Rating: 
Summary: Objective support against the NY Times - finally!
Review: "Media bias" is given meaning with this book, which is written more like a textbook than an editorial. However, it is never dull reading, as it compares actual headlines, subheads and content of articles from the NY Times and compares them to coverage of the same subject, on the same day, in other media. The differences are startling - so much so in some cases that it seemed the Times wasn't even in the same room with other journalists. While I've known about the bias for years, and don't even watch network news anymore - I was fascinated by the subtlety with which the Times practices its craft. They understand the inertia of human nature, and exploit the fact that most people just don't have the time to dissect every news story they are exposed to each day. Imagine the sheer effort it takes each to day to twist the news so that it reflects a political or ideological agenda, but do it so well that few people are aware of it.
Rating: 
Summary: An educational analysis on how to read between the lines
Review: Bob Kohn has greatly enjoyed reading the New York Times over the years. Recently he become very aware of just how biased the New York Times is and decided to document how it reports the news in a bias manor.
The author says the true debate is not about media bias, but news bias, how the news is reported. The whole focus of this book is to document how the New York Times now reports its opinions as news. Along the way it teaches the reader how to be more critical when reading the news and how to read between the lines.
Since all major papers subscribe to the New York Times News service, the NY Times greatly influences what is considered news, and how to report the news.
The old style reporting was very focused on: I have six honest serving men;
They taught me all I knew;
Their names are Where and What and When;
and How and Why and Who
by Rudyard Kipling In reporting news, a journalist would often use the "inverted pyramid" style, where you put the most important details first. A good news story tries to answer Kipling's six uestions, and tries to answer them at the beginning, in the lead sentence. By only reporting one side in the lead sentence a journlist can easily slant the news story. Most people don't read past the first paragraph on a lot of stories and are left with the impression from just the first paragraph.
According to Bob Kohn most modern newspapers seem to see their mission now as influencing public opinion. The Times distorts the Facts by omission, distortion, falsification, and emphsis. The author goes into example after example of how they do this. The Times will often include the opinions of others in the stories when the opinions agree with the Times, or not in include them when the opinions disagree. The Times uses positive labels for those it likes, and negative labels for those it hates.
The author uses the book as a call to action for the New York Times, he asks them to keep their opinions in the opinion section and just report the facts.
I found the book well written, and educational.
Rating: 
Summary: Meta analyisis of the reviews
Review: I find it sad that the polarization of political thought in the United States these days has come to where people purchase books only to confirm the opinions that they already espouse. There is ample evidence that _any_ news outlet will either be considered too conservative or too liberal, depending on who is doing the rating. The implication is that they have an agenda to match. This polarization can only hurt America. Perhaps it is important that the Wall Street Journal is offset by the New York Times, that is offset by Fox news, that is offset by NPR, etc.
It is interesting to note how this bias shows up in the rating of the reviews of this interesting and certainly not entirely objective book: those reviews that are positive boast a high percentage of people stating the review helped: those that are negative showed the opposite. From this it appears that people trolling for this book are looking for literature that proves their point.
It makes more sense to try to find books that contain viewpoints in opposition to or divergent from one's own: how can one learn from reading material that merely reinforces beliefs already held?
Once again, I find the current polarization of America, and the loss of the center to be incredibly sad, and scary. I fear for our country.
Rating: 
Summary: Attack on the liberal press
Review: Kohn makes no bones about his intention: To castigate what he labels the "liberal" press. His general premise is that editorials can (and should) be slanted and new must be "objective" and "neutral". Unfortunately, his understanding of what "objective" and "neutral" should be, is tainted by a Republican understanding of the world, and according to Kohn, there is no place for a "liberal" press. It is therefore not surprising that he finds no room to complain about distorted reporting by other newspapers or TV News channels, and contents himself to castigating the NY Times. Instead of writing a book to "prove" how liberal the NY Times us in its news reporting, the natural consequence would have been for Bob Kohn to cancel his subscription. It would have saved many readers the agony of his pseudo-analysis and trying to understand what the "World according to Bob Kohn" should be. A big yawn.
Rating:
Summary: Attack on the liberal press
Review: Kohn makes no bones about his intention: To castigate what he labels the "liberal" press. His general premise is that editorials can (and should) be slanted and new must be "objective" and "neutral". Unfortunately, his understanding of what "objective" and "neutral" should be, is tainted by a Republican understanding of the world, and according to Kohn, there is no place for a "liberal" press. It is therefore not surprising that he finds no room to complain about distorted reporting by other newspapers or TV News channels, and contents himself to castigating the NY Times. Instead of writing a book to "prove" how liberal the NY Times us in its news reporting, the natural consequence would have been for Bob Kohn to cancel his subscription. It would have saved many readers the agony of his pseudo-analysis and trying to understand what the "World according to Bob Kohn" should be. A big yawn.
Rating:
Summary: veteran journalist Bob Baker
Review: Kohn took a cheap shot at me in this book and if that represents the intellectual level of the work as a whole, we're all in trouble. In "Newsthinking," a book on mental organization for journalist, I urge writers to seek out new and vibrant forms of structure to tell a story once they have reported it. In doing this, I cite Rule Number One: There Are No Rules, an edit aimed at craftmanship, not disregarding the truth. Kohn, to fit his purpose, interpreted Rule Number One as urging reporters to abandon rules of truth and fairness if twisting the facts made a better story. It is impossible to read "Newsthinking" in context and glean that. As a reporter and editor with 34 years in the business, it angered me have my words twisted in a way I would never tolerate or advocate. Kohn did precisely what he tried to condemn.
Rating:
Summary: An Indispensable and Thoroughly Researched Book
Review: The full subtitle of JOURNALISTIC FRAUD is "How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted." This is not, as one might expect, a 312-page treatise concerning the Jayson Blair fiasco and how it brought disgrace upon the New York Times, though certainly Bob Kohn could easily have done such a treatment. As Kohn notes near the end of JOURNALISTIC FRAUD, the Blair scandal actually deflects attention from the real scandal at the Times, which is its practice of passing opinion as straight news. What JOURNALISTIC FRAUD is, however, is a thorough, point-by-point analysis of the journalistic mechanisms by which the so-called, self-styled "Newspaper of Record" (a term that, incidentally, is a marketing ploy, nothing more) permits its editorial viewpoint to distort its news coverage. A couple of decades ago a major weekly magazine used to proudly advertise that within its pages, "Fact is presented as fact, and opinion is signed as opinion." It wasn't true then and it isn't true now, but the magazine in question was at least savvy enough to know that the appearance of fairness and objectivity is important. This standard was the rock upon which the Times built its reputation. The Times's editorial page has always leaned, if not fallen, leftward. Fair enough. That is the function, the reason for existence, of the editorial page of any newspaper: to present the viewpoint of the editors. Once upon a time, however, an effort was made to keep the editorial pink ink from seeping through to the rest of the Times. Kohn notes that Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who shepherded the Times to the reputation of respectability that it is currently squandering, wrote in the 1950s that "...no matter how we view the world, our responsibility lies in reporting accurately that which happens." As Kohn demonstrates, to devastating effect, those days are long gone. Under the captaincy of Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr., the grandson of Arthur Hays and the current publisher of the New York Times, the ship he commands does not merely float on the Red Sea. It's taking on water, and he's standing amid ships, bailing it onto the deck. A few years ago I spent several weeks dissecting the Times for my poor, long-suffering New York-born wife, reading their headlines and stories and pointing out the slant and how it was done. I wish that Kohn had written JOURNALISTIC FRAUD back then; he does the same thing I did, and does it much better than I ever could. Kohn examines what journalists refer to as the five Ws and the H --- Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How --- and uses examples culled directly from the Times's pages to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt how the Times slants and distorts its reporting to project a left-wing viewpoint. The indictment of bias here is based not upon a random story here and there but on a demonstrably repeated and systemic pattern of distorting the reporting of its news in an effort to project its editorial viewpoint and to influence the nation's agenda accordingly. This isn't a matter of an off-key note or two. As Kohn demonstrates and documents in JOURNALISTIC FRAUD, this is a symphony that has been playing to the cheap seats for years. Kohn does more than simply and irrefutably present and prove his case, however. He establishes why this distortion, this disguise of editorial opinion of straight news, is significant. Kohn conclusively shows that on Junior Sulzberger's watch, the Times has systematically and deliberately been blurring the line between fact and opinion. When one picks up a periodical such as The Nation on the Left or National Review on the Right, one knows what one is getting: opinion in the form of essays, commentary, and broadsides from a particular point of view. When one turns on their radio and listens to Rush Limbaugh or Alan Combs, one does not get news --- one gets opinion. The same is true of a newspaper's editorial page. When the news articles begin taking their tone, content and style from the editorial page, however, it is no longer a news story; it becomes propaganda. And given that most of the gentry tend to skim headlines and lead paragraphs, at most, it becomes extremely easy to insidiously sway public opinion. So why is this a major deal? Why not simply file this under 'SFW' and read another newspaper? Why not simply boycott it, as legions of rabbis in New York and Los Angeles recently exhorted their congregations to do as a result of the Times anti-Israel news coverage? The reason, as Kohn notes, is that the New York Times News Service has over 650 member newspapers who, to borrow a term from radio broadcasters, rip and print New York Times news stories and "analysis" (spelled in the Times lexicon as e-d-i-t-o-r-i-a-l) as if it is gospel. This sheep-like behavior is not limited to the print media. Television anchormen, from well-groomed Canadian high-school dropouts to failed morning talk show hosts, take their daily marching orders from the Times. The result, regardless, is the same. The journalistic well is poisoned at the source and trucked all over the country. Millions of people drink this water in some way every single morning, and form opinions from it. Junior Sulzberger has been widely quoted (though not in the Times) as having told his father in the early 1970s that if an American soldier came face to face with a North Vietnamese soldier he (Junior) "...would want to see the American guy get shot. It's the other guy's country." One could chalk up this unfortunate statement to the exuberance, the impetuousness of youth. However, it appears from the state and slant of the Times that Sulzberger has not set aside all of the follies of childhood. Yet Kohn sees the possibility of redemption. He sets forth in JOURNALISTIC FRAUD a scenario whereby the Times could regain its respectability and once again become the newspaper that was respected for its objectivity, as opposed to being fit for fodder for late night television monologues. For this, and for so many other reasons, JOURNALISTIC FRAUD is indispensable for anyone who reads, and cares, about the news and how it is reported. --- Reviewed by Joe Hartlaub
Rating:
Summary: Enlightening as well as entertaining
Review: The New York Times must loath readers like Bob Kohn. He doesn't read just the headlines and the leads, he reads entire articles. Not only does he read the entire article, he analyzes what he has read. His analysis has led him to a conclusion similar to that of many faithful Times readers: the newspaper of record is editorializing under the guise of hard news. But, where most of us make the observation and grumble, Mr. Kohn has written a book, and a convincing one at that. The bonus is that a conscientious reader can use Kohn's analysis when reading any newspaper, whether far left, far right or moderate. Kohn is very clear about several points right up front -- and reiterates them throughout: 1) he is a dedicated NYT reader, 2) he has no objection to the NYT, or any newspaper, editorializing on the Op-Ed pages or in articles that are clearly marked "analysis" but heartily objects to editorializing in articles that purport to be hard news and 3) he believes -- and makes a good case to back his belief -- that the NYT has strayed far from its founding principles to "give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved." As the first step in his analysis, Kohn takes the reader through the basics of hard news writing and objectivity. Then, using quotes from NYT articles, he demonstrates how a writer can introduce subjectivity (i.e., opinion) through manipulation of the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of a hard news article. From there, he explores various other techniques, including misleading headlines, distorted leads, burying information at the end of an article or "below the fold" and polls -- always using NYT quotes as illustration. He is convincing. Actually, he is very convincing. One of the most fascinating parallels he draws is between NYT coverage of the present Bush administration with that of the Nixon administration and Watergate, when the NYT admirably stuck to the facts without embellishment. Granted, the facts were damning in themselves and needed no embellishment, but that is exactly Kohn's point: let the facts to the damning, not the ideological beliefs of the writer or publisher. Back in the '80s, I read a very popular book, "Hidden Persuaders", analyzed techniques (and tricks) the advertising industry uses to sell products. Although some of the book seemed to be a bit over-the-top and, at times, reaching to make a point, after reading it, I have never viewed an advertisement quite the same way. "Journalistic Fraud" packs the same wallop: on occasion, Kohn goes over the top and appears to be more conservative than the moderate he claims to be, but having read it, I will never read a newspaper article (in the NYT or elsewhere) with quite the same innocence. That is good.
Rating:
Summary: Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News
Review: The ongoing public debate on bias in the media has a new entry on the side of "too liberal" with a specific examination of the New York Times. Kohn, an entertainment lawyer, describes himself as a news consumer who has been an avid reader of the Times since the 1960s, and he laments the changes that he perceives in the news coverage. He argues that journalists at the Times do not know how to produce factual leads, they create misleading headlines, and their articles contain distortions of facts. The coverage of the war in Iraq is used to bring a focus to his accusations of liberal bias. Although he is aware that contemporary journalism education explores the complexity of the concept of objectivity, he rejects that approach and insists on impartial news writing. Kohn's methodology cannot prove his argument as his analysis is applied to select articles, mostly from 2002, rather than to a content analysis of all news articles over a specified time period. The entire book is, in effect, an editorial rant directed at the New York Times and should only be purchased by libraries following the debate's back and forth
Rating:
Summary: The Fraud: How Much Longer Can it Go On?
Review: The power of the New York Times to influence the day to day activities of the running of the United States has long been a given. What Bob Kohn in JOURNALISTIC FRAUD believes is that this power has over the last decade been funneled to present a view that is decidedly left wing liberal. Kohn draws a careful distinction between those parts of the NYT that are opinion and those are 'straight' news. No one, least of all Kohn, claims that the op-ed sections cannot favor one view over another. Indeed, it is the duty of any newspaper to showcase whatever political underpinning it wishes. However, in the case of Arthur Surlzberger, the publisher, the NYT presents the news as little more than disguised opinion. It takes some tricky writing to accomplish this, so tricky, in fact, that Kohn suggests that such proselytizing cannot be by chance. Until the mid 1980s, Kohn notes that the NYT was reasonably evenhanded in its partiality. The front page was for straight news while the op-eds were for mind molding. What disturbs Kohn, and by implication most of the NYT's non leftist oriented idealogical readers, is that Surlzberger's staff writers abruptly shifted the NYT into an attack vehicle against all things conservative or Republican. Most of JOURNALISTIC FRAUD is a careful analysis of the many ways that a newspaper can impart a predeternined spin to any story. By using direct quotes from the NYT, Kohn deflects criticism that his own book is no more than a political counterpunch. Kohn reaffirms that the time-honored concept of placing the 'who' and the 'what' at the lead of any article is the surest way to avoid setting the reader's mind on a path desired by that article's writer. When a writer phrases his introduction to begin with one of the other 'w's' then Kohn notes that impartiality has degraded into partiality. Kohn ends his book by listing how the NYT can reclaim its previous preeminent position as the bastion of journalistic integrity. He perhaps overoptimistically sees potential for change within the NYT's editorial office. Whether such change can actually happen is less likely to be as a result of a change of heart in the publisher and more likely to be as a result in a bottom line evaporation of readership. In either case, JOURNALISTIC FRAUD is a potent reminder that the mighty can fall despite decades of seeming pomp and power.
|
