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

The First Amendment and the American news media are under siege. Loathed and distrusted by the public it hungers to serve, the media faces a backlash of unprecedented proportions. With wit and revealing tales from the trenches, Bruce Sanford, one of our leading First Amendment lawyers, shows that our hatred of the media has reached such heights that even judges and juries have turned against news organizations:

* Multimillion-dollar verdicts have been leveled against ABC and other media companies

* The Gannett Company paid Chiquita Brands International more than $10 million to avoid a morass of litigation over a series of articles built on the unauthorized interception of voice mail messages.

* In the Paula Jones case, Judge Susan Webber Wright called the media "disingenuous," "callous" and "driven by profits," slamming the door on access to information about the President of the United States.

In case after case, judges, dismayed by the media's newsgathering practices, are curtailing constitutional protections for the press while the Supreme Court maintains a stony silence.

When the First Amendment erodes in the courtroom, we all need a wake-up call. This lively and richly storied work is the first to help us understand the dangerous consequences of the disintegration of trust between the public and the news media. In a masterful twenty-year retrospective, Sanford sifts through historical evidence and polls to explore the root causes for the mounting hostility toward the media. He explains how our anger with the press has deepened during the 1990s and how we -- as well as the media -- contribute to the problem. Drawing on interviews with more than four hundred people -- from former Vice President Dan Quayle and scandal-scarred Donna Rice to such respected icons as David Broder and Eugene Roberts -- Sanford describes a dangerous dialectic: the media falsely stereotypes public figures, while the public encourages the caricatures. As consumers we drive up the salaries of star journalists, yet we despise their culture of celebrity. We crave media saturation, yet we are so unsatisfied with the result that we are willing to look the other way when the truth is silenced.

Bruce Sanford is no apologist for sloppy reporting or the vanities of the media. Yet there is something more important at stake. We are killing one of our most treasured national resources -- journalists with the courage to take on corruption or abuse of power wherever they flourish.

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.


why would I want to bother shooting him?   December 15, 1999
12 out of 16 found this review helpful

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.


Well written, but it misses at every point   November 21, 2005
Kurt A. Johnson (North-Central Illinois, USA)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful

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.