yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.
This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money
Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.
Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.
What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.
"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.
it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.
I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.
I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.
It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.
It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.
What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this right wing reporter
