What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Are We The Good Guys?: Reclaiming Your Mind From The Delusions Of Propaganda
One of the unspoken assumptions of the Western world is that we are great defenders of human rights, a free press and the benefits of market economics. Mistakes might be made along the way, perhaps even tragic errors of judgement such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the prevailing view is that the West is essentially a force for good in the wider world. Why Are We The Good Guys? is a provocative challenge of this false ideology.
David Cromwell digs beneath standard accounts of crucial issues such as foreign policy, climate change and the constant struggle between state-corporate power and genuine democracy. The powerful evidence-based analysis of current affairs is leavened by some of the formative experiences that led the author to question the basic myth of Western benevolence: from schoolroom experiments in democracy, exposure to radical ideas at home, and a mercy mission while at sea; to an unexpected encounter with former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the struggles to publish hard-hitting journalism, and the founding of Media Lens in 2001.
David Cromwell digs beneath standard accounts of crucial issues such as foreign policy, climate change and the constant struggle between state-corporate power and genuine democracy. The powerful evidence-based analysis of current affairs is leavened by some of the formative experiences that led the author to question the basic myth of Western benevolence: from schoolroom experiments in democracy, exposure to radical ideas at home, and a mercy mission while at sea; to an unexpected encounter with former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the struggles to publish hard-hitting journalism, and the founding of Media Lens in 2001.
329 pages, Paperback
First published September 16, 2012
30 people are currently reading
1767 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 18, 2014
Written to debunk the myth that western countries are the good guys in global affairs. There are plenty of political commentators out there with views in this vein, but many of the best-known focus on the USA, whereas this book is primarily about Britain, which is why I decided to read it. Disappointingly, I couldn't get into 'Why Are We The Good Guys' at all.
One thing that jumped out at me, having recently read Chomsky's 'Understanding Power', is that on points of fact Chomsky takes enormous amounts of information from primary sources, such as declassified government records. Cromwell often just quotes other commentators he agrees with, like Chomsky himself, John Pilger, and so on. It therefore seems that much of this book is simply Cromwell echoing the views of like-minded authors. For this reason, I didn't really feel like I was learning much by reading this.
Additionally, in many places, the book reads like an unfocussed rant. Each chapter is about a particular topic that aims to show how the people/systems in charge aren't actually benign and good, despite what they would have us believe; but the point of emphasis is continually undermined by the way the author repeatedly lashes out more generally at pretty much everything and everyone who doesn't agree with him.
His favourite is the media. Cromwell includes in the text a range of correspondence he has engaged in over the years with various journalists at British newspapers. The typical pattern is that he writes them hectoring, disdainfully accusatory emails then complains and accuses them of arrogance when they stop replying.
Even when citing cases of the British press printing clear-cut criticisms of the system, for example of received wisdom in economics in the section on the credit crunch, he complains they don't go far enough. Perhaps he would only be satisfied when they all started agitating for anarchism.
More generally, the author's tone really put me off. Discussion degenerates into a kind of rambling pontification, and Cromwell seems to be largely preaching to the converted, which I found quite frustrating.
On top of that, the book is full of frequent bald assertions that the author doesn't bother to qualify, justify or explain in depth. For example, the author claims the boom-and-bust nature of capitalism is inevitable through a brief reference to Marx, which really does require more than a page or so of summarised argument, then states:
"The most destructive bust occurred in the 1930s Great Depression, leading to the Second World War and the deaths of over 60 million people."
Let me get this straight. Boom and bust is inevitable in capitalism. One bust caused WWII, in which over 60 million people died. So capitalism inevitably caused the deaths of over 60 million people? Presumably this is not quite what the author was getting at; either way, my feeling is that Cromwell is guilty of both oversimplifying issues and sloppy argumentation.
This is a shame because I broadly agree with what the author is saying here about powerful interests working for their own ends and burying it all under an edifice of propaganda, which the media often does a poor job of scrutinising.
I just don't feel much more informed having read this book. Rather than being a measured and detailed discussion of an interesting topic, this book feels quite scattergun and blustering, even superficial in places. Disappointing.
The reason for giving this two stars rather than one is that Cromwell quotes and references some interesting ideas which I will go read about in more detail, and because there are parts of the book where the author manages to keep a lid on his frustrations and tell us something new and factual.
One thing that jumped out at me, having recently read Chomsky's 'Understanding Power', is that on points of fact Chomsky takes enormous amounts of information from primary sources, such as declassified government records. Cromwell often just quotes other commentators he agrees with, like Chomsky himself, John Pilger, and so on. It therefore seems that much of this book is simply Cromwell echoing the views of like-minded authors. For this reason, I didn't really feel like I was learning much by reading this.
Additionally, in many places, the book reads like an unfocussed rant. Each chapter is about a particular topic that aims to show how the people/systems in charge aren't actually benign and good, despite what they would have us believe; but the point of emphasis is continually undermined by the way the author repeatedly lashes out more generally at pretty much everything and everyone who doesn't agree with him.
His favourite is the media. Cromwell includes in the text a range of correspondence he has engaged in over the years with various journalists at British newspapers. The typical pattern is that he writes them hectoring, disdainfully accusatory emails then complains and accuses them of arrogance when they stop replying.
Even when citing cases of the British press printing clear-cut criticisms of the system, for example of received wisdom in economics in the section on the credit crunch, he complains they don't go far enough. Perhaps he would only be satisfied when they all started agitating for anarchism.
More generally, the author's tone really put me off. Discussion degenerates into a kind of rambling pontification, and Cromwell seems to be largely preaching to the converted, which I found quite frustrating.
On top of that, the book is full of frequent bald assertions that the author doesn't bother to qualify, justify or explain in depth. For example, the author claims the boom-and-bust nature of capitalism is inevitable through a brief reference to Marx, which really does require more than a page or so of summarised argument, then states:
"The most destructive bust occurred in the 1930s Great Depression, leading to the Second World War and the deaths of over 60 million people."
Let me get this straight. Boom and bust is inevitable in capitalism. One bust caused WWII, in which over 60 million people died. So capitalism inevitably caused the deaths of over 60 million people? Presumably this is not quite what the author was getting at; either way, my feeling is that Cromwell is guilty of both oversimplifying issues and sloppy argumentation.
This is a shame because I broadly agree with what the author is saying here about powerful interests working for their own ends and burying it all under an edifice of propaganda, which the media often does a poor job of scrutinising.
I just don't feel much more informed having read this book. Rather than being a measured and detailed discussion of an interesting topic, this book feels quite scattergun and blustering, even superficial in places. Disappointing.
The reason for giving this two stars rather than one is that Cromwell quotes and references some interesting ideas which I will go read about in more detail, and because there are parts of the book where the author manages to keep a lid on his frustrations and tell us something new and factual.
December 4, 2025
I saw this book on Pinterest, and I think this is the first and last time I'm taking a Pinterest recommendation because the book was an attempt to be of substance...but quickly fell into the author just emailing journalists like "why didn't you write this article LIKE I WOULD?"
It did open my eyes to certain topics but.... I feel a weird longing that the book this was supposed to be is somewhere out there.
It did open my eyes to certain topics but.... I feel a weird longing that the book this was supposed to be is somewhere out there.
May 16, 2024
Like 50% of this is David showing off his emails to newspaper journalists but fortunately that’s still pretty fun.
July 4, 2023
Jamás los temas como la intervención militar, la guerra, el colonialismo, el neoliberalismo y la propaganda mediática tuvieron tanto filo.
May 27, 2014
I agree with another reviewer that Cromwell does quote many other sources who, to be honest, have better material. However, where this book excels is when Cromwell is highlighting the failures of mainstream media to raise necessary questions and in effect to report the news rather than just repeat the government line or other news outlets. Some of the failings by said media are down right shocking and the impacts are devastating and lasting. People sometimes tend to think the media as somewhat benign and not to be taken too seriously but the truth is it does have sway over a large amount of public consensus and can mobilise people.
Cromwell jumps between different topics in the book, some unexpected and it creates for a somewhat disjointed read but there is plenty of material given to inspire further reading with sources from important writers and journalists such as Orwell, Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk etc. to name but a few.
Finally, the above strengths of the book can be much better appreciated through their website www.medialens.org and I highly recommend people read its articles (for free) before approaching this book.
Cromwell jumps between different topics in the book, some unexpected and it creates for a somewhat disjointed read but there is plenty of material given to inspire further reading with sources from important writers and journalists such as Orwell, Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk etc. to name but a few.
Finally, the above strengths of the book can be much better appreciated through their website www.medialens.org and I highly recommend people read its articles (for free) before approaching this book.
June 13, 2021
A well-reasoned, thought-provoking book that I found difficult to read at times because of the myriad foundational assumptions that it challenges. And I'm someone who agrees with the basic premise (someone would didn't would throw this book down in disgust 10 pages in, but that's part of the point Cromwell is making here). The titular "We" is the UK, the US, and really, the West and all its ideology on the whole. Cromwell attacks the Iraq War (the book was written shortly after its start) and the conflict's original, utterly fabricated reasons, but also assails the privileged place of corporations in contemporary society, the far-too-complicit bedfellow big business has found in the media, the denial of climate change, and even the fallacies inherent in historical myth-building, like the perpetuation of the "truth" that the US needed to drop nuclear weapons on Japan to end WWII.
I have, at times, questioned various themes that the author covers here in varying degrees, but realizing how much we simply accept as "that's just the way things are" or "the US needed to do ______ for the betterment of civilization" when it is abundantly clear that such positions don't hold up to even the most superficial of scrutiny is humbling, embarrassing, and maddening in equal measure.
The book closes with what the author would try and claim is a positive note - looking at biological/psychological research and even a dip into spirituality in an attempt to show that we are not "designed" to adhere to a "survival of the fittest" mentality, and that we could just as easily embrace compassion on a societal level as we choose to embrace division and to sow discord. Really, though, if the two decades that have passed since the book's writing are any indication, Cromwell's low-grade idealism is largely unwarranted.
I have, at times, questioned various themes that the author covers here in varying degrees, but realizing how much we simply accept as "that's just the way things are" or "the US needed to do ______ for the betterment of civilization" when it is abundantly clear that such positions don't hold up to even the most superficial of scrutiny is humbling, embarrassing, and maddening in equal measure.
The book closes with what the author would try and claim is a positive note - looking at biological/psychological research and even a dip into spirituality in an attempt to show that we are not "designed" to adhere to a "survival of the fittest" mentality, and that we could just as easily embrace compassion on a societal level as we choose to embrace division and to sow discord. Really, though, if the two decades that have passed since the book's writing are any indication, Cromwell's low-grade idealism is largely unwarranted.
October 5, 2014
I loved the argument presented. I thought it was very well researched and articulated, but unfortunately I was already sold even before I started reading this fantastic book as I have always had trouble digesting the Western medias narrative, being raised in a very skeptical Pakistani culture.
Although the book is very well presented but I feel the effort may be wasted on the majority living in the enlightened West. After all most are aware of their privileged position and probably keen to maintain it as much as the method employed is ugly from time to time. Therefore I don't really expect this book to make huge waves in the West, as yet at least.
The other reason could be that people in developing countries are bred with a healthy apprehension against their own governments who haven't exactly managed to 'educate' their populations as well as Western governments. The ordinary Western citizen is certainly well groomed but unfortunately that makes revolt more difficult.
As Orwell said, circus dogs will start performing at the sound of the whip, but a very well trained dog will preform without waiting for the whip to sound.
Although the book is very well presented but I feel the effort may be wasted on the majority living in the enlightened West. After all most are aware of their privileged position and probably keen to maintain it as much as the method employed is ugly from time to time. Therefore I don't really expect this book to make huge waves in the West, as yet at least.
The other reason could be that people in developing countries are bred with a healthy apprehension against their own governments who haven't exactly managed to 'educate' their populations as well as Western governments. The ordinary Western citizen is certainly well groomed but unfortunately that makes revolt more difficult.
As Orwell said, circus dogs will start performing at the sound of the whip, but a very well trained dog will preform without waiting for the whip to sound.
December 27, 2014
Valid points made, as expected, on the nature of corporate-state power and its invaluable servants of propaganda, yet the author's emphatic anti-war stance seems to descend into mere anti-Westernism - to heap blame upon the Allies for the antics of Nazi Germany, for contributing to and intensifying the eruption of the conflict, appears a leap too far for the sceptical mind.
March 18, 2015
To be skeptical is to question rather than to accept. Common skepticism and philosophical skepticism are not so much distinct concepts as points on a continuum. A problem arises for those of us who maintain a skeptical view of the world - where, if anywhere on this continuum, to stop.
The primary theme of this book is a rebuke of the accepted western worldview, and Cromwell presents much evidence in support of his argument. However, to remain to true to skepticism, we should also be skeptical of the skeptics. Could we reach satisfaction by fact checking every citation in the bibliography? Would we need to fact check their citations? Can we get back to first principles?
Of course my questions are rhetorical, but this line of thinking can lead to an almost solipsistic culmination, the questioning of ontology, the nature of knowledge, of truth.
Who if anyone can we believe?
We can probably conclude by observing different groups presenting mutually exclusive perspectives of reality, that one of these is false. Is it a leap to extend this by saying one of these perspectives is propagated (a) knowing that it is false and (b) with a specific intention?
By blurring the lines between truth and fabrication, can we accept that this is a victory of sorts for those propagating fictions, and a loss for those truly trying to promote an honest worldview.
What we are left with, if we wish to move forward, is subjective judgments on the relative probabilities of truth.
David Cromwell is an editor (and founder?) of Medialens, a kind of media watchdog organisation. I had never heard of them before reading this book, so please excuse me if that description is less than fully accurate.
Cromwell describes mainstream media (with a UK-centered focus) as being complicit with Western Governments in promoting a worldview that the "west" is inherently good. Atrocities committed by western powers thereby get downplayed or justified, whereas comparable acts by non-western countries or organisations are classed as terror/genocide. The west gets the benefit of the doubt: "clumsy and confused rather than criminal, cynical and immoral".
In particular Cromwell really takes the BBC to task, as a major disseminator of propaganda. This surprised me. I don't frequently watch BBC News, but my impression was of a (relatively) reasonable, almost bland news organisation. Perhaps it is because of this reputation that Cromwell takes them most to task.
Cromwell's timeline stretches across the Atomic Bombings of Japan, the Marshall Plan, Vietnam, the failure to act on climate change, the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The first third to one-half of the book reads a lot like a prosecution attorney building a case. From the reader's perspective this can leave the book a little dry in patches, though never for too long as the book is structured into short thought chunks only a few pages long.
Another device Cromwell employs is publishing correspondence he has had with various journalists, asking them to explain their (perceived) dereliction of duty or pointing out some overlooked perspective to them. He gets a range of types of responses, hostile, dismissive, semi-apologetic, excusatory and silence. Beyond a point I wonder the value being added by each successive dialogue. It almost feels like an effort to embarrass the journalists. As a reader I gain little new insight, merely reconfirming an already confirmed point (that journalists report with an underlying pro-western, pro-capitalist perspective). Though if I refer to the analogy of the attorney building a case, he remains consistent.
Corporate behaviour is likened to psychopath behaviour and Cromwell presents an argument against the pro-capitalism ideology presented by the media (raising living standards, spreading freedom etc).
"Bakan showed that corporate behaviour closely matches the clinical definition of a psychopath, including: ‘callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.’"
The book takes an unexpected turn towards the end, venturing into philosophy, freedom as a need, Buddhism, conformity, the need to belong.
"The consequences of this fear can be harmful indeed: ‘in our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness,’ wrote Fromm, ‘we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns.’"
This turn will perhaps alienate some readers, who may feel they hadn't signed up for philosophy. For me it connects the arguments presented in the preceding chapters to a greater whole. Why is this propoganda successful? If it is truly propoganda, how is it so widely believed, why do we dismiss alternative presentations of reality?
Cromwell tries to finish on an optimistic tone, but it is not as convincing as his other arguments. His route to freedom is through individual compassion, non-violent protest and in the recognition of an innate empathy within humans. He rejects the "killer ape" depiction of humanity. My issue, and the reason for my pessimism is the disparity in power between the organised forces of propoganda Cromwell describes throughout the book, and the individualistic "motherhood and apple pie" that is the basis for his optimism. There is a lack of pragmatism, suggesting his optimism will be unrealised.
Nonetheless, as a whole the book succeeds in creating a compelling perspective on modern society, and particularly the role the media plays in cementing the status quo rather than acting for the common good.
The primary theme of this book is a rebuke of the accepted western worldview, and Cromwell presents much evidence in support of his argument. However, to remain to true to skepticism, we should also be skeptical of the skeptics. Could we reach satisfaction by fact checking every citation in the bibliography? Would we need to fact check their citations? Can we get back to first principles?
Of course my questions are rhetorical, but this line of thinking can lead to an almost solipsistic culmination, the questioning of ontology, the nature of knowledge, of truth.
Who if anyone can we believe?
We can probably conclude by observing different groups presenting mutually exclusive perspectives of reality, that one of these is false. Is it a leap to extend this by saying one of these perspectives is propagated (a) knowing that it is false and (b) with a specific intention?
By blurring the lines between truth and fabrication, can we accept that this is a victory of sorts for those propagating fictions, and a loss for those truly trying to promote an honest worldview.
What we are left with, if we wish to move forward, is subjective judgments on the relative probabilities of truth.
David Cromwell is an editor (and founder?) of Medialens, a kind of media watchdog organisation. I had never heard of them before reading this book, so please excuse me if that description is less than fully accurate.
Cromwell describes mainstream media (with a UK-centered focus) as being complicit with Western Governments in promoting a worldview that the "west" is inherently good. Atrocities committed by western powers thereby get downplayed or justified, whereas comparable acts by non-western countries or organisations are classed as terror/genocide. The west gets the benefit of the doubt: "clumsy and confused rather than criminal, cynical and immoral".
In particular Cromwell really takes the BBC to task, as a major disseminator of propaganda. This surprised me. I don't frequently watch BBC News, but my impression was of a (relatively) reasonable, almost bland news organisation. Perhaps it is because of this reputation that Cromwell takes them most to task.
Cromwell's timeline stretches across the Atomic Bombings of Japan, the Marshall Plan, Vietnam, the failure to act on climate change, the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The first third to one-half of the book reads a lot like a prosecution attorney building a case. From the reader's perspective this can leave the book a little dry in patches, though never for too long as the book is structured into short thought chunks only a few pages long.
Another device Cromwell employs is publishing correspondence he has had with various journalists, asking them to explain their (perceived) dereliction of duty or pointing out some overlooked perspective to them. He gets a range of types of responses, hostile, dismissive, semi-apologetic, excusatory and silence. Beyond a point I wonder the value being added by each successive dialogue. It almost feels like an effort to embarrass the journalists. As a reader I gain little new insight, merely reconfirming an already confirmed point (that journalists report with an underlying pro-western, pro-capitalist perspective). Though if I refer to the analogy of the attorney building a case, he remains consistent.
Corporate behaviour is likened to psychopath behaviour and Cromwell presents an argument against the pro-capitalism ideology presented by the media (raising living standards, spreading freedom etc).
"Bakan showed that corporate behaviour closely matches the clinical definition of a psychopath, including: ‘callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.’"
The book takes an unexpected turn towards the end, venturing into philosophy, freedom as a need, Buddhism, conformity, the need to belong.
"The consequences of this fear can be harmful indeed: ‘in our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness,’ wrote Fromm, ‘we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns.’"
This turn will perhaps alienate some readers, who may feel they hadn't signed up for philosophy. For me it connects the arguments presented in the preceding chapters to a greater whole. Why is this propoganda successful? If it is truly propoganda, how is it so widely believed, why do we dismiss alternative presentations of reality?
Cromwell tries to finish on an optimistic tone, but it is not as convincing as his other arguments. His route to freedom is through individual compassion, non-violent protest and in the recognition of an innate empathy within humans. He rejects the "killer ape" depiction of humanity. My issue, and the reason for my pessimism is the disparity in power between the organised forces of propoganda Cromwell describes throughout the book, and the individualistic "motherhood and apple pie" that is the basis for his optimism. There is a lack of pragmatism, suggesting his optimism will be unrealised.
Nonetheless, as a whole the book succeeds in creating a compelling perspective on modern society, and particularly the role the media plays in cementing the status quo rather than acting for the common good.
Read
April 17, 2025Es de esos libros que se tienen que leer dos veces para alcanzar a comprender todos los detalles que abarca si cómo yo, eres alguien nuevo ante ensayos políticos, sociales y económicos tan detallados. Me encanta que cite tantas veces a Chomsky, siempre quedando claro que el lenguaje (lo queramos ver o no), será indudablemente la clave para manejar un país, un continente y hasta el mundo entero.
April 5, 2024
I thought it was going to be some astute left- wing self- criticism, but it was just some guy going on about Iraq eight years too late.
July 5, 2025
Relevant, intressant, men alldeles för mycket irrelevant information. Att läsa facklitteratur på sommaren är segt nog — kom till saken.
August 3, 2014
This book could have been very good. I do not think it is particularly well written and it is in need of a good editor to help give it direction. As someone who frequently gets lost, it feels like reading about me walking one of my less than direct routes to somewhere quite close by to my starting point.
It comes from Medialens, a website which aims to cut through the clap trap of the news corporations and whose work I readily applaud. The book was, however, not very good at all. It seems to deal with a very random set of topics in a haphazard way. There was no golden thread running through the book, thus it is more of a collection of essays, some of which have their own wild tangents best skipped over. Chapter 9 seems almost to be a chapter on self-improvement whilst other chapters deal with the media and politics or economics (not that I am drawing a line between the two). Almost all of the earlier chapters have email exchanges reproduced between Cromwell and various reporters. As another reviewer commented, he seems to stomp his feet about how they react to him. This becomes tiresome.
To echo another reviewer, he relies heavily on other writers. I have read a lot of Chomsky and some of the book read like a (good) undergraduate essay where the question would be phrased along the lines of, 'Given Noam Chomsky's view on xyz...'
In the end, I couldn't finish it. The chapter with frequent references to Buddhism (when I want to read about Buddhism, I won't read a book about the media which cites the authors I read on Buddhism) completely turned me off. In the end, I found that there were increasingly longer stretches of drivel and I lost patience.
It comes from Medialens, a website which aims to cut through the clap trap of the news corporations and whose work I readily applaud. The book was, however, not very good at all. It seems to deal with a very random set of topics in a haphazard way. There was no golden thread running through the book, thus it is more of a collection of essays, some of which have their own wild tangents best skipped over. Chapter 9 seems almost to be a chapter on self-improvement whilst other chapters deal with the media and politics or economics (not that I am drawing a line between the two). Almost all of the earlier chapters have email exchanges reproduced between Cromwell and various reporters. As another reviewer commented, he seems to stomp his feet about how they react to him. This becomes tiresome.
To echo another reviewer, he relies heavily on other writers. I have read a lot of Chomsky and some of the book read like a (good) undergraduate essay where the question would be phrased along the lines of, 'Given Noam Chomsky's view on xyz...'
In the end, I couldn't finish it. The chapter with frequent references to Buddhism (when I want to read about Buddhism, I won't read a book about the media which cites the authors I read on Buddhism) completely turned me off. In the end, I found that there were increasingly longer stretches of drivel and I lost patience.
May 24, 2016
I agree with the author's argument and he clearly knows his stuff. But I couldn't make it to the end of this.
The flow of the book is quite disjointed and the biggest problem is that you have to wade through pages of examples and evidence (letters, painstaking lists of facts) reiterating the same point. I know this content is valuable and you can't make an argument on thin air. But surely the content would have been better off if moved into footnotes?
At least this way I'd have been able to re-read the book and dig into footnotes when I wanted to see the evidence behind the argument. As it was, I found it too dense to get through and would rather go and read book by/on Noam Chomsky instead.
The flow of the book is quite disjointed and the biggest problem is that you have to wade through pages of examples and evidence (letters, painstaking lists of facts) reiterating the same point. I know this content is valuable and you can't make an argument on thin air. But surely the content would have been better off if moved into footnotes?
At least this way I'd have been able to re-read the book and dig into footnotes when I wanted to see the evidence behind the argument. As it was, I found it too dense to get through and would rather go and read book by/on Noam Chomsky instead.
April 26, 2015
A good book to read when there is some crisis in the world. At the moment it is people drowning in the Med trying to get to Europe. Are we the good guys? If you watch the press/media, then we want to help. This book encourages a greater depth and to question. Have we helped to cause this? The writer looks at the reporting of war, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, economics - the crash and the aftermath and other issues. He analyses and questions from a left-wing perspective and even delves deep into philosophical existentialism.
Cahallenging and vital stuff.
Cahallenging and vital stuff.
February 26, 2016
Couldn't finish this. Agree with the author's politics, but this isn't particularly well written. It's rather rambling and there's a bit too much of his 'journey' in there, which is the fashion these days of course, but only works for me if the author's experience is particularly entertaining and noteworthy, or written with great insight or humour. I didn't find that the case here unfortunately.
Want to Read
September 19, 2012Medialens.org: Why Are We The Good Guys?
March 5, 2015
Best read on an e-reader that lets you change the text to green.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews