion: only Ms. Malcolm showed up.
Otherwise, Journalist & Murderer is mainly about journalistic ethics, if there are any. Here, McGuiness insinuated himself into the defense team (he was privy to trial strategy) of Jeffrey MacDonald, with the promise presenting him in the best possible light. When McGuiness sours on MacDonald, he puts up a cheery front & presses on. After Fatal Vision, MacDonald felt betrayed.
Of course, in our Cartesian-dualist society, since it's always either-or, we ask why he should feel betrayed? Guys convicted of killing their families have no reason to feel betrayed. They're bad guys; they deserve betrayal.
However, when McGuiness concluded that MacDonald was guilty, trial evidence just wouldn't do. McGuiness shamefully proved himself a member of the old Star Chamber (maybe Joe expected some votes as Cheney's heir @Halliburton?) by trundling out Cleckley's (1941) old psychopathology checklist & diagnosing Dr. MacDonald an incurable, speed-fueled sociopath. Dr. Phil's forbearer: super!
Ms. Malcolm is my favorite contemporary writer: she is foremost literate & like my favorite noncontemporary writer Mencken, she can be vicious without being vengeful. However, when you read, say, 1999's Sheila McGough, you may well wonder what sort of journalistic ruse Ms. Malcolm might cook up while slicing vegetables in the McGough kitchen. The Journalist & the Murderer is a blueprint for any such ruse. Better news is that after reading J&M, you can laugh without a twinge of guilt @gaudily & nightly paraded notions like "journalistic integrity."
Zero stars - pointless exercise..........2003-11-10
I'd have a bit more respect for Ms. Malcolm if:
a) she had actually attended MacDonald vs. McGinniss, so that she could write from an informed viewpoint instead of relying on second- and third-hand accounts;
b) she had spent less time oohing and ahhing over MacDonald's personal magnetism, and stuck to the facts of the case at hand;
c) she had bothered to read the literary releases to McGinniss's publishing company, SIGNED BY MACDONALD HIMSELF, that gave McGinniss license to write any type of book he wished (including, one presumes, a book that might actually say that McGinniss himself had concluded that MacDonald was guilty, despite the friendship the Journalist may have felt for the Murderer);
d) she hadn't stated - repeatedly - the total fiction that the jury hung 5-1 in MacDonald's favor. The fact is, the jury hung on ONE QUESTION OUT OF THIRTY-SEVEN, never actually voting on the other 36, because one juror believed that MacDonald had violated his agreements with McGinniss by cultivating other journalists and by ignoring his agreement not to sue McGinniss.
Or is MacDonald next going to sue Malcolm, because in her very title, she herself calls him a murderer?
Let's call an egg an egg, Dr. Jeff. You killed them. Pay the price. Be done with it.
Looking at the murky world of journalistic ethics........2003-06-30
In 1970, a respected army physician named Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald claimed that four strangers broke into his home in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and killed his wife and two daughters. Although an army tribunal tried Dr. MacDonald and cleared him, years later the case was reopened. This time, MacDonald was convicted and sent to prison, where he still is today.
Janet Malcolm does not reopen the MacDonald case in her book, "The Journalist and the Murderer." Rather, she examines the issues behind a libel suit that MacDonald brought in 1984 against his supposed friend, Joe McGinnis, author of "Fatal Vision." Joe McGinniss posed as an ally of Jeffrey MacDonald for years. McGinnis lived with MacDonald for a while and even joined his defense team. McGinniss sent MacDonald sympathetic letters in support of his cause. In these letters, he frequently expressed his belief in MacDonald's innocence.
It was only after "Fatal Vision" was published that MacDonald discovered the truth. McGinniss did not believe in MacDonald's innocence; on the contrary, he portrays MacDonald as a psychopathic murderer. The author posed as a friend for the sole purpose of keeping MacDonald in the dark so that McGinniss would continue to have access to his subject. "Fatal Vision" became a huge bestseller and it eventually became a miniseries.
Malcolm's book, written in 1990, takes on added significance in 2003, when the ethics of journalists are under fire as never before. Time and again, a small number of journalists have been accused of plagiarizing and fabricating stories. The public is beginning to recongnize that reporters are fallible people who suffer from the same pressures, ambitions, and even psychological disorders as other ordinary mortals.
Malcolm's book is not merely a condemnation of McGinniss's behavior towards MacDonald. Her premise is that the journalist's relationship to his subject is, in its very essence, a perilous one. The gullible subject babbles away to his "sympathetic" listener, revealing more of himself than he realizes. When all is said and done, only the journalist and his editors have control over the final product. They are sometimes tempted to distort the facts to make the piece more interesting.
Malcolm asserts that certain journalists are con men who prey on people's loneliness, credibility, and narcissism to get a good story. Journalists have their own agendas and the "truth," which is elusive at best, is not always their top priority. Malcolm's book is a warning not to believe everything that is printed in a newspaper or a magazine, since each story is only one version of reality.
The ethics of blabbermouths.......2003-06-02
In The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm examines the transactional relationship between a journalist and her subject, especially the dynamic of what happens during an interview. (Why do so many people repeatedly and voluntarily blabber stupidly to the media? Why is it so difficult to refuse a microphone?) And what moral obligation does a journalist have to her subject?
Malcolm answers these questions (as much as she's able to) in the context of a murder trail that journalist Joe McGinniss wrote about, after being given unlimited access to accused murderer Jeffrey MacDonald and his defense team. McGinniss, originally sympathetic to MacDonald, comes to believe that he is guilty of the murder (the jury agreed), but does not reveal his change of heart to MacDonald, in order to maintain access to him. Once McGinniss's book, Fatal Vision, is published, MacDonald is horrified by the portrait presented to him and sues McGinniss for fraud.
Malcolm raises issues that I, a constant reader of journalism, had never considered. Her book gave me insight into what a writer must do to get the story. She's made me a less naïve reader. Those long articles in The New Yorker will never seem the same.
Book Description
Aiming to expand ethical awareness, this market-leading book uses original case studies and commentaries about actual media experiences to get readers thinking analytically about ethical situations in mass communication. Focusing on a wide spectrum of issues, the cases in the book cover journalism, broadcasting, advertising, public relations and entertainment. For anyone interested in the ethical aspects of mass communication.
Customer Reviews:
Best Applied Ethics Text, Media or Otherwise.......2006-06-27
A previous reviewer criticizes the book because throught-provoking discussions are begun but not wrapped up or resolved. If they were, the book would not fulfill its function. It's a TEXTBOOK for college classroom settings like the one in which I've used it, and all previous editions, over the past 15 or so years. It's purpose is to provoke discussion so that readers will thrash out the available options and do their own moral reasoning.
Using the Potter Model for moral reasoning as a foundation, the case study approach provides ample and diverse application material from classic situations to current events. The value of the Potter Model approach is well worth securing any edition of the text - it's the case studies which change from edition to edition.
The only drawback is the exorbitant price - all part of this wretched "gotcha!" situation students find themselves in, where publishers seem to be getting away with charging prices that begin at more than double what the market would tolerate for an equivalent non-textbook. Longman employees should be ashamed of themselves for gouging college students $74 for a paperback book which is widely used and therefore not a specialty oddball.
It's still a great book if you want to learn how to DO moral reasoning, with broad application to one's personal life.
Mediocre.......2006-02-25
The book is a great discussion started but hardly resolves any of the problems it presents.
Book Description
Producer, pundit, and media critic Jeff Cohen offers a fast-paced romp through the three major cable news channels — Fox, CNN, and MSNBC — and delivers a serious message about their failure to cover the most urgent issues of the day. Propelled by amusing anecdotes featuring famous pundits and media personalities, Cable News Confidential highlights the foibles, hypocrisies, and absurdities Cohen witnessed at news organizations run by entertainment conglomerates.
Customer Reviews:
Cohen explains my frustrations well.......2007-04-24
A big thanks to Jeff Cohen for confirming that I'm not crazy. He "found inside cable news was a drunken exuberance for sex, crime and celebrity stories, matched by a grim timidity and fear of offending the powers-that-be -- especially if the powers-that-be are conservatives. The biggest fear is of doing anything that could get you, or your network, accused of being liberal." If you keep in mind, it's not news (never was), then it makes it easier to swallow. After reading Cohen's account, you realize that Walter Conkrite would never get hired today in the face of fools like Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Biff O'Really.
Great book!.......2007-03-05
I really enjoyed reading this book, and highly recommend it to everyone...especially people who don't really understand what a joke this all is..and how it became to be such a complete farce and and absolute threat to Democracy and so many other things sane human beings 'round these parts cherish.
Interesting read.......2007-01-04
A good read. Although the book felt a little short - I guess I'm used to novels - Cohen does get through his points without a lot of extra, unneeded pages. Some good anecdotes and references, and kept the story going at a good pace. You probably won't read this cover to cover in one sitting, but it still works read over a period of time.
Review: Cable News Confidenial.......2006-11-11
An excellent insight into the inner workings of cable news. I had no prior understanding of the increadable bias that exists on cable TV news. I highly recomment this book!!!!
A must read!.......2006-11-10
For anyone who watches cable news, Jeff Cohen's book is essential reading. He reveals how much corporations that own news outlets shamelessly distort the news. I hold this up there with Howard Kurtz's 2000 book "The Fortune Tellers."
Cable news has harmed the world, and reading these books will show you one of many ways they do so.
Book Description
You Are Being Lied To is a massive collection of articles that ruthlessly destroy the distortions, myths, and outright lies that are fed to us by the government, the media, corporations, history books, organized religion, science and medicine, and society in general. No one is spared, and all sacred cows are candidates for the grinder.
Do you believe any of the following?
* Alcoholics Anonymous is effective.
* Hackers pose a grave threat to the nation.
* There's a hidden code in the Bible.
* The Big Bang is an airtight fact.
* Thousands of species have gone extinct because of deforestation.
* Licking certain toads will get you high.
* Most terrorists are Middle Eastern.
Wake up! You're being lied to.
This book acts as a battering ram against the distortions, myths, and outright lies that have been shoved down our throats by the government, the media, corporations, organized religion, the scientific establishment, and others who want to keep the truth from us. An unprecedented group of researchers--investigative reporters, political dissidents, academics, media watchdogs, scientist-philosophers, social critics, and rogue scholars--paints a picture of a world where crucial stories are ignored or actively suppressed and the official version of events has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. A world where real dangers are downplayed and nonexistent dangers are trumpeted. In short, a world where you are being lied to.
Among the revelations inside:
* Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Sydney Schanberg on John McCain's efforts to conceal information on POW/MIAs
* Howard Bloom on liars in the media
* Riane Eisler on the realities of human nature
* James Ridgeway on tainted blood and more
* Jim Marrs on missing evidence in important cases
* Greenpeace cofounder Peter Moore on environmental myths
* Michael Parenti on atrocities in Kosovo
* Douglas Rushkoff on the information arms race
* Gary Webb on the gutless corporate media
* Howard Zinn on Columbus
You'll also discover that a human being has already been cloned, Joseph McCarthy was not paranoid, museums refuse to display artifacts that conflict wi
Customer Reviews:
Oh god!!!.......2007-07-16
Super Anthology! Worth every Federal Reserve note. This book does not lean left or right; instead the reader is given raw uncensored information -long; extensive and, heavily footnoted. Wonderful study companion.
Sensationalist and biased, just like anyone who claims to have the absolute truth.......2007-04-25
Because this book has been written by many authors, it's credibility varies. However I'll put the blame also on whoever picked the content.
Sure there are some very good points about media lies and exagerration, I've heard about them and some are old news to me. Some very reputable authors are there that I have read from before.
However when it comes to the contreversial and iffy topics on religion and science, this book is far to agenda-focused to be taken seriously. For example the article trying to disprove Jesus dosen't makes outright statements with "proof" that can be easily debated and is countered on other books supporting the other side. After that is a chapter glorifing all athiests and humanists, though it's not really a bad thing, it also bashes theists, and lumps "athiests, humanists, and freethinkers" together as if to say that all thiests are idiots, and pretty blaintly says it too. Meanwhile ignoring that there are many thiest intellecuals out there and if religion makes people stupid, then why are church afflitiated universities accredited? Not only that but it is completley ponitless to the topic, it dosen't reveal any disinformation.
To be fair, this book also attacks the scientific community too, but some of it's articles are questionable. For example, one of the articles focuses on a book called "Forbidden Anthropology", which states that human fossils correspond with Vedic records of being more than millions of years old.
Okay, so this book promotes athiesm, bashes Christianity, and is now supporting the New Age\Hindu idea that humans devolved from a higer spirituality and is supporting a book written by agenda-driven Hindu archeologists who at the end of the article start promoting their own spiritual beleifs.
Isn't that called a double standard?
Also some info here and there is pretty irellevant and just speculative. There is also a part disproving the Big Bang theory. I know may other scientists have thier own, non-religious ideas of how the universe began, but it just states "facts" why the Big Bang theory is flawed, but dosen't provide much else, or maybe there was a part but I didn't see it yet.
Okay, not all the aricles here are bad, though this book may blow things out of proportion, but it gives a good start to those seeking to have questions answered regarding the content in this book.
But the title is too absoulute of course, don't take anyone's word that what they are saying is the absoulute truth so fast. If you are indeed a "freethinker" then it would be wise not to consider this book to be absoulutely telling the truth. Who knows, maybe even these exaggerated things are right to some degree?
For Conspiracy Theorists Only!.......2007-01-11
If you're a conspiracy theorist, willing to accept as gospel assertions and allegations that are totally void of any supporting factual data, this book is for you.
However, those able to think for themselves and weigh the supporting data in search of the truth in any given theory will find this collection of supposititious essays quite lacking. I couldn't make it half way through this book before becoming so frustrated with the complete lack of any factual basis for each ineptly presented argument that I gave up and closed the book forever.
Opinions and perceptions are quite plentiful in the pages of this book but cohesive thoughts, supported by facts and credible witnesses are totally absent. An enticing title that just plain doesn't deliver.
Conspiracy Nuts?! NOT...An introduction to alternate views........2006-11-09
If you are already one who questions ALL of what you hear and MOST of what you see then this book is as another commentary stated, "great bathroom reading". Stating that "if" you have read Brave New World then you already know everything in this book is a little misleading. You Are Being Lied To mostly covers issue which are in front of us NOW which you might not have gotten accurate information from the major news outlets or any information at all if you do like most of the American public: Eat, Sleep, & S**T with a lot of work and T.V. taking up the rest of your time.
Powerful interests and "responsible" news outlets in order to better shape your thinking and thus public policy limit facts and/or distort the issues of the day. Definitely worth the purchase but as with all things take a grain of salt and check/research beyond this one source.
Rating: B
Somewhat Entertaining, Mostly Uncourageous, Often Trite.......2006-07-11
I'm normally delighted with any kind of alternative press, and picked this book up mainly because I always wanted to write one like it. Reading, I became ambivalent, for the book tries to do great things but falls short of its goal.
The best articles are "Anatomy of a School Shooting" by David McGowan and "Reassessing OKC" by Cletus Nelson, where the authors deal with eyewitness accounts of Columbine High School and the Oklahoma City bombing, respectively, providing tantalizing details omitted by the mainstream press. These two articles are exemplary of what the book aims to do: provide information mostly hidden by a pandering media.
"Oil Before Ozone" by Russ Kick gave an amusing critique of Al Gore and didn't shy away from dealing with character issues. "The Female Hard-On" by Tristan Taormino is downright pornographic and embarassing to have in my home.
The worst articles are, probably, "AA Lies" by Charles Bufe, who is so critical of anything that smacks of religion he can't even deal with Alcoholics Anonymous honestly (including the organization's own claims about itself - i.e. the news that the founders pulled much of their material from a Christian group is no news to anyone who can read history). The same goes for "The Truth About Jesus" by M.M. Mangasarian, who contradicts himself regularly and imposes a 21st-century, information age mentality upon 1st-century folks.
We all know the book has an agenda, and at the moments when its authors are able to look over their own prejudices, it's a delicious read. Unfortunately, too many of the articles are caught up in a particular political, philosophical, or theological perspectives to accurately correct "disinformation."
Worst of all, I found a lot of the writing trite and unskilled. It's hard to bore me, particularly when the subject of correcting lies and myths arises, but I had a hard time getting through most of the articles.
Read it? Nah. I suggest finding the relevant information elsewhere, and spending your money on a more informative, more interesting, less agenda-ridden claim to rid ourselves of agenda's lies.
Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion. --John Moe
Book Description
"Bold, counterintuitive, and cathartic.... Alterman is ready for a bar fight, and he comes out swinging." New York Times Book Review
Widely acclaimed and hotly contested, veteran journalist Eric Alterman's ambitious investigation into the true nature of the U.S. news media touched a nerve and sparked debate across the country. As the question of whose interests the media protects-and how-continues to raise hackles, Alterman's sharp, utterly convincing assessment cuts through the cloud of inflammatory rhetoric, settling the question of liberal bias in the news once and for all. Eye-opening, witty, and thoroughly and solidly researched, What Liberal Media? is required reading for media watchers, and anyone concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences for the future of democracy in America.
Customer Reviews:
Perception Management And The Basic Assumption of Official Doctrine.......2007-08-27
What the accusation of a liberal-leaning media structure does is establish a [corporate/state nexus] desired framework which serves as a crucial overarching structure for journalism/discussion: this far, and no further. That way, anything that falls outside of the framework is ignored, attacked, spun, or omitted outright. It is an exercise in obfuscation. Within the various mediums of mainline media, it is difficult for many to distinguish between "news," entertainment, and indoctrination. [lean heavily towards the latter] "News," shows, movies, sports and Empty-V all deliver products which essentially sell a specific mindset, and can do so even more effectively than "commercials" do, yet are essentially little more than advertisements. How? People have long been conditioned to identify themselves with such 'products' and not to see reality as it is, thereby establishing a media induced unreality. Which leads to Alterman's book.
I found my copy in a used book shop last week, and even though I was already quite aware of the right-wing fostered mythos of the so-called liberal media, decided to pick it up and wasn't disappointed. He's not exactly covering new ground - linguist and life-long activist/dissident Noam Chomsky was making the same point decades ago. The works of Charles Lewis, Mark Crispin Miller, Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman also come to mind. Most of what is seen or read in mainstream "news" is so carefully managed that the result is little more than the transmission of elite opinion to the masses for strategic purposes. People are instructed as to which views they should adhere to based around the desires of hawkish elites and vested corporate interests, hardly "liberal" in their professional/institutional capacities, who have to sell an open society a democracy-friendly movie script in order to, from their standing, win as many "hearts and minds" as possible in order to suppress dissent i.e. democratic interference to illegality and immorality. As Chomsky warns, "propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian society." Or to cite Alterman, "many conservatives who attack the media for its alleged liberalism do so because the constant drumbeat of groundless accusation has proven an effective weapon in weakening journalism's watchdog function."
The agenda setting mainline media is nothing more than a bullhorn public relation's/propaganda effort for the corporate and political interests it is owned by. The media is supposed to serve as a checks and balance system between Power and The People, but instead it does the exact opposite and ensures the right-wing profits over people agenda. There is always a subversion of language which precedes fascist movements. Such movements seek to instill a parallel reality while vehemently attacking any who dare question motive or validity. It is for this reason that free thinking moral agents need be gravely concerned over what's happened to our media, and the ensuing belligerence of authoritarians who relish its dumbed down, militant tone. For the accusation of a liberal slant gets incredible mileage in shifting the entire national debate much further to the right than what many are able or are willing to concede. Alterman himself even steps lightly here, and although is willing to state the obvious with regard to the 2000 and 04 elections, is quick to avoid venturing onto conspiratorial groud per se, something more professional liberals need to overcome as an effective means of altering the established national dialogue. The fact is, people with convergent interests, often times unaccountable to the public, conspire to carve a bigger slice of pie for themselves all the time. Yet this top-down, deeply ingrained bias against lending credence to conspiracies is a cornerstone of right-wing rhetoric and has unfortunately prevented many, liberal or authoritarian, from seeing what should be many painfully obvious truths regarding the American empire. Although the tide is shifting, I remain unconvinced that the brainwashed public mind will evolve beyond serving the interests of dominant institutions.
You are as liberal as the man who owns you.......2007-08-13
One Republican troll who probably did not read the book said, "First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.".
But there is a problem. The corporations that own the media outlets where these reporters work sympathize for the Republican party. The Republican party is the party of corporations.
In one of the chapters Alterman explains that no matter how liberal a reporter is, he will censor his own work, trying to please his editor, and the editor about that editor, and the managing editor, all the way to the top, which in the case of MSNBC, is General Electric, for example.
Right-wingers do not give us example of media bias, but go on yapping about how polls show reporters vote Democratic.
Prove it with a study. Prove it that corporate-owned TV channels and newspapers are publishing lefty stuff. That's right. You don't have anything but cries of "liberal media!, liberal media!"
91% of talk radio (political) content is conservative.
Really.....Reporter Bernard Goldberg disagrees..........2007-03-23
First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.
Moving on...Bernard Goldberg has a book out called "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News"
Here is some of what he had to say in an interview:
"Well, I think we marginalize conservative views. I think too many people in the big-time media think conservatives, in too many cases, are just right-wing nuts."
"They marginalize conservatives mainly.. . I could give you many, many examples, Terry, but mainly by identifying every conservative who's in a story because -- and I think rightly -- the audience needs to know that these people are conservatives, that their views are conservative views and we should know, as they say, where they're coming from. But the very fact that we rarely identify liberals tells you, at least it tells me, that journalists very often think that these liberal views aren't liberal at all, but really mainstream, civilized, reasonable views. And that's the problem, I think."
"Let me just give you one little example. It was during impeachment, which we can all agree was a very, very big, very important story. And right before the impeachment proceedings began, Senators went up to sign what they call "an oath book," promising to be fair and impartial. As they went up, Peter Jennings, doing a live play-by-play, on ABC, identified Senator Santorum as a young conservative Senator from Pennsylvania -- determinately conservative. Then Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was also a determined conservative. Senator Smith from New Hampshire was a very, very conservative Senator from New Hampshire. Those are exact quotes. And I think that's absolutely fine.
This is impeachment, it's a political process, we need to know that these are conservatives, and their conservatism may affect their views. But Marvin, Barbara Boxer was simply Barbara Boxer from California. Ted Kennedy was simply Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Paul Wellstone was simply Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Now, did Peter Jennings, who is a bright, intelligent, excellent, first-rate newsman, did he really think that the conservative views would affect the vote, but that liberal views wouldn't affect the vote?
You see, this reminds me of the bad-old days, and we both remember these days, Marvin, when the only time a criminal was identified in a news story by race is if he were black. Why was that? And if the criminal was white, by the way, his race meant nothing because the black criminal was seen as what -- different, out of the mainstream, certainly inferior, not just inferior to you and me, inferior to white criminals, and possibly dangerous, too."
What Liberal Media? What Round Earth?.......2006-06-14
Alterman tries to deny the obvious left-wing bias of the media through fallacious arguments. For one, he compares complaints of liberal bias with complaints about media bias against minorities. In actuality, at one time, minorities were in fact seldom shown on TV, and then almost always in negative, stereotyped roles (e. g., black maids, Asian coolies). But those times have changed. Not so with the liberal bias. In fact, I sensed the liberal bias of the media even as a child, long before I knew what a liberal even was. I saw the constant glorification of hippies and those who protested the war in Vietnam, while there was complete silence on the cruelties of the Communists. At that time, I wondered why. Now I know.
Alterman tries vainly to ridicule the expose of liberal media bias by stating that there would have to be some sort of conspiracy in order for there to be a bias. In actuality, since most journalists are liberals, no conspiracy of any kind is necessary for a liberal bias to exist. Liberals simply do what comes naturally to them. As it stands, when a new set of Democratic phraseology arises, it almost simultaneously is spoken also by members of the mainstream media. This proves that there is some degree of organized collusion between the media and the Democratic party.
Every election cycle, it is the same. Every charge against a Republican is publicized, no matter how trivial. Democrats are coddled-unless their conduct is so egregious that it cannot possibly be ignored. Whenever Jesse Jackson opens his mouth, especially against Republicans, he gets profuse, uncritical coverage, no matter how racially inflammatory and baseless his accusations are. Conservative blacks get almost no coverage.
Alterman tells us that "when it bleeds, it leads". Nice try, but this does not absolve the media of its left-wing bias. There is a double standard against violence. Violence against homosexuals is reported, while violence by homosexuals is not. Right wing violence (e. g., abortion clinic bombings) is demonized, while left wing violence is not. The persecution of Christians worldwide has received almost zero coverage in the mainstream media, because it does not fit their agenda of who a victim is. One can go on and on.
Why Are We In Iraq? Where Is Osama? Why Are We $9 Trillion in Debt? Right-Wing Spin Machine!.......2006-03-24
The truth is out and finally people have started waking up! Pravda, I mean, Fox News, is the Republican spin machine. Anyone who wishes to know why this country has gone downhill in the last six years, only has to look at the garbage compiled on mediamatters.org. This is nonsense America is being fed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Republicans now have all branches of Congress, the presidency, and the media, and they still can't get it together. They've failed, and their drones, Ann Coulter, who doesn't even research her info before she's interviewed and is pulled out onto the carpet when she isn't on the GOP's Fox News, Michelle Malkin, who like Coulter, has been caught plagerizing on more than one occasion, and thinks detainment camps are just great, even though she's Japanese herself, but don't let that rich immigrant parents background she has get in the way, college drop outs, Sean Hannity, and drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, pervert and sexual harasser, Bill O'Reilly, and the list goes on and on and on. These guys are running out of material. If Coulter isn't advocating poisoning the Supreme Court, or saying that New York would surrender to terrorists, she's saying that the left are traitors. Which party is outting the CIA which is the very definition of treason? Which party put Hollywood in positions of power in the government, (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono)? THE RIGHT WING! These people are flunkies, and they continue to get their pockets lined, while the Right wing steals our money.
Book Description
This text introduces readers to the tools necessary for making moral and ethical decisions regarding the use of mass media. The focus is on the three mass media industries most pervasive in today's society: the news media (journalism), advertising, and public relations. In his exploration of ethical issues and media, author Thomas Bivins guides students to understand not what the "right" answers are, but to identify those answers that are most appropriate within the given context. Identifying those to whom the answers are the most appropriate is a major concern of this book. Readers will come away with a greater appreciation for the complexities of making a moral decision and will develop a personal "yardstick" by which to measure their decisions.
The chapters in this text offer insights on:
*similarities and differences among the ethical dilemmas faced by the mass media;
*common ground on which to evaluate media behavior;
*media obligations;
*professional ethics;
*ethical theory and its application to the modern media; and
*considerations of truth and harm.
This text has been developed for courses covering ethics in public relations, advertising, and journalism. Offering valuable lessons applicable to all forms of communication, Mixed Media serves as a critical starting point for understanding and developing answers to ethical questions. These lessons serve not only to better students' ability to make ethical decisions, but also to better the media professions as they become practitioners in the mass media industry.
Book Description
Law and ethics can be formidable topics for many practitioners and students of public relations and related fields. At the same time, they need to be aware of how the law affects how they do their job and be cognizant that their actions may have ethical and legal ramifications for themselves, their employers, and their clients. Ethical and Legal Restraints on Public Relations complements traditional texts used in the study of public relations and mass communication law. The ethics portion of the book addresses classical approaches to ethics, business ethics, theories of public relations ethics, and ethics codes. It also provides practical guidelines for working through ethical dilemmas. The remainder of the module is devoted to law: First Amendment theory and its relevance for public relations speech; corporate and commercial speech; specific areas of the law, such as government regulations, torts, and intellectual property. Gower, a former practicing attorney and PR professional, includes meaningful cases and examples to illustrate specific legal concepts and the reasoning behind each one. She prepares readers for the real world by giving them knowledge that will be integral throughout every phase of their career. Chapters include summaries and discussion questions.
Customer Reviews:
know more about ethical issues in PR.......2005-11-03
If it was not for a class project: ethical issues in Public Relations and the necessity of having global principles of PR in contemporary world, I would not check out this book. It is a good book, comprehensive and vivid. No matter for PR practitioners, students, or researchers, this book will force you think more about ethics in PR.
Recommended.
Book Description
By combining real-life and hypothetical cases with a succinct introduction to ethical theory, this text helps students prepare for the ethical situations they will encounter in the media professions. It is an ideal choice as the main text in a media ethics course or as a supplemental text in any course in journalism. The new edition reflects changes in the world post 9/11, including the war in Iraq, the Enron and WorldCom scandals, and a new look at media and democracy in light of FCC-approved media consolidation.
Customer Reviews:
Excellent Overview of Media Ethics.......2005-12-06
I am a University student studying Public Relations, and I found this book to be very informative and interesting. It also increased my knowledge of communication theories by outlining the different theories and explaning their premises. This was both a review and avenue to increase my knowledge. And the book took it one step further by expounding upon the theories and providing real-life case studies.
These cases were not only interesting; they also brought the theories to life by providing practical application. As a future Public Relations professional who will deal with these issues, I found the case studies to be very helpful.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking to futher their knowledge of ethics and the media. It is great for communications students, as well as anyone who deals with ethics issues in the workplace. (That should encompass pretty much everyone!)
Ethics for All.......2005-10-30
Media Ethics is the perfect introductory book for communication students anticipating entering the career realm of mass media. The rhetoric of the book is easy to follow, and quickly draws the reader into its fast moving foundation of ethics. Upon the completion of this book, the reader will have a well-rounded grasp of the history and theory of ethics, be able to think critically, and have a better understanding of self.
Although the book is primarily meant for the ethical education of journalists and public relations students, it touches upon the very foundation of human thought and behavior and therefore is applicable to all. Real-life and hypothetical case studies follow each chapter, which are highly pertinent, thought-provoking, and up-to-date; issues each individual will no doubt face at one point or another.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, because although it supplies one with a wonderful knowledge of ethics, I found it to be a self-discovery book that enables one to truly search inwardly for solutions to thorny ethical dilemmas.
If you work in the media...........2005-10-18
In an Ethics and Moral reasoning class the Professor assigned this book as one of many to help future media practitioners gain some insight into ethical dilemmas we may face. This book has been very helpful to me and, as you can see by other reviews posted, some of my classmates.
We are a group of students nearing graduation who hope to make a difference in the our chosen professions, but clearly we won't be able to do it alone.
The media is often marked as the bad guys, often noticed for their mistakes and, in my opinion, sometimes not given enough credit for their successes. This book helped me get a clear understanding of how difficult the decisions are these professionals have to make. They will most likely never please even the majority, but I feel that if the majority is wrong then it is better to be an ethically minded minority in the right!
Of particular help and interest to me are the case studies at the end of each chapter. These help put the sometimes exhaustive theories into a perspective.
A good overview.......2005-10-18
This book is a good overview for those studying ethics in a communications field. It begins by introducing moral systems and then goes through areas where those systems need to be implimented in the media: journalism, PR and advertising.
The strength of this book lies in its cases. It provides many very interesting cases which can be thought through alone or discussed in a class setting.
It is weak in its classification and use of ethic theories. It does not refer to specific theories such as egoism, deontology. etc., though it does address many of these issues implicitly.
If you are looking for a book that applies moral reasoning this book is for you. If you are looking to learn about the history and theories in the field of ethics, try something else.
Media Ethics.......2005-10-18
Patterson and Wilkin's book contains moral dilemmas relevant to basically any field of communications and media studies (public relations, journalism, photojournalism, advertising, you name it). As a university student planning on entering the media world, I have been given a preview at what kinds of issues will undoubtedly surface throughout my career and has helped me to strengthen my moral discernment.The book applies theories to modern-day concerns that affect everyone, but without giving a definitive right or wrong answer
Customer Reviews:
"The Ultimate Treatise on PJ".......2006-07-24
"Truth Needs No Ally: Inside Photojournalism," Howard Chapnick, Univ. Missouri Press, Columbia, 1994, ISBN: 0-8262-0955-6, PC 370 pgs., (Table contents 2 pgs, 48 pgs photos, Biblio 12 pgs. Index 8 Pgs.) 6 1/8" x 9 1/4"
Author Chapnick, 50-yrs experience in freelance PJ, photo-agency presidency, & as monthly columnist, amassed salient sagacity that sanctions him to write, rigorously, of the many faces of photojournalism (PJ). He illustrates 4 broad miens of PJ - its foundations, basic components, career evolutions, & creative and ethical issues in 24 chapters of succinctly written prose. His style & clarity of delivery reveals he is a gifted writer.
He interprets the essence of eyewittness PJ, responsibilities, of "concerned" photographers, & PJ essays using examples of renowned PJs, & of how one enters the field via portfolio, dress code, gender, education, specialization, minority ranks & agencies. He summarizes fundamental assets of 29 successful PJ photographers.
In describing the evolution of PJ field, he notes importance of ideas, aesthetics, personal projects, writings, photo book projects, workshops, grants awards, etc. Importantly, he devotes coverage of ethical concerns including invasion of privacy, manipulations, setups, marital break-ups, demands of wartime PJ & re-affirming news photographs as sacrosanct.
Throughout the book are short accounts of PJ greats as Margaret Bourke-White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Newman, Karsch, Lange, W.E. Smith, Leibovitz, Arthur Fellig (Weegee), & 2-time NPPA awarded Lisa Larsen of LIFE whom I met on photoshoot of Paul Robeson. He quotes the 1990 AP statement: The content of a photograph will NEVER be changed or manipulated in any way," but then details some deviations & manipulations by mags as LIFE, Nat. Geographic (pyramids), TV Guide (Oprah Winfrey's head on Ann-Margaret's torso) etc., & notes damages are done to alter public's perception of truth.
More than "F8 and be there.".......2006-04-04
I have honestly say that I expected more from Mr. Chapnick. While some chapters ARE informative, others - like how to present yourself at an interview - are routine and almost obvious. Any so-called professional should NEVER show up looking like a bum. Or, (if I recall correctly) to use Mr. Chapnick's example, 'Animal' from the old Lou Grant program. You better have the rep of an Avedon or an Adams, and even THEN, you might not get the job. While I did see some pages on amazon, to judge from the title, I feel the title is a bit misleading. While Mr. Chapnick DOES cover some points of 1st Amendment, ethical and legal issues, I was expecting the bulk of the book to deal with these issues from a journalistic/freedom of the press point of view - both in America AND abroad. While he DOES touch on this when discussing shooters killed in the line of duty, I was expeceting more. For example: How did BLACK STAR photographers (or any other photog he knew about) deal with the Chinese Army and censorship during Tiannamen Square? What about shooters in previous years working in Central and South America (ie: Susan Meiselas)? As a counterpoint, the story about Don McCullin is interesting. At what point do you HAVE to stop looking at man's inhumanity to man and almost force yourself to walk away from being a war photographer? Mr. Chapnick discusses this. All this said, Mr. Chapnick never, EVER denigrates a shooter! From Adams to Nachtwey and every one known and unknown in between, Mr. Chapnick writes about every one with respect and the kind of thoughtful patience he showed me when I was in his office one day more than 20 years ago surrounded by photographs by James Nachtwey. For me, I learned about photojournalism by going out and doing it. Books are nice, but experience is your best teacher.
Truth Needs no Ally; Inside photojournalisam.......2005-07-29
this book it reads like a text book. It is very informative.
A very talented man.......2005-06-01
Howard Chapnicks book on Photojournalism should be a standard text book on any PJ course... ooops it already is. And rightly so. The book is an absolute mine of information. This man was a genius and deserves much wider recognition.
This is the bible for photojouranlism students.......2004-05-01
There are many must-read about photojouanlism. Among these, this should be the first you buy. It leads you to the professional field. It tells you how you can get into the business and what you should know. I cannot find something compete.
Books:
- The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter
- The Ghost Brigades (Sci Fi Essential Books)
- The Great Fuzz Frenzy
- The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (Collins Business Essentials)
- The Journalist And The Murderer
- The Little Book of Plagiarism
- The Moral Imperative of School Leadership
- The Police In America: An Introduction, with "Making the Grade" Student CD-ROM and PowerWeb
- The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics
- The Power of Focus: How to Hit Your Business, Personal and Financial Targets with Absolute Certainty
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation
- The Grand Illusion: Love, Lies, and My Life With Styx
- Macromedia Studio MX: Step-by-Step Projects for Flash MX, Dreamweaver MX, Fireworks MX, and FreeHand
- Microsoft Publisher 2000 for Dummies
- Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea
- The Secret of the Old Clock/The Hidden Staircase/The Bungalow Mystery/The Mystery at Lilac Inn/The S
- Plasmids for Therapy and Vaccination
- Global Asset Management and Performance Attribution
- Raise More Money: The Best of the Grassroots Fundraising Journal
- Swimming with the Dead: An Underwater Investigation
Ethics
| Business Life
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
AP Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law)
Associated Press Reporting Handbook
How to Write Articles for Newspapers & Magazines, 2/e (Step By Step (Thomson Learning (Firm)).)
The Art and Craft of Feature Writing: Based on The Wall Street Journal Guide
Associated Press Guide to Newswriting: The Resource for Professional Journalists
