Self-admitted liar Connie Chung weaves some fascinating tales (thankfully slamming the horrible Dan Rather and the mean Bryant Gumbel) mixed with a shockingly large inability to recall specifics and details. For a supposed "journalist" she lacks many of the basics of what it means to be an honest reporter, unless she's attempting to do creative writing. While her stories hit all the important marks in her life, many are either insufficient in specifics or are simply difficult to believe.
It's filled with put-downs of men but constant bragging about herself, her husband, and her child. There are a number of false claims made, a lack of understand about the TV business, and a dramatic lack of introspection to consider her own many flaws. She hides behind repeated claims of sexism or racism, which is difficult to hear from a rich successful woman who did things no other had ever achieved.
It's laugh-out-loud absurd when she repeatedly claims to hold to high "journalistic" standards of "truth," then also mentions her lying, cheating, and stealing. So much for her understanding of the words "ethical journalism." While I welcome her lightly sharing her many faults (as well as her repeatedly hinting at sexual affairs she had with some famous men), she lacks introspection or redemption. Instead she's a tease--thinking we will appreciate her coy suggestiveness as being a bad girl. You'll just roll your eyes that a nationally known (and historic) anchorwomen would do these kind of things, much less mention them.
Chung, of course, was famously caught on camera with Newt Gingrich's mother, asking a question that Connie said would be "just between you and me." Then she made Mrs. Gingrich's response the headline of the entire interview that was made news throughout the world (that Newt thought Hilary Clinton was a "bitch"). Chung devotes a chapter to it, unsuccessfully trying to defend herself but never stating the truth--that she lied to Mrs. Gingrich and broke all journalistic honor by airing what the source was told would be confidential. Even with a camera running, if a reporter says it's off the record they can't use it. Period.
Chung was no stranger to lying. She admits that she would tell "fibs" when younger in order to keep herself from being embarrassed by the truth about her lower-class status in America. Even as an older adult, when the National Enquirer told her they were doing a story on her newborn baby, she agreed to cooperate, writing, "We would mask any accurate information and allow the tabloid to make mistakes." Yes, you read that right. She intentionally allowed lies and covered up the truth. That's unethical and the opposite of true journalism.
She also frequently in the text says that she can't recall specifics and details about almost everything. Major life events? She doesn't recall much and there are years that are skipped. Do you think she'd confirm with siblings or co-workers or even online? Nope, usually she just says she has a bad memory.
So how can you believe when she tells the harrowing story of her family leaving China, which happened before she was born? She admits she never talked to her parents about most of it--so how can she claim things happened with such certainty?
Or what do you do with her claim of being sexually assaulted in college by her family doctor? Here are her words: "The exact date and year are fuzzy, but details of the event are vivid." But those "details" take up only a couple sentences and there honestly isn't much to it. His touching her private parts was part of an exam, and the weirdest part was that she claims she was brought to orgasm before he bent down to give her a kiss ("a peck on the lips"). But she can't remember when this happened? She writes that those details are "insignificant." Well, Connie, without any evidence those details become very significant and raise suspicions about the validity of the story.
She didn't tell others, lied to avoid going to see the doctor again, and then decades later says husband Maury Povich was the first she ever told about it: "Was it before or after we were married? I don't remember." Seriously? She doesn't recall telling the supposedly most horrific thing in her lifetime for the only time she has ever told it?
Then Connie dares to defend feminist operative Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who claimed future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teens. First, the two situations were completely different, and second, there was zero proof of either event occurring. You cannot just simply believe an accusation when there is no evidence, and there are cases where women try to falsely accuse men for a variety of reasons (including political) or have false memories. Wish we'd as a society work as hard to find out the truth about accused men as liberals are trying to free actual killers and criminals.
It's extremely ironic (or hypocritical) when later in the book Chung describes a similar unwelcome sexual advance by Senator George McGovern, the Democrat running for president of the United States. He invites her to his vacation home while his wife isn't there and tries to kiss her "in a dark, narrow hallway." This is not reported by her as a sexual assault or harassment, but she seems to take it as a compliment, writing, "It was not an aggressive act. Just a surprising one."
So the doctor that kissed her just a few feet from his wife in the office was a bad guy but this married famous American Senator that coerced her into his private home while his wife was gone was being nice by giving her an unwanted kiss? Why, because McGovern was a powerful political liberal that she doesn't want to make look bad? The book is filled with these types of contradictions, which diminish her repeated claims of being a consistent feminist truth-teller.
So there is no evidence here for a number of claims she makes. As a "journalist" she should know better--her spewing her opinions doesn't make any of this accurate or true. Her ridiculous claim that she feared speaking up to support Blasey Ford because "In telling my story, I crossed the invisible line I had assiduously avoided my entire career. Shielding my personal thoughts and biases, especially in my news reporting, was crucial to my credibility." Ha! Is she serious? She was one of the most obnoxious, opinionated, mean-spirited, anti-conservative "journalists" out there. Just look at the Newt Gingrich story, where an off-the-record comment was misused unethically to make the Republican Speaker of the House look bad.
Connie Chung should be ashamed. True journalists shouldn't hide their liberal biases as she claims and pretend of be objective. They have to be fair and handle accurately the truth but it's better to admit up front that you have biases, then let us decide whether we can trust what you present to us. In this case, she's delusional and in denial, offering a life story that isn't objective or completely honest.