Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us [Hardcover]

Bruce Sanford (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 9, 1999

Selected by Brill's Content as one of its 16 all-time media classics, this lively and richly storied work documents the dangerous consequences of the disintegration of trust between the public and the news media. In a masterful twenty-year retrospective, First Amendment attorney Bruce Sanford explores the root causes of our growing hostility toward the media and warns that we are killing one of our most treasured natural resources -- the Fourth Estate.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

First Amendment specialist Bruce Sanford believes that a tidal wave of antimedia sentiment and distrust is undermining one of the most basic rights of the United States. "Loathed and distrusted by the public they hunger to serve," Don't Shoot the Messenger asserts, "the media is discovering that its crumbling credibility with the public is reflected in the courts." Sanford uses anecdotes, public opinion polls, and research to bolster the claim that over the past two decades the public has grown increasingly mistrustful of media motives and accuracy. Polling results point to media cynicism, relentless aggressiveness, sensationalism, and suspected bias as the chief culprits in the public's increased disdain for those who present the news. But it's not exactly clear whether Sanford sides with the public or the media; he seems to simultaneously deride the media for intrusive and unfair reportage--citing incidents as varied as profiles of Dan Quayle and ride-alongs with law enforcement officers as they move in on suspects--and for lack of backbone (for settling lawsuits brought against news organizations out of court). He presents deserved criticism of news organizations' tactics and increased obsession with the bottom line, but his defense of the media is lackluster in comparison, and it seemingly contradicts his expressed alarm over recent court decisions that have had the effect of reining in the media. If reporters don't clean up their act, he worries, the court decisions are likely to get worse. --Linda Killian

From Publishers Weekly

Sanford assumes the burden of defending the media in this passionate but unfocused analysis of journalism and its discontents. A noted lawyer specializing in media and the First Amendment, Sanford examines how the judicial system, fueled by public sentiment, has slowly withdrawn the First Amendment protections on which serious investigative journalism depends. To illustrate his claim that litigationAor even the threat of itAis muzzling the press, Sanford discusses several recent cases, including the $10 million settlement Chiquita Brands won from the Gannett Co. after the Cincinnati Enquirer, one of Gannett's newspapers, admitted that a reporter had used illegal means to obtain information when writing an article about Chiquita's business practices. The media, Sanford argues, is headed toward self-censorship, which leaves it with nothing to fill the country's pages and airwaves other than the fluff and sensationalism with which the public claims to be fed up. These arguments are persuasiveAwhen they can be found. Unfortunately, Sanford buries his best thinking in a blizzard of tangents and digressions that do little to advance his central concerns. Did he really need a whole chapter on Gary Hart's former "scandal kitten," Donna Rice? It's as if he's written two books: one about why Americans hate the media and another about how the press is acquiescing to the erosion of the First Amendment. Succeeding fully at neither task, he also fails to integrate the two issues into a persuasive commentary on the state of the American media.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Free Press; 1St Edition edition (August 9, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684828138
• ISBN-13: 978-0684828138
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,831,588 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars sloppy reasoning by a lawyer, April 21, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us (Hardcover)

I was quite shocked at the amount of sloppy reasoning contained in Don't Shoot the Messenger, given that it comes from supposedly one of the best lawyers in Washington. The author makes the mistake (that lawyers are supposed to avoid) of accepting his client's position uncritically, in this case that "obviously" the press's right to cover news transcends anybody's right to privacy. He conveniently ignores instances of the press's greatest and most inexcusable excesses, and ignores the dubious implications that many decisions made by newspapers are not made by journalists based on ethics but by businessmen based on the bottom line. In most cases the media paid out on legal claims against them rather than fight them in court, yet the author bemoans the fact that the media never seem to win any cases. How can they when the bean counters always settle? I was looking for a reasoned defense of the media; this book is the whining of a litigator about why his clients always seem to lose and why it's not their lawyer's fault.

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Well written, but it misses at every point., November 16, 1999

By 

Kurt A. Johnson (North-Central Illinois, USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us (Hardcover)

In this book, "an accomplished press lawyer" sets out to describe what is happening to the press today. Chapter 1 discusses the declining respect for the press that polls show in the 1990s. Chapters 2 through 5 discuss some of the causes for the problem. Chapters 6 though 8 describe the consequences of this dislike of the press. And finally, chapter 9 explains that the press does understand the problem.

First, let me say the book is well written and interesting to read. My problem with this book is that Mr. Sanford either does not grasp the depth of the press' problems or is seeking to help his clients. I was amazed to read that the author completely dismisses the idea that bias is part of the problem, "There is no more `sensationalism' or `bias' in the media today than there ever was..." And this is his whole treatment of the subject.

A second problem that the author skates around is outright fraud perpetrated by the press. He barely mentions the whole NBC/exploding pickup trucks fiasco, and completely ignores its role in several court cases. That the author does not perceive that this could be injurious to the people's trust in the press is mind-boggling.

Finally, I would like to criticize the author's view of the history of the press. He repeatedly compares the modern press with its 19th century incarnation, the yellow-journalists. However, what he seems completely unaware of is the generation of journalists, such as Edward R. Murrow, who built the modern press' reputation.

Therefore, this book does not present a full picture of the press' problems, their history and traditions, or even a blueprint for where we go from here.

12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars why would I want to bother shooting him?, December 15, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us (Hardcover)

Let me perform a public service and advise any would be buyers of this book to save their money. Ignore the teaser of "How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us," and send your money to the ACLU or JPFO instead. You'll be doing more for the cause of liberty, and you won't end up wasting your weekend reading this book. Mr. Sanford is obviously intelligent, and can spin a good yarn. But he just doesn't seem to get it. I was about halfway through the book when I finally figured it out. You see, I hadn't bothered to read the author's bio. All you really need to know about this book is contained in that bio. Mr. Sanford is an attorney who defends traditional media conglomerates on Planet Beltway. Naturally he sees the world in light of his day-to-day experiences in defending said media conglomerates. And that's basically what this book is; a 255 page defense of the traditional media. What Mr. Sanford either fails to recognize or chooses to ignore is the fact that the traditional media is already largely irrelevant. The "leader class" (to use a term from the book) has already migrated to the internet. Which is not to say that the traditional media is bad, it's just obsolete. And as with any major change, there is going to be some dislocation and a time lag before the new paradigm is accepted. The traditional media is struggling with obsolescence. Personally, I'm glad for change and the improvements that will likely come along with it. Mr. Sanford seems to be having a harder time. I guess we all wax nostalgic at times, but in the long run, few of us really mourn the loss of the horse as a means of transportation when we have the option of driving a car. Mr. Sanford's analysis would have been improved if he had explored how the new media and the new technology is dealing with First Amendment issues. What of the libel suits filed against Matt Drudge? Are free speech restrictions even relevant when a fictitious Libelous News Network (LNN) can be organized as a Limited Liability Company in Antigua and maintain mirror sites in the U.S., Netherlands, and Republic of Tonga? Unfortunately Mr. Sanford's treatment of the internet was scant, and almost completely dismissive. Although I didn't think much of this book, I do have to admit that Mr. Sanford (I think inadvertently) answers the question of how a large industry copes with being rendered irrelevant by technical and social change. The answer is: not very well. Credibility Breakfasts. Committees of Concerned Journalists. Studies. Foundation grants. Perhaps a better title for this book would have been "The Traditional Media; an Industry in Complete Denial." The problem then is not the public's lack of affection for the traditional media, but the traditional media's inability to accept change. All in all, a one star book. Save your money.