Real Anita Hill (Paperback)

by David Brock (Author) "On the day before the scheduled public testimony of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, four Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a private..." (more)
Key Phrases: sex harasser, sexual harassment story, anonymous charge, Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
Brock's thorough investigation of the evidence in the Thomas-Hill hearings concluded that there was no reason to believe Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. Brock's book--a national sensation which landed on the New York Times bestseller list--is the definitive rebuttal of Hill's charges.

Product Details

• Paperback: 472 pages
• Publisher: Touchstone (March 7, 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0029046564
• ISBN-13: 978-0029046562
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.1 out of 5 stars See all reviews (23 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,167,812 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars David Brock Admits to Smearing Anita Hill, August 23, 2007

By	sclairet - See all my reviews

Reader beware: In David Brock's later book, Blinded by the Right, he admits to smearing Anita Hill in this book. "Doubts about (Anita Hill's) testimony were furthered by the widely publicized and later recanted claims of David Brock, who coined the phrase "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" to describe Professor Hill. Later, in his book "Blinded by the Right," Brock confessed that, to please his conservative backers, he had deliberately gone after Anita Hill's reputation in a smear campaign that relied on false and unfounded information." Wikipedia entry on Anita Hill, August 24, 2007

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Right and So Wrong, November 22, 2008

By	Mr. Richard D. Coreno "Mr. C" (Berea, Ohio USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Back in the 1990s David Brock was an investigative journalist who earned his credentials - and hefty salary - as a right wing attack dog through highly questionable reporting.

In March 1992 Brock penned a critical story on Anita Hill for The American Spectator, which was the springboard for the book that was published 13 months later. Hill had testified under oath during the latter stages of the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court-nominee Clarence Thomas that Thomas - as her supervisor at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - made harassing sexual statements directly to her. Hill's allegations initially became public when information from an FBI interview about the allegations was leaked to the media.

The book became a best-seller and propelled Brock's career, but the stardom did not last. Several years later Brock disassociated himself from his right wing benefactors and disavowed his writing of the book, while publicly issuing an apology to Hill.

That the book is still in print is not a surprise; it was a cause celebre that virtually ushered in the era of shoddy, hateful reporting of "liberal" politicians. But that it is published as if the author stands by his work is a highly despicable act.

36 of 54 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars valuable only as example of, December 1, 2002

By	cecil (nacirema) - See all my reviews

this book is of course dreadfully bad as journalism; read it only as a window on the recent upsurge of rightist political fantasia, and as a supplement to brock's latest, *blinded by the right*.

in reading his latest, he will explain what the score is for this one, what he called "character assassination."

i am somewhat disturbed by some of the other reviews, here, though....witness brock: "i could see that my reportorial method for *the real anita hill* was shoddy, not only in the sources i had trusted, but in the obvious fact that i had missed significant evidence that showed that hill's testimony was more truthful than thomas' flat denials after all. my version of the thomas-hill controversy was wrong, my belief in it as truth was a delusion. perhaps the errors of *the real anita hill* could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. in the review of *strange justice*, however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, i consciously and actively chose an unethical path. i continued to malign anita hill and her liberal supporters as liars. i trashed the professional reputations of two reporters for reporting something i knew was correct. i coerced an unsteady source, i knowlingly published a lie, and i falsified the historical record" (brock, d. *blidned by the right* ny: crown, 2002. p. 248).

as can be seen here, the author of *the real anita hill* is admitting that it is not true.