Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: This book was interesting. It brought up many behind-the-scenes things that you rarely see or read about. Best of all, it was done without a lot of flair or exaggeration (too many books lately are swinging for the fences with how they can make things larger than life). The author remains fairly objective and writes in a style that is informative and easy to read. Put it on your list.
Rating: 
Summary: Lightweight anecdotal "inside story"
Review: This is a gossippy account that focuses on the major personalities involved such as Ted Turner, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock as well as dozens of other executives in the cable news industry. Some of this indeed makes interesting reading because there are some exceptional characters involved in this business. The shortcoming of the approach is that the players involved are all portrayed as eccentric corporate cowboy types and while this may be true the focus on that aspect comes at the expense of any real in-depth business analysis. I also felt that the author occasionally confused chronology of events and the story jumped forward and back awkwardly in some places.
If you enjoy reading about guys with huge egos battling it out over market share than go for it. One aside..Lou Dobbs , who I always enjoy watching is portrayed as a real ego-maniac.
Rating: 
Summary: A breezy book about the cable TV media wars
Review: This is the story of how Roger Ailes outsmarted lots of folks to take Fox News to the top of the cable TV news business. It is also the story of how MSNBC never has been able to gain traction as a result of poor leadership and many mistakes (such as spending millions to set up a Dononhue show that was doomed to fail from the start). This book also tells the story of how Rick Kaplan badly damaged both ABC (Food Lion Special) and CNN (Valley of Death Special). The sad news of late is Kaplan is now president of MSNBC--like Peter Arnett he keeps showing up like a bad penny. I gave the book four stars because too many issues are covered superficially, because the author is too critical of Tom Johnson (a thoroughly decent person and a fine print and TV journalist) and because he fails to give proper credit to three individuals who were largely responsible for CNN's excellent coverage of the Gulf War of 1991, Ed Turner, Bob Furnad and Judy Milestone.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting read
Review: Was pleasantly surprised at how the book detailed how FOX came to be #1 with so many people, and that the author wrote about more than just CNN and FOX, but MSNBC and the whole Time Warner AOL move. Enjoyed reading how O'Reilly came to even be on FOX and how MSNBC didn't actually believe that Phil Donahue would draw viewers and that it was more of a crap shoot. And to read that all Great Van Susteren wanted at CNN was her own chair.Glad I bought the book as it also helped clarify for me why so many anchors and reporters are bailing on CNN. Had known that they signed agreements saying they wouldn't write anti-CNN stuff. But FOX allows free speech and CNN doesn't. Which seems a tad odd since CNN prides itself on being so damn liberal and for free speech.
Rating:
Summary: Thinking outside the Fox
Review: Whenever I watch Fox news, HL Mencken's comment that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" comes to mind. But while I and many others might complain that the new king of the cable television wars sins by appealing to the lowest common denominator, it is also clear that it has -- for good or for bad -- reinvented a sector less than a decade after arch-rival CNN invented it. While the title of this book might imply that it focuses mostly on the seven-year history of Fox news, it is really about the evolution of the sector as a whole. Well documented is Fox's blatant disregard for conventions most journalists consider (or considered) beyond reproach -- above all the value of objectivity and a healthy suspicion of institutions -- but the central argument is how it forced its values on rivals CNN and MSNBC, the well-funded joint venture between Microsoft and NBC. The book is an accessible read, well researched, objective in its take on the subject (author Scott Collins works for the Los Angeles Times, and not one of the three main players in the sector), and packed with enough information to even satisfy people in the business. But despite all that, I think it also misses the real spark behind Fox's rise. Mr. Collins' central argument can be boiled down to a 1995 Times Mirror poll he cites that reported that while 40 percent of Americans said they were politically conservative only 5 percent of journalists did. Fox, he argues, rose up to compensate for that lopsidedness. While that is no doubt relevant, I think it is also a simplification. I see the main difference between the pre-Fox and post-Fox worlds of news coverage not as one between circumstances in which conservatives did not have a voice and one in which they do, but instead a story about a society that is losing its empathy, its tolerance for opposing views. The arguments for why that took place are best left for another day, but if one accepts the point it becomes clear that Fox is not a cause but a symptom.
| 
