Rating: 
Summary: Of all the audacity
Review:
How someone could write, or sell, a book like this after what the left-wing press did in this last election is a mystery to me. This election proved what many of us have been saying for years; the media is dishonest, unfair, biased, and almost totally left-wing. There were days I almost got nauseated reading the Washington Post online. No longer can the newspapers (pulp fiction?) deny their left-wing bias. It was out there in full force and not denied. ABC, CBS, and NBC were as bad as the newspapers. I suppose Dan Rather is not a 'noise machine'. His kind of slanted, twisted, biased, left-wing reporting is what we have put up with in all the media for years. But, when the conservatives try to promote their agenda (which is what politics is all about) that's a 'bad thing'. Just look at the Hollywierdos' attempt to silence Sinclair television. It's alright if they produce inflammatory movies, besmirch TV personalities in their sitcoms and dramas on TV, and do whatever else they like. But when the conservative try to express their views in much the same way, then this clown calls them a 'noise machine'. I may be overwrought, but I can't help calling this author a liar and propagandist with some kind of personal agenda. The Hollywierdos in the land of fruits and nuts corrupt democracy, and try to stop anything they don't agree with, with a visciousness never seen before in American politcs. Try to deny that left-wingers, while you're listenting to the sicko anti-Americans like moveon.org on the radio. Why doesn't this author call them a 'noise machine'. Oh, that's right, they're extreme leftists so that's O.K.
Rating: 
Summary: Entirely Plausible
Review: An entirely plausible thesis. He traces the development of the "Right-Wing Noise Machine" from its infancy as a Nixon press-control tactic, its development through and partnerships with the Goldwater and Christian conservative movements, Neo-con journals, right-wing think tanks, talk radio, 24-hour cable news and finally to the state of public discourse we hear today: A climate of political argument that is quite skewed to the right.
His own trustworthiness is up for debate. He admits that he was once a hack for the Washington Times, penning anti-Clinton and Anita Hill-bashing books. So is he just siding with today's underdog? Also, he accuses the early Neo-cons, Kristol, Podhoretz, etc. of employing "Leninist" techniques. Is this his real belief? Or just a method to insulate himself from the charge of being "un-American," and thereby playing the game by the very rules he accuses his enemies of so unfairly setting?
If you're naturally inclined to scoff at Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly's claims of "liberal bias" in the media, you'll enjoy this book because it takes the story of that myth, (and their careers), and paints it as if on a broad canvas with many colors and intricate detail.
Rating:
Summary: Solid, but sometimes dull
Review: Brock explores the history and structure of the right wing propaganda machine, and its impressive success in influencing mainstream media. The book has two principal virtues: it goes into history, tracing the right from the Goldwater era, thereby including much valuable material not found in some similar volumes which focus more exclusively on events of the Clinton/Bush years. This gives the book a distinct and more thoughtful perspective. And it shows the endless interconnections of the various people and organizations discussed in substantial, occasionally numbing detail. By the time you finish this book, you will realize that Hillary's famous 'vast right wing conspiracy' is very real. The main fault is that it is often overly partisan and indulges in some gratuitous attacks. For instance, Kevin Phillips is spoken of as being influenced by two obscure Italian writers I've never heard of, who Brock says were also major influences in Fascism. Offered without further elaboration, this amounts to nothing more than a cheap exercise in guilt by association. Compared to the similar books by Franken and Conason, this one has, as I noted, more detail and more historical perspective. It isn't written as well, and certainly lacks the humor of Franken. It also focusses more on media and propaganda and has little exploration of issues and policies, except those, such as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, that relate specifically to the media. (Perhaps the most comparable to this book would be the recent book by Alterman, which I haven't read.) Conason is far more interested in broad policy questions, while Franken's book, the most entertaining but a disorganized grab-bag, bounces unpredictably between media criticism, satire, and serious policy argument.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fighting Chance for the Public
Review: Every academic in the USA should read David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine. Despite the title, this discussion of how right-wing media corrupt democracy is less about the GOP than about how a strange cadre of multimillionaires, impelled by loss of prestige on the wingnut right, set about years ago to change every aspect of public discourse in America. The movement they have funded has set loud, blustering, well-paid bullies in media outlets around the country; has submitted thousands of what purport to be research articles and honest opinion pieces to print periodicals; and has "graduated" pseudo-journalists from bogus entities specially created to install them in major newspapers and television networks. The individuals chiefly involved are also reinforced with corporate funding.
The result of this quiet and well-financed campaign behind the scenes over the past thirty years has been to skew public discourse. Although this concerted movement to alter American news media has been coordinated with selected Republican politicians since the Nixon administration, even the older "conservative" and "Republican" entities are almost unrecognizable today.
This giant campaign also extends beyond the news media:
"In addition to underwriting the think tanks, conservative foundations and corporations have poured millions directly into the academy, chartering conservative research centers to advance policy objectives in foreign policy, economics, and the law. In this way, the Right has been able to establish strategic beachheads at a host of elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia, MIT, and Stanford, gaining credibility for ideas that might not otherwise pass muster through the traditional means of judging scholarly merit, then promoting those ideas in the media. University of Virginia Professor Patrick J. Michaels, for example, appears frequently on television, arguing against environmental measures to curb global warming. Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and has edited a publication funded by the Western Fuels Association, a coal producer and power cooperative. Those associations are not typically mentioned in the broadcasts."
Those associations are also typically not mentioned in regard to Condoleezza Rice (funded since 1980 by the ultra-right Hoover Institution, housed at Stanford). Rice has received consistently soft press treatment, while doing her part with a series of untruthful public statements to boost the neocon and PNAC pet project of invading Iraq.
On every topic of wide public import, discussion often tends to pit genuine journalists and overstretched news entities against highly paid ringers. For those of us who wondered how or why someone like Ann Coulter could be making millions, Brock's book elucidates:
"The think tanks provide cushy six-figure sinecures to movement `intellectuals,' and to ex-government officials whose role it is to fan out in the media proselytizing for the conservative agenda, providing mainstream and right-wing media outlets with a steady stream of subsidized op-eds and talking heads. These bought-and-paid-for conservative talkers face off in the media in debates that are made possible by right-wing financiers: If conservative special-interest money were to be eliminated from the equation, there wouldn't be much of a conservative `side' to hold up, and there would be few to do the talking."
The reader or viewer, of course, is never told about financial connections that might lead to enlightened skepticism:
"While it may appear to readers and viewers that they are hearing hundreds of independent conclusions derived from each journalist's research and reporting, they are really hearing from a handful of right-wing multimillionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife, whose money has gone into more than one-third of the think tanks, and from a few dozen corporations."
Brock's book amply repays the time spent reading it. One help is that it names some of the peculiar training schools for rightwing media personalities: if you notice some of these characters popping up in your local media outlets, you can let your local newspaper, television station or radio station know that you know.
News is fine. Opinion is fine. But when something purporting to be news or opinion is actually paid propaganda, the public has a right to know.
Rating:
Summary: An important book and a call to action
Review: For anyone who finds it odd that most of today's news media consists of right wing media celebrities complaining about how liberal the media is, I can't recommend "The Republican Noise Machine" highly enough. Mr. Brock offers a devastating critique of the Right's strategy to subvert journalism and manipulate the press to its own political ends. This puts the final nail in the coffin of the myth of the liberal media. Be warned, though: "The Republican Noise Machine" will definitely raise your blood pressure.
Rating:
Summary: Love It or Hate It, It's That Simple
Review: How you feel about this book depends on where you're coming from. If you're intelligent, well-read, informed and you care aobut the direction that society is taking, and you're frustrated with the direction that American "journalism" has taken, you'll find much to agree with in this book. If you are a victim of the phenomenon that this book discusses, you aren't going to even read this book, though you may publish a negative review on Amazon. For the first group, I'd recommend this book. It brings a historical perspective to the right-wing propaganda machine that controls big media (while putting forth the undeniably silly idea that the media are "liberal"--a superset of "objective"). For the second group, I'd recommend you skip this book and concentrate on "Hooked on Phonics" so you'll be ready for Anne Coulter's next incoherent screed.
Rating:
Summary: interesting read
Review: I found this book to be an interesting read. We all know the media is a sham. This book is a doucment of that. I wonder how many of these people who trash David Brock now were so willing to believe his aimless Clinton bashing of the 90s. Let me get this straight. You believe what he says about, but when he later admits that it was all a lie, you refuse to be believe it. After all, if you hate someone, you want the slander to be true...
Rating:
Summary: BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT
Review: I just got this book and can hardly put it down! Absolutely fascinating. Thank you, Mr. Brock, for turning away from the Dark Side, and for writing yet another very interesting tome. I'm learning so much! You can learn too. Mr. Brock documents how in the last several decades the GOP built a powerful media machine -- newspapers and magazines, think tanks, talk radio networks, op-ed columnists, the FOX News Channel, Christian Right broadcasting, book publishers, and high-traffic internet sites -- to sell conservatism to the public and discredit their opponents. Brock also clearly shows how this disproportionate conservative influence in the media is integrally linked to the Republican Right's current domination of all 3 branches of government. Ever wonder where Rush gets his material and talking points for his radio show? Ever wonder why there are so many Rush copycats on the radio? Read the friggen book already.
Rating:
Summary: How to be a news consumer
Review: I loved this book. This book is helpful to everyone becuase we are all news consumers. When a pundit is on TV, you will now know what is behind his arguement. I used what was in this book in the real world. Recently on the radio a author was promoting her book on how liberalism destroys america. I know now that is a total lie, she's trying to manipulate the public becuase it serves the right-wing movement. I feel totally smarter. This book is a hard read becuase it has a lots of names. Its worth it to finish though.
Rating:
Summary: Whoever controls the press controls the world.....
Review: In this second book since his conversion from conservatism, Brock acknowledges that the media (for all of the yelling about the 'liberal press')actually is quite complicit (and even helpful) to the Republican Party. Again using his insider knowledge of the right, Brock is not merely speculating, he is speaking the truth in an era when independence is reduced to a sound bite.
Beyond the obvious examples (such as the 700 Club, which pointedly markets itself as a religious infomercial) located in the television-programming grid, Brock has us consider more 'mainstream' purveyors of conservative news.
Conservative transformation of the news has worked precisely because all sources cannot readily be documented, and the purveyors have proactively pointed fingers at 'the liberals' for theoretically committing the same transgressions that they are actually engaging in.
Chief offender is FOX news. Despite the 'public' reputation as the network that launched sexually loaded teen dramas, in fact is quite conservative. FOX mogul Rupert Murdoch makes use of his GOP ties in stories.
Because the new industry buzzword is 'infotainment', viewers aren't being encouraged to seek or desire complex issues, these become derided as 'waffling'. This product marketing also inevitably prevents the masses from questioning why economic and/or political power is concentrated in the hands of an elite few inside this DEMOCRACY. Everything on these news shows subsequently becomes reduced to a naive 'good vs. bad' presentation; anything that cannot fit in this category is either ignored or (ironically) derided as 'bias'.
Unfortunately, this scenario leaves the same Americans who honestly think that they are getting the truth instead under informed about the activities of their own government...etc.
|
