Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

"Don't Shoot the Messenger" is a triumph in every way. The writing is clear, strong and engaging. The message it carries should be required reading for every thinking American. With wit and passion, Bruce Sanford issues a sorely needed wakeup call to the press, the courts and we, the people. The devil of any book is in the details. Sanford names names and lays out his case -- our case, really -- with a clarity that makes plain the torturous complexities of cause and effect creating the growing gulf between us and our increasingly unfree press. Few messages could be as important in a democracy, where the truth is vital if the public is to choose wisely. Sanford unflinchingly outlines the weaknesses of the press that have led us to mistrust and even despise them. He points out how we, as consumers, tacitly contribute to the excesses we disparage, and how our increasingly negative attitude spills over into the courtroom for both juries and judges, resulting in verdicts that may feel right even as they eat away at our freedom and well-being. He shows the chilling effects of a number of recent lawsuits by the rich and powerful against the press and gives us a scary look at the road ahead if this trend continues. "Don't Shoot the Messenger" is riveting reading, but more than that, it is a passionate argument in defense of us all by what must surely be one of the nation's best and brightest lawyers.

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 that 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's 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. (This book was published in 1999, and as such predates the recent NBC/forged documents scandal.)

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's reputation.

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