Buy new:
$10.77$10.77
$3.99
delivery:
April 24 - 30
Ships from: SuperBookDeals--- Sold by: SuperBookDeals---
Buy used: $7.61
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
84% positive over last 12 months
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item.
& FREE Shipping
93% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 2 to 3 days.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the authors
OK
Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media Paperback – May 1, 2009
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length320 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherVintage UK
- Publication dateMay 1, 2009
- Dimensions5 x 1.1 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100099512688
- ISBN-13978-0099512684
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Popular titles by this author
Editorial Reviews
Review
-- John Pilger
About the Author
Nick Davies writes for the Guardian, and has been named Journalist of the Year, Reporter of the Year, and Feature Writer of the Year. He is the author of Dark Heart, The School Report, and White Lies.
Product details
- Publisher : Vintage UK (May 1, 2009)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 320 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0099512688
- ISBN-13 : 978-0099512684
- Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
- Dimensions : 5 x 1.1 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,816,993 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,347 in Journalism Writing Reference (Books)
- #5,707 in Communication Skills
- #6,150 in Communication & Media Studies
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Nick Davies writes investigative stories for the Guardian, and has been named Journalist of the Year, Reporter of the Year and Feature Writer of the Year in British press awards.
Apart from his work on newspapers, he also makes television documentaries and he has written four books: White Lies, which uncovered a racist miscarriage of justice in Texas; Murder on Ward Four, which examined the collapse of the NHS through the murder of children by Nurse Beverly Allitt; Dark Heart, a journey through the wasteland of British poverty; and Flat Earth News, exposing the shocking corruption of today's media.
He has three children and lives in Sussex.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
1. Economics of newspapers - why pressure to publish is often not conducive to truth
2. News ecosystem - describing the roles of journalists, newspapers, and suppliers such as the Associated Press
3. Outsiders - how companies, lobbyists, and politicians can manipulate the media by exploiting (1) and (2)
4. Details about English newspapers - mostly about how some newspapers in England do illegal stuff
Not being British, I didn't care much about section (4), even though the author is arguably most famous for precipitating the whole Murdoch/Daily Mail scandal. However, the other three sections are excellent and I know of no better book covering similar material. The author clearly has an insider's point of view, not an academic's, but despite some heuristic thinking and proof-by-example, the reader will be forced to admit that there is no reason to believe that the output of the current news system is even roughly true. In short, I was vaguely skeptical before; now I look at most news as being little more than entertaining fiction.
In my opinion the main two faults of the book are that
1) it is parochial and only describes British newspapers in any detail
2) it offers very little constructive guidance on how people _should_ stay informed.
Still, a very thought provoking book. Anyone who reads or watches news (i.e. basically everyone) should read this book or one on the same topics.
Anywho as to the book itself, I absolutely loved it, while written quite densely and unapologetically thorough Flat-Earth News provides an excellent review and explanation of how and why news is so often warped, spun, biased and sometimes outright wrong. While I think most of us have a general sense that there is something a bit off about journalism and news, Davies does a brilliant job of summarizing the issues pointing out that its not so much that people peddle "fake-news" its more a systemic problem of PR, profits, manpower and politics. Probably the most alarming thing for me wasn't actually the racist spins, the invention of facts or absurd lack of checking, but the omissions - the fact that despite how it feels, the world isn't covered in media, much of foreign and internal news is simply generated by 'expert' opinion and the is a massive dearth of journalists on the ground.
The best thing about Flat-Earth News is that Davies perspective is relatively balanced. He is one of the few non-fiction writers I've picked up (possibly the only) that actually pointed out his conflicts of interest in the beginning of the story, and while he does have some opinions and obvious stances he doesn't pick on any particular cause or political wings, for example he reveals the poor tactics of both big petroleum companies and environmental groups in the same chapter.
Overall this book is a must read for anyone wanting to understand journalism and media better, especially in today's somewhat toxic environment
Top reviews from other countries
The book is getting on for five years old now and it contains a fascinating history of the decline of the press over the last couple of decades. I think it is important to understand that history to appreciate why things are the way they are today. I marvelled at the well-researched and discomfiting revelations about certain individuals who were actively involved in that decline. But most shocking of all is the level of manipulation, distortion and outright mendacity in what most of us still call "news", even when it comes from the most respected and influential sources. My only reservation is that while the main argument in the book is still current I think it should be brought up to date with additional, more recent examples to support it. However, it is still a valuable resource, one which cannot fail to change your point of view if you are still labouring under the notion that you get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
'appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true. The most powerful institutions on the planet insist that it is true, but it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda.' (p.32)
Davies provides an appetising smorgasbord of examples, from the idea that the Millenium Bug would cause computer systems round the world to collapse, and that heroin is a deadly poison, through to the Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam Hussein could launch in 45 minutes.
Why are Flat Earth stories so prevalent? Davies' diagnosis is that the economic incentives to verify stories are weak. Fact checking takes time, money and energy. But the penalties for printing inaccurate stories are minimal: only the richest can afford to use the libel laws and the Press Complaints Commission is ludicrously ineffective. When verification is so costly, and the risk of punishment so small, why bother?
Davies refers to an interesting study by a group at Cardiff University which analysed the source of 2,207 stories in the Times, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and Daily Mail over a two week period. They found that:
60% were wholly wire copy and/or PR material
20% contained elements of wire copy and/or PR material to which other elements had been added
8% were of unknown source
12% had been generated by the reporters themselves
In other words, at least 80% of stories were 'prepackaged' stories taken from wire copy (normally the Press Association) or PR material; at most 20% were original journalism.
The similarity of stories across different newspapers results from the fact that they typically come from the same source.
Wittgenstein once pointed out that you cannot check whether a story in a newspaper is true by buying another copy of the same paper. What the Cardiff research shows is that you usually cannot check whether a story is true by buying a copy of a different paper either.
Perhaps even more alarming than plagiarism is the use of the 'Dark Arts': hiring private investigators to gather stories by various means ranging from blagging to phone hacking. Here, the stories may be true, but the means by which they are obtained are illegal. Davies compellingly documents the endemic use of these techniques by the British media.
The book closes with chapters on the decline of investigative journalism at the Sunday Times and Observer, followed by a savage swipe at the Daily Mail.
It's an exhilirating helicopter ride over some of the most important UK news stories of the last twenty years. The one weakness, and it is an important weakness, is the absence of any references. For a book which insists on the need to chase everything back to the original source, it is very odd that Davies should provide no documentation for his claims.
For example, there is no reference to the title or authors of the Cardiff report. This appears to be 'The Quality & Independence of British Journalism', undated, by Prof. Justin Lewis at el. This is currently available on the Cardiff University website. But there is a puzzle about this. In Flat Earth News, Davies says 'I commissioned specialist researchers from the journalism department of Cardiff University to investigate a sample of stories...'. But in the Cardiff report, there is no mention of Nick Davies or of the fact (if it is a fact) that he commissioned the report. If he did, surely the authors should have mentioned this.
Incidentally, the idea that there was ever a time when it was widely accepted that the Earth is flat is itself a myth. The Greeks knew it is a sphere (more or less), the medieval world knew it as well. Or so at least it says on wikipedia...






