<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Scholarly work, easy-to-read, w/ only supportive examples.
Review: Although Patterson's conclusion "How to Fix the Campaign:Shorten It" has various worthwile ideas, the rest of Out of Order is summarized research and quotes from other individuals. The most interesting facts and quotes from this book are not Patterson's, but another individuals. It also is poorly organized, and has an amateurish feel to it.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad
Review: My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad
Review: My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.
Rating:
Summary: A must have
Review: This book was required reading for a seminar on Media and the 2000 Election and I found it very beneficial in understanding the strained relationship between two groups with conflicting goals: the media and elected officials. I especially enjoyed his analysis on reporters making news with their interpretation of the facts. I'm very excited to add that I will be meeting Tom Patterson at my university later this month and hope he will expand upon his books results as they relate to our current political situation. I welcome any questions you would like me to submit.
Rating:
Summary: A must have
Review: This book was required reading for a seminar on Media and the 2000 Election and I found it very beneficial in understanding the strained relationship between two groups with conflicting goals: the media and elected officials. I especially enjoyed his analysis on reporters making news with their interpretation of the facts. I'm very excited to add that I will be meeting Tom Patterson at my university later this month and hope he will expand upon his books results as they relate to our current political situation. I welcome any questions you would like me to submit.
Rating:
Summary: Especially relevant this year
Review: Thomas Patterson's sweeping indictment of the media is especially relevant this election year. The press is once again fulfilling Patterson's worst predictions of its behavior and making it easy to agree with his thesis that the media is failing its duties and harming our political process. Patterson makes many points, but his central ones are below, and it's easy to find supporting examples from the 2000 campaign cycle: 1. The press sees the election as a game, not a democratic process. Its news stories are focused on the candidates' strategy, not their views, and makes the candidates look shallow and pandering as a result. 2. The tone of the news is generally negative. Candidates are relentlessly criticized and negative stories are much more frequent than positive ones. 3. The press focuses far too much on gaffes and trivialities. In the 2000 campaign, Bush's RATS ad and Gore's simple misstatements have resulted in feeding frenzies portraying both candidates as untrustworthy. 4. Journalists have become the center of the news. Much of the news has reporters' own interpretations as the main story (In an attempt to bolster his support among elderly voters, Bush/Gore ...), instead of quoting the candidates at length. The inescapable conclusion is that the media is failing to inform the public of the important issues in a presidential campaign and contributes greatly to our general lack of faith in our political system.
Rating:
Summary: Especially relevant this year
Review: Thomas Patterson's sweeping indictment of the media is especially relevant this election year. The press is once again fulfilling Patterson's worst predictions of its behavior and making it easy to agree with his thesis that the media is failing its duties and harming our political process. Patterson makes many points, but his central ones are below, and it's easy to find supporting examples from the 2000 campaign cycle: 1. The press sees the election as a game, not a democratic process. Its news stories are focused on the candidates' strategy, not their views, and makes the candidates look shallow and pandering as a result. 2. The tone of the news is generally negative. Candidates are relentlessly criticized and negative stories are much more frequent than positive ones. 3. The press focuses far too much on gaffes and trivialities. In the 2000 campaign, Bush's RATS ad and Gore's simple misstatements have resulted in feeding frenzies portraying both candidates as untrustworthy. 4. Journalists have become the center of the news. Much of the news has reporters' own interpretations as the main story (In an attempt to bolster his support among elderly voters, Bush/Gore ...), instead of quoting the candidates at length. The inescapable conclusion is that the media is failing to inform the public of the important issues in a presidential campaign and contributes greatly to our general lack of faith in our political system.
<< 1 >>
| 
