The title of this book sparked my interest; however, after reading it, I can't recommend; in all my reviews this year, this is the first book I can't recommend. First, the book is much longer than necessary to tell the story of the FBI Media burglary; second, and more importantly, much of the book includes self-serving information, and biased narrative not directly relevant to the burglary (e.g., the book has an entire chapter on the NSA).
While the book does include important facts about the burglary, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion; in general, it appears one-sided and includes a surprising amount of the author's opinion. After reading the wonderful book - Lawrence in Arabia by journalist Scott Anderson, I expected the subject book by another reporter (Ms. Medsger is a former reporter for the Washington Post) to be equally objective; presenting all sides and facts for the reader to draw their own conclusions. Don't get me wrong, from the little I know about the subject, Mr. Hoover and "his" secret FBI represent a scary and embarrassing period in American history; however, one doesn't need a biased narrative to come to that conclusion.
Given their power, it is sad and a bit frightening to witness the biased output of "journalists". Maybe it has always been this way but it is difficult these days for me to believe anything written/articulated by "journalists"; whether they lean left or right, many seem bent on pushing their agenda. Maybe I'm being too hard on journalists; after all, they are human too:). As I write this, my criticism sounds a bit like what some people say about consultants (my former career) - they are biased. As with consultants, I suspect journalists are similar - a few bad apples taint the entire lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment