Customer Reviews

Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth

5 star:		(99)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

He writes a book exposing lies told to all of us by mostly extreme right-wing conservatives. He is not attacking the Republican party as a whole, or the Democrat, for that matter, but certain individuals and groups. He isn't trying to say that all conservatives or liberals are bad, but there are several out there that have taken their lies so far out that they have hurt the country to the very depths of its soul. All of us have a little liberal and a little conservative in us, some a little more of one than the other. It is this small right wing group he talks of, compared to the entire country, that has turned this country upside down with their lies. He is trying to clear some of them up.

Ann Coulter is one that he exposes. Why anyone would want to believe her lies is beyond me. Her ideas are so unamerican and unchristian that it is mind boggling that they even published her book, but then you see the people who support it and her and then you get a little better idea of the brain-washing that the people are getting.

He exposes the news media for its bias and shows the relations of various owners and their blatant use of distorting the truth.

He tells about how Bush distorts the truth about taxes. How he tries to convince the average person how good a deal they are getting when the rich elite are the ones that are getting the deals. Most corporations and such do not pay the taxes that they should in the first place and then they get the big refunds. An example would be that under the Jobs Growth Tax Relief and Recconciliation act of 2003 under Section 179 expense Deduction: expense deduction was increased from 25,000 to 100,000 for 2003, 2004, 2005. That is 75,000 dollars that will not be taxed. If 100,000 take advantage of it, 7,500,000,000 dollars that will not be taxed in one year (multiply that times the actual number and it is mind boggling). How many average people can afford to spend 100,000 dollars? This is okay if your economy is in good shape which ours isn't.

Then he deals with the very people who made such a big deal about Clinton's moral misdeeds and exposes those same people who committed the same or worse moral offenses and yet had the temerity to act like avenging angels. He shows us what a lot our politicians, etc. really believe in not just their public image. I wonder how they will explain their actions when, or if, they meet God when Judgement Day comes for them. He is fighting back as we all should, against those that lie to the people who elect them.

Then he tackles the Bushes and it is not a pleasant scene. Money has been the driving force behind these people, with no regard for the average citizen. The influence of money and moneyed people have paved the way of their transgressions. He details their involvement with Ken Lay and the Enron Corporation, the one they tried to back off of when the scandal broke, but they were extremely involved with them for years. He tells of George W. stating that Ann Richards of Texas was supported by Ken Lay (He says this on Jan. 11, 2002) to mislead his connection to Ken Lay. Ann did get a campaign donation,$12,500 versus $146,500 to George W. Bush. These are the kind of tactics that they use. (If you want to more about George W., read "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President-a book they tried to get banned and even threatened the author and his family) You Californians might be interested in how he helped Enron rip you off on energy prices during your crisis. He tells about that. He exposes one Bush transgression after another. I had to put the book down a few times to let my blood pressure drop as I read the book.

I agree with one of the other reviewers, in that, I think the reason more people haven't spoken out about all these offenses is that I don't think the people thought that anyone would believe all the crud spread around and just let it go, but now the people are up in arms, as they should be, and they are getting their act together. It is a fight that cannot be lost if we want our country to be free again like it should be. Get the Patriot Act repealed first thing and everyone get out and vote!

The book is very informative, not as entertaining as Al Franken's new book, "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them: A Fair and Balance Look at the Right" (another book they tried to stop from being published), but it is just as important and good-an eye opener!

I'm a very liberal person, and agreeing with what Joe Conason has to say is a good start. However, I don't give out five starts lightly, and I'll admit that the left has its fair share of sloppy political commentators who don't check their facts often. I'm glad to say that Conason here delivers a book that is as involving and well-researched as Al Franken's "Lies", and is a must read for anyone who doesn't like the way things are going in America right now.

Like Franken, Conason spends a good deal of time attacking the right-wing media, but it's not the focus of the book. Rather, he concentrates on the hypocrisy of the "family values" Republicans, and the terrible things that George Bush has done to this country in the name of "restoring moral values" and "fighting the war on terrorism".

I think it's about time that the left fought back against the right's charges with everything we've got. It always infuriates me when the right-wingers call Democrats un-American (I love what this country's supposed to stand for) and anti-family (I love my family dearly, and want one of my own once I graduate college) simply because we believe in equal rights for all and the continuing separation of church and state. Conason hits exactly the right note here, and I highly recommend "Big Lies".

However, a disclaimer- by the time you finish this book, you will likely be very angry, as there's not as much comic relief as there was in Franken's "Lies".

This book is well worth reading and easily rises above the comments of the 'reader from San Francisco' (who seemed to think that CNN is a leftist television station because it is to the left of Bush on a few more issues than Fox is). It seems unfair to let such a lengthy attack on the book go unanswered, so here goes:

1)If the commentator truly wishes to see the extent of the falsity in Bernard Goldberg's _Bias_, then he ought to read Eric Alterman's _What Liberal Media?_. Presumably, with this excellent refutation of Goldberg's canards already on the market, Conanson deemed it unnecessary to devote much space to this issue. But I'd be surprised if any open-minded person could give any credit to Goldberg after reading both his book and Alterman's.

2)Conanson's claims about Clinton's more aggressive stance regarding Bin Laden are correct and well-documented. If the commentator doubts those claims, the burden is on him to show where Conanson's arguments break down. Clearly, the commentator has failed to do this: saying it's "just silly" only shows that he doesn't believe the claims made. But to doubt the conclusion to be sound without being able to find any flaws in the argument or its premises, or even to produce any counterargument, is just pigheadedness.

3)In his next paragraph, the commentator asks "how the heck can you claim that the media are owned by the corporations?", the implication being that this claim of Conanson's (which is, again, backed up very well) is ridiculous and false. But this is hardly a matter of opinion! The media outlets described _are_ all owned by corporations. That is a matter of public record that nobody -- not even the media outlets and the corporations who own them -- attempts to deny!

4)The fact that the corporate-owned media (like any other media) hand-pick their anchors, hosts, etc., and that the freedom of choice we have in deciding whom we will watch is limited to options among the choices the media giants have made, is clearly lost on the commentator. But it surely is even more foolish than this to refer to centrist stations like PBS and NPR as 'anti-government' when it is the members of the Bush administration who have made no secret about their wish to limit and dismantle the government, while those _against_ Bush almost invariably argue against his _removal_ of regulations, services, etc. on the part of the government. A government cannot be run without tax revenue, and those opposed to tax cuts are more frequently heard on NPR than on any of the other mainstream stations. Does the commentator not understand this?

5)Finally, the commentator assumes that the only 'liberal' values worth mentioning are "atheism, gay marriage, abortion on demand, and as of late, driver licenses to illegal immigrants", and seems to assume that at bottom Conanson chiefly wishes to promote these things. But that clearly shows his unfamiliarity with Conanson's book, and the fact that the commentator's idea of 'liberalism' is one defined entirely by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. 'Liberalism' is the view that freedom of choice is the (or at least a) great social good, and that we should do all we can (other things being equal) to maximize liberty for all. Now, I personally think there needs to be more to the equation than that; but what the commentator is missing is that most Americans _do_ want the _freedom_ to (among other things) choose which religion to follow, or whether to follow a religion at all, etc. Gay marriage is still controversial in some people's minds, as is the question of whether women should be allowed to go to university or whether black people are born criminals. But why should we pander to these ignorant and bigoted people? Doesn't the commentator agree that this country was founded on an ideal of freedom, and that this is something to be proud of and work toward? Would the commentator really prefer a government that interferes with consenting adults deciding to make lifelong commitments to each other, just because he personally isn't gay??

Admittedly, there is some moral controversy (as there should be) over the abortion question (though not really in the Conanson book); and I'm not at all sure where Conanson argues in favour of giving driver's licences to illegal immigrants(???). However, all this shows is that the commentator was not really familiar with the book he was criticizing.

...NOT just for those who consider themselves to be `liberals' or on the `left'. The `big lies' to which Conason refers in the title of his newest book are a double-edged sword. Not only has the right-wing conservative press perpetrated horrific and dangerous mistruths about the events leading up to and following the tragedies perpetrated on 11 September 2001 - they have convinced many otherwise sharp-thinking Americans that most of their countrymen adhere to the same mangled logic spewed out on a daily basis by such `authorities' as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, ad nauseum.

Conason's book is meticulously researched and annotated - and unlike his counterparts screaming like crazed harpies on the right, he actually uses reliable sources. One of the methods practiced by the conservative media is to allow one of their individual mouthpieces to put out a lie or half-truth, then everybody else in their camp begins to quote it as a source (usually well-aware of its initial inaccuracy), over and over, until its repeated enough that people actually begin to believe it. Another neat little trick is to answer the question they WISHED they had been asked rather than the one that was actually posed. Our President has become very adept at this - as his recent `press conference' will attest. Those members of the press who notice the shell game eventually give up, and the miscreant story makes its way into the `fact' column. There are notable exceptions in the press - thank heavens - such as Mr. Conason, who are determined to get the truth out there for people to read.

Those of you who might believe the line about the `liberal media' should ask yourselves a couple of probing questions. If the media is so liberally biased, you would expect that the coverage of a small story like, say, the 2000 US Presidential elections, would have been slanted so that there were more stories concerning Gore that were positive, and more stories about Bush that were negative. The facts show just the opposite. Conservatives hammer the oft-quoted statistics that show that `most reporters say they vote Democratic' - well guess what: the reporters don't control the content of the papers for which they write, the editors and publishers do - and the editors and publishers are mostly `conservatives' (a word that they actually misapply to themselves, as Conason so clearly illustrates), and the endorsements of the top newspapers in the US have become increasingly conservative over the past few elections. Why is this? It's certainly not a reflection of public opinion - endorsing and electing right-wing candidates is more in the interest of the ultra-wealthy who actually CONTROL the press. They're perfectly happy to get the tax cuts that benefit the top 1% of Americans and pay little more than lip service to those who actually WORK for a living.

It's desperately important, of course, for liberals to read this book - the information contained here is invaluable in this election year. But I would suggest that those in the middle and working class who consider themselves to be conservatives, who think that the Republicans have the best ideas about managing ANYTHING, read it as well - they might begin to get an inkling of how this shell game works. Boy, are they going to get mad - and rightfully so. No one likes to be fooled, especially about things that are as important as the economy, the environment and human rights - not to mention the WAR whose purpose seems to change as each individual card in the rickety assemblage falls out.

PLEASE read this book. Conason clearly and methodically addresses the questions I've mentioned and many others. Americans need to understand HOW the information they receive through the mass media is distorted - and WHY and BY WHOM and IN WHOSE BEST INTERESTS. Also, check out John W. Dean's WORSE THAN WATERGATE, Richard A. Clark's AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, Al Franken's LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM, Michael Moore's DUDE WHERE'S MY COUNTRY, and Craig Unger's HOUSE OF BUSH - HOUSE OF SAUD. My favorite bumper sticker that I've seen lately doesn't even mention a candidate: THE MEDIA IS ONLY AS LIBERAL AS THE CONSERVATIVE CORPORATIONS WHO CONTROL IT.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
liberal (adj.) 1.a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, or authoritarian attitudes; free from bigotry. b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of others; broad-minded.

The political Right have taken this word and bastardized it, making it into something to revile. Author Joe Conason takes the word back, giving it the honor it deserves. He lets the Right-Wing's own words and deeds dispell the myths they've invented about Liberals. A quick and concise book that is well worth your time.

First, a note to "Malcontent" (1-star review):
Ooooh, someone got a thesaurus!

Conason's insights, regardless of your opinion of his position, are at least verifiable and rise to a significantly higher level of scrutiny than the trash peddled by Limbaugh et al. Further recommended is Conason's regular Friday appearance on Air America's "Al Franken Show" (www.airamericaradio.com). Again, even if you feel Franken is too extreme in his position, Conason's considered voice of fact rings clear. Conason was reportedly a candidate to square off against Sean Hannity (who now bullies Alan Colmes on a regular basis); it's a shame the extremist right commentators are so fearful of formidable and intelligent opposition.

Bottom line? Great writer, great book. Also check out "The Hunting Of The President" (now in movie form, and available on DVD).

This book is one of several (Hightower, Franken, Moore being among the others) that does a good job but not the best job of nailing extremist Republican lies and distortions.

It is a great index, something the other books have tended to neglect. You can, for example, look up national security or minorities, or health care, and get right to the relevant lies. You can also look up individual names and see the specifics on both corporate cronies of the extreme right, or media manipulators.

(...)

Joe Conason claims that the right wing propaganda machine distorts the truth. He charges the right with being weak on fighting terrorism, soft on crime, weak on family values, the killers of free enterprise, and fiscally irresponsible. These issues have always been the republican claim to fame. This is when Conason proves that if you hear something often enough people take it as fact.

In a no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle style of writing that will grip the reader, he provides examples of his charges that fall like hammer blows. It was Reagan who pulled out of Beirut, and traded arms for hostages (Iran/Contra), and lifted an embargo on Chile imposed by Jimmy Carter after Chilean agents killed an American in the streets of Wash. D.C. Under Bush we have record deficits. The republicans fought the Family Leave Act and Social Security Act tooth and nail. It was the republicans who cut programs that added police to our streets, and it was under republican deregulation that businesses have abused and cheated the citizen and taxpayer as the robber barons of old did.

Conason makes too many fascinating and factual observations to list here. Suffice it to say that this book is one you may always keep as a reference.

You don't give this one away.

Joe Conason sets out to put the record straight with his book, which is basically a non-funny more intellectual version of Franken's.

Conason persistently and accurately refutes several myths that the far right likes to repeat ad nauseum (such as "Al Gore invented the internet"--not quite what he said; and "Al Gore claimed Love Story was based on him--and it was, according to its author).

Conason also tackles the issue of the so-called liberal media (how can the media be liberal when Fox News, slanted so far to the right it makes the Tower of Pisa look straight, has deeper penetration of any other news show and Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio persona?). The truth is that the right considers anyone left of Fox 'liberal.'

Another poster here takes issue with Consason's factual errors. There are very few here--and actually Kerry DID serve as a Navy gunboat captain. Cleland did not win the Medal of Honor, but that's not even key to the point Conason was trying to make, which is that there are a large number of democrats who served in our wars with honor and yet the right is trying to impugn them as 'soft' on terror or 'cowardly' if they question Bush's war. Meanwhile, there are a large number of Republicans gungho for war who did not serve, even in peace time (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Hastert, Lott, Rove, Ashcroft) and despite many of them being eligible for the draft.

I believe Conason took excruciating care to get his facts right (one has to in a book called "Lies") and the very rare mistakes that he does make are insignificant. There is no deliberate attempt here to distort the truth.

Conason painstakingly details each member of the Bush family's in-bed relationship with big business and the oil industry, including the Saudis. He describes George W. Bush's ongoing failures in business and how he managed to profit financially from them anyway, as others lost significant amounts of money. Conason makes a clear convincing case that without his father, George W. Bush would never have grown up to go to Yale, join the National Guard, own a baseball team, sit on the Carlyle board, become a governor or become president. All these things were accomplished only because of the influence exerted by George Bush on his son's behalf.

Conason quotes George Soros, one of America's richest self-made men, as saying they invested in Bush Jr.'s dealings because "we were trying to buy influence with Bush" (the president).

Conason covers all the stories the media routinely ignores, like G.W. Bush's missing months from his National Guard service and his failure to show up for his physical right after the National Guard instituted Drug Testing.

He ruthlessly debunks one Bush administration lie after another as well as the propoganda spread by the right wing. Sadly, all the wrong people will buy and read this book--those who already agree with Conason. I heartily recommend this book for all those who are interested in having their eyes opened.

As for those on the left, I recommend this book as an exhaustive source of rebuttal material when debating the self-named Dittoheads (Rush Limbaugh fans). Perhaps if the truth is repeated over and over, like the Bush Administration lies, it, too, will eventually stick.

When I think back on all the mad-scientist and evil-genius movies I've seen, I often wonder why most real-life criminals are nowhere near as smart as fictitious villains.

The answer, as I learned in Big Lies, is that legitimate business pays so well for the truly amoral, there's no need to break the law.

Like most people who read Big Lies, I skipped around, going first to what I thought would be the juiciest stuff. (And Chapter 6, "Private Lives and Public Lies," is nothing if not juicy.) I read Chapter 8, on crony capitalism, last, thinking it would be a rehash of Enron and other scandals that are still fresh in my mind.

Boy, was I wrong. It's the best part of the book. If you want to enjoy a concise recounting of everything that's wrong with this amoral president of ours and his cloven-hoofed friends, read Chapter 8 first.

Joe Conason--one of the few commentators whose work would fit within the rubric of "liberal media"--puts together the daisy chain of Bush family friendships and business partnerships that's stunning in its reliance upon everything but business acumen.

We only think we're living in a civilized nation based upon free enterprise. Under the G.W. Bush presidency, we're a nation of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies. If you want to be a crony, you invest in a Bush family business enterprise (the presidency of the United States, for example).

For the rest of us ... well, those tax-refund checks sure were nice. It would be nicer to have a nation that's being run for interests other than those of the president of his friends. But for that we'll have to elect a Democrat.

Oh, but we already did that, didn't we?