Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy

James M. Fallows

3.88 · Rating details · 154 Ratings · 25 Reviews

Why do Americans mistrust the news media? It may be because show like "The McLaughlin Group" reduce participating journalists to so many shouting heads. Or because, increasingly, the profession treats issues as complex as health-care reform and foreign policy as exercises in political gamesmanship. These are just a few of the arguments that have made Breaking the News so c ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Paperback, 352 pages

Published January 14th 1997 by Vintage (first published 1996)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Breaking the News, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Breaking the News

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)

Rating details

Sort: Default

Filter

Jan 23, 2009 Jimmy rated it really liked it

Shelves: male, non-fiction, year-1990s

Almost accidentally, I started reading James Fallow's blog at the Atlantic a few months ago and found it to be one of the most refreshingly insightful blogs I've read. It's rare to read someone who, even if he may not always be correct, has obviously given a lot of thought to what he writes.

So I decided to read this book by him. It was written in the 90's and thus is kind of dated, but that doesn't diminish the points it makes. I thought I wouldn't learn many new things about the press that I wo ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2011 Ronald Wise rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This book should be required reading for anyone who has ever been exasperated by television news coverage and those talk shows were the pundits exchange meaningless sound-bites. I bought and first read this book about ten years ago and have relied on its material many, many times since in political discussions. It was time to refresh my memory on the details, though the names of the main culprits have changed some since the book was written - back then making outrageous political statements got ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 21, 2016 Sally Sugarman rated it really liked it

This is a thought provoking book. Essentially Fallows thinks that because of the model of television, journalism has become entertainment and that too many newscasters and journalists become celebrities in their own right and are thereby compromised in giving the public the information that it needs to make informed decisions. He talks about the enormous speaking fees that people like Cokie Roberts gets. He also talks about their need for access or at least their perceived need for that. They fo This is a thought provoking book. Essentially Fallows thinks that because of the model of television, journalism has become entertainment and that too many newscasters and journalists become celebrities in their own right and are thereby compromised in giving the public the information that it needs to make informed decisions. He talks about the enormous speaking fees that people like Cokie Roberts gets. He also talks about their need for access or at least their perceived need for that. They focus on process and not substance. They are constantly analyzing strategy and the questions they ask are not the questions that the public asks when given the opportunity. They put everything in the model of a contest and are busy making predictions, which they forget when they are proved to be false. He does a fine analysis of how the Clinton Health plan was sunk by the media reporting. It was clear that a plan was needed but by focusing on strategy the press muddied the issue. They also gave as much uncritical attention to a stupid woman politician who later became New York’s lieutenant governor who hadn’t understood what she had read. He makes the comment that others have about what is not being covered and he notes how much the O. J. Simpson trial was kept in the news. Yet, what was important about that trial, which Fallows doesn’t even note, was that there was such a division between whites and blacks about the outcome. He also says that reporters have become lazy and that they don’t know their audience, who they are or what they need to know. He contrasts Walter Lippman and John Dewey who had different ideas about the role of the press and the people in a democracy. Lippman felt that technology had made the world too complex and that the ruled had to allow experts to rule. Not surprisingly, Dewey felt that a democracy could only function if its citizens had a sense of their own power to understand and help to decide. Fallows gives some examples of what he sees as responsible journalism where the reporters take an active role in finding and reporting the news. He also notes that this model is opposed by papers like the NY Times because they believe that it undermines objectivity. Fallows questions that idea. He sees public journalism as necessary for an informed electorate. The cynicism that is a part of the focus on strategy and on scandal disillusions voters. They are led to believe that all politicians are crooks as well as all newsmen being untruthful. Until his chapter on the alternative to this, I thought that Fallows was contributing to this general malaise as far as the view of the press was concerned. He really believes that events need to be put in a context and not just be fragments of gossip and sensation. These are not new criticisms but he does a good job of providing evidence for his contentions and to show how the situation evolved.

...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 20, 2017 Hope Barton rated it liked it

Essentiallly this book was a long essay that did a deep dive into the ethics of journalism and the responsibilities of the work. I can understand it not being for everyone, but since this is part of what I studied at school, I enjoyed it. I appreciated the detail that the author went into with the different points he was trying to make. Despite it being an older publication and focusing mainly on the problems of the Clinton campaign and presidency, it made so many points that were still relevant ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 12, 2017 Carl Pag rated it it was amazing

the only way we can sort out what's important and what's not, is Numbers. But few media clips include any. This always puzzled me. Is it that people who major in journalism are bad at math?

Fallows explained it! Journalists work on deadline. Each number needs to be fact checked by someone else. So number free (and I would say information free) articles can be turned in at the last minute.

flag Like · see review

Jun 19, 2008 Eric rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics, non-fiction, books-i-gave-away

James Fallows was the editor at U.S. News and World Report when he wrote this book. I subscribed to it for six months a few years ago and canceled, because it was indistinguishable from Time and Newsweek. I don't know if Fallows is still with the magazine.

It's safe to say that Fallows has issues with his contemporaries in the press, and he's not shy about naming names. George Will, Michael Kinsley, Cokie Roberts, and other big-name journalists come under his fire. I wonder how they all reacted t James Fallows was the editor at U.S. News and World Report when he wrote this book. I subscribed to it for six months a few years ago and canceled, because it was indistinguishable from Time and Newsweek. I don't know if Fallows is still with the magazine.

It's safe to say that Fallows has issues with his contemporaries in the press, and he's not shy about naming names. George Will, Michael Kinsley, Cokie Roberts, and other big-name journalists come under his fire. I wonder how they all reacted to this book when it first came out. The press seemed to like it - the front cover, back cover, and introductory pages are filled with glowing reviews from newspapers and magazines.

So what are Fallows' beefs? Here's the quick version:

* The rise of TV news and lust for viewers creates shows like The McLaughlin Group and Crossfire, in which real debate is replaced by dueling talking heads shouting over one another. It may be entertaining, but it does not help the viewer understand the issues.
* Too many reporters ignore the substance of complex issues and legislation and concentrate on the political implications of issues and legislation. Rather than explain the merits of a certain bill, the press focuses on how it could help or hurt its sponsor, supporters, and opponents. Politics is just a sporting event, with winners and losers.
* Too many journalists command huge speaking fees to lecture at conferences conducted by special interest groups those same journalists cover. This creates a conflict of interest and suggests the journalists are giving these groups preferential treatment. It also makes the entire journalism profession look bad.

How does this affect American democracy? All these practices turn people off the media and political affairs, and those that still watch are ill-informed and badly served. A democracy relies on an educated citizenry, among other things.

Fallows does see hope in a new brand of journalism he calls public journalism, in which editors encourage their reporters to write on the substance of issues, and also promotes public values like civic involvement and public participation in politics. To many hard-nosed reporters, this sound like cheerleading, though Fallows insists it need not promote a specific individual, candidate, party or cause - it just encourages people to get involved. This, according to Fallows, is what people want from the media.

I share Fallows' frustration with the media's focus on political horse-racing rather than substantive issues, and the debate shows often do get out of hand when all the participants are trying to out-shout everyone else to push their talking points. From a reader standpoint, I don't care about columnists speaking for hire - it's their right and they are paid to write their opinions. If they're slanted toward a group or issue, so what? Reporters, I think, should be held to a different standard, because they are not paid to state their opinions.

Fallows discounts a media liberal bias, which I think is the major reason so many people are turning off the mainstream press outlets and tuning into talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News. His analysis suffers from this mistake.

This is a fun book, though, filled with interesting anecdotes and journalism inside baseball. I recommend it. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 14, 2013 David Stephens rated it really liked it

Shelves: cultural-criticism

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the leaks of Edward Snowden recently—whether they were helpful or harmful—and within those debates, there has been even more discussion about what the role of journalism should be. Should it simply present people with information in the most "objective" way possible, or should it advocate for certain positions over others?

Long time journalist for The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows, makes it clear why this is a highly specious question to answer. He There has been quite a bit of discussion about the leaks of Edward Snowden recently—whether they were helpful or harmful—and within those debates, there has been even more discussion about what the role of journalism should be. Should it simply present people with information in the most "objective" way possible, or should it advocate for certain positions over others?

Long time journalist for The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows, makes it clear why this is a highly specious question to answer. He posits that there is no objectivity in the news, and even reporters who believe they are merely laying out the facts are gravitating toward one position or another. To put it pointedly, he quotes Jonathan Cohn: "advocacy of elite interests comes so easily that it scarcely seems like bias at all." By not stressing whatever aspect of a story journalists find the most salient, they are unknowingly cheating people out of what they need to know.

Fallows doesn't limit himself to defining what it is journalists should do, though. He gives an overall account of the state of journalism, including how, in many cases, it's become infotainment, how it often gives precedence to political maneuvering over policy details, how important issues go unreported on if there is no disagreement between major figures of the two parties, and how journalists have ascended from the level of the common man up to celebrity status. All of this, of course, does a disservice to the public, who get disconnected from the world of journalists and discouraged by the sense of helplessness they feel.

Fallows links many of these problems to the rise and influence of TV. The medium lends itself to style over substance. There is a telling anecdote about the way people watch TV that I have heard before and still find unbelievable. In 1984, Leslie Stahl ran a piece about President Reagan's hypocrisy on mental health: posing at the Special Olympics and a newly opened nursing home while he was cutting funding for these same things. A Reagan official soon called Stahl and lauded her for the piece, explaining that people only saw the images and didn't pay any attention to the story itself.

While the book is fascinating and well done, for anyone who follows any kind of media criticism, it doesn't break a whole lot of new ground. Perhaps the most enlightening part to me was the exploration of the ongoing debate that began with Walter Lippman and John Dewey about just how much everyday citizens are able to maintain their own democracies without the help of any group of elites.

Unfortunately, the book also acts as a reminder that these problems were around fifteen years ago and still persist today. ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 01, 2014 John Jaksich rated it it was amazing

While this book was originally published in 1996, it has not lost its timeliness nor lustrous value. Mr. Fallows may one day reap generous accolades for this book-- and all his publications that he richly deserves.

However, I have taken my time in finishing this book and I am glad I did so. I started to read this book during the Obama President administration-- and I learned much from the wisdom contained herein.

While reading this book over a period of a few years-- I have come to understand how ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 09, 2011 Mary rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics, pcdo-politics-book-club

This analysis applies equally well today. There is no reporting on policies, just on who's ahead, the politics of the policies. Upper echelon journalists are making a killing on the lecture circuit, compromising their integrity in the process. The ethics of journalism is that coverage trumps compassion. But today things are worse, as people simply lie about the facts.

flag Like · see review

Jan 06, 2009 David rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: political, cultural

This book very nearly got 5 stars from me (I generally avoid 5 star ratings). It was very eye-opening to see the forces at work that encourage reporters to cover things in the unhelpful way that so many of them do. It ends by offering a glimmer of hope in the fact that there is a movement in some journalism circled to correct these growing errors.

flag Like · see review

Feb 20, 2008 Jennie rated it really liked it

I first read this about ten years ago in college and picked it up again not too long ago. It is a great read, but really depressing for anyone who looks to the media to act as a watchdog on government.

flag Like · see review

Aug 05, 2015 Michael Jenkins rated it liked it

A bit dated in today's fast-paced news world, but useful nonetheless. Points out the multitudinous failings of our media, the detrimental effects of that on our political system and how it could improve.

flag Like · see review

Aug 25, 2013 Brent rated it liked it

Recommends it for: journalism consumers and Fallows fans

Recommended to Brent by: The Atlantic monthly and Leon County Leroy Collins Public Library

Shelves: journalism, history

I seem to recall reading most of this in excerpts in The Atlantic, then checking it out from the public library in hardback.
I'll read Fallows on most topics, but this was just before the internet changed everything, and captured the bitter pills of the mid-1990s.

flag Like · see review

May 25, 2011 Ryan rated it really liked it

While dated with its examples, the book is prescient in content. The situation Fallows describes is even more true today than in the 90s and the warnings more important. An important read.

flag Like · see review

Jul 20, 2007 Hera Diani rated it really liked it

Confirming that journalists from developed countries are not necessary better (paging Jane Perlez!!) :)

flag Like · see review

Apr 13, 2012 Anastasia Sijabat rated it really liked it

Pardon my subjectivity since I'm a communication science student, but I think what Fallows wrote in this book was quite mindblowing. I absorb a lot of knowledge and good analysis here. Good job.

flag Like · see review