Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Warning, January 7, 2006
This book is a warning to people who use the networks as their only source of news. The alphabet networks are anything but unbiased. I long for the "good old days" when all they did was report the news, with integrity.
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Fake but accurate. Well, fake anyway..., November 26, 2008
Mary Mapes' story about President Bush's National Guard service was "fake but accurate" we are told. This book, however, is just fake. Every once in a while I force myself to read a book by someone on the other side of the political divide from myself. This book was a bad choice. Now, Mapes is good at recasting facts and history to present herself in a good light. But the fact is that she was grinding this particular axe for many years, and was delighted to accept "evidence" that was incontrovertibly fake in order to "prove" a story that was equally fake.
This book's real bias is evident from its title. The "power" that Mapes really wants to see is the privilege and power of the media to distort the news, or tell outright lies and get away with it.
American politics will be in a bad way as long as the news media cuts in only one direction, and is infested by political axe-grinders like Mapes. Thank goodness that the internet and other "new media" are rapidly destroying the media Oligopoly's ability to distort the news to the American people.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting Book; Delusional Author, December 28, 2008
The 60 Minutes II piece on President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service has become such a political football that it is almost impossible to analyze the simple question of whether CBS should have run with it or not. Although the book was entertaining, I was unimpressed with Ms. Mapes's defense of the story and her own motivations. She tells us on page 20 that she will reveal who she is and what she believes -- "with some trepidation" -- and then proceeds to do nothing of the sort, using an old straw-man technique and sarcasm to suggest (but not state) that she is not "an elitist liberal."
Most maddening is her inability to understand that criticism of her journalism and CBS's decision to air the story are warranted EVEN IF the documents later proved to be authentic -- something that remains a subject of intense debate even today. Mapes's "ends-justify-the-means" defense is so mind-numbingly illogical, so lacking in common sense, that it does even more to harm her journalistic reputation than to help it. Note to Mapes: If you had decided that the documents were authentic based on the flip of a coin, would it really matter if, later, after you aired the story, they were proven accurate by more acceptable means? Can't you see the inanity of your position?
Mapes also appears to suffer from smartest person in the room syndrome, repeatedly arguing that her efforts to "mesh" the new documents with Bush's official records showed no inconsistencies. How could it be, she argues, that a forger could create documents that so seemlessly meshed with the official record, with no contradictions? Note to Mapes: That is EXACTLY what a forger would do. The official records were in the public domain and had been known for years. You are not the only person smart enough to determine what "meshed" with them and what didn't. Your rhetorical questions throughout the book about what a forger would or would not do demonstrate your gullibility and your naivete.
I also found it odd that Mapes -- who desperately wants to be seen as having no political agenda when it comes to her work -- repeatedly makes unnecessary (and often almost childish) political statements that are critical of Bush, Republican policies, and the political right. Perhaps Mapes does not even realize when she is being partisan.
Frankly, I was amazed that this book was the best Mapes could do to support CBS's decision to air the story. Her sources were suspect, her research gap-filled. I'm willing to take her word that she didn't intend to further a political agenda. She seems like a hard-working, pleasant, and loyal person. But this book has left me wondering how anyone can trust anything on the news. If a long-time journalist like Mapes thinks that she had enough hard evidence to go with this important story, I can only imagine what would be deemed satisfactory evidence for the thousands of stories of lesser importance.
I recommend the book. Although not particularly well-written or organized, I found Mapes's behind-the-scenes descriptions of reporting techniques interesting.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|