CDN$ 111.10
Usually ships within 3 to 6 weeks.
Ships from and sold by
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Why Nicaragua Vanished: A Story of Reporters and Revolutionaries Hardcover – Apr 9 2003

Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"
CDN$ 111.10
CDN$ 96.83 CDN$ 96.82

Join Amazon Student in Canada


Product Details

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 3 reviews
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful
A brilliant and well-researched study Aug. 23 2004
By FactChex - Published on
Format: Hardcover
During the 1980s, the conflict in Nicaragua between the ruling FSLN and the US-backed Contras was big news. The predominant picture of this struggle reported by the US mass media was one of left-leaning nationalist revolutionaries battling an unpopular and brutal insurgency instigated by the United States. Yet when the Sandinistas were forced to hold internationally supervised elections in 1990 they lost in a landslide, dismaying US reporters who were almost unanimous in predicting the opposite result. In Why Nicaragua Vanished, Robert Leiken demonstrates why they shouldn't have been so shocked: both the widespread dissatisfaction with the Sandinistas and the broad support for the Contras in the countryside were easily discerned by the handful of observers who covered the war objectively.

From the ideology of the Sandinistas, to the causes and makeup of the Contra rebellion, to the propaganda battle waged over human rights, to the coverage of elections in 1984 and 1990, Why Nicaragua Vanished is both devastating in its refutation of long-standing myths about Nicaragua's civil war and convincing in its analysis of reporters who let a system of stereotypes blind them to the reality of what they were reporting on.
A scathing review of the media's performance in covering Nicaragua in the 1980s March 15 2014
By John Desmond - Published on
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Leiken strips away the façade of objectivity and professionalism that the "mainstream media" cloaks itself with using the issue of the Sandinista regime, its rise and fall, as the tool. He carefully documents how dozens of supposedly professional journalists allowed themselves to be duped by the Sandinista regime into mouthing its own propaganda and how they managed to miss a true revolution, that of the Nicaraguan people against this communist dictatorship in the election that overthrew it. Leiken gets a little down in the weeds in detailing his methodology and the pseudo-scientific babble of political scientist analysis, but you can skim over those parts. The likes of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and others come across as immensely stupid or ideologically blinded.
4 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Intellectual dishonesty Oct. 30 2005
By W. A. Barnes - Published on
Format: Hardcover
Robert Leiken is a good writer, but he is also an intellectually dishonest ideologue.

My point is not that none of his criticisms of reporters, pollsters, academics or the Commission on Nicaragua Pre-Election Polls have any merit; he over-generalizes, over- reaches, quotes selectively, and minimizes or ignores countervailing evidence, but in some regards he has a case. Nor is my point that none of his criticisms apply to me, some of them do, in varying degrees (though his explicit attack on me is a complete distortion and in bad faith given our prior correspondence). My point rather is that he simply is not interested in understanding and engaging the actual arguments of his targets(with the partial exceptions of Preston and Kinzer). He is only interested in plucking phrases out of context to use in supporting his ax-grinding. Given his treatment of me, I can only conclude that nothing he says about anybody else can be trusted. One would have to search out and read every single source that Leiken quotes or cites in order to see whether or not he has been accurate and fair (and in some cases to see whether his source deserves credence, whether there is any reliable foundation for his proffered evidence, given his habit of accepting at face value whatever he is told by highly tendentious sources like Virgilio Godoy and Roger Guevara Mena).

Leiken had a chance to produce a book that would have been useful and challenging, and he threw it away out of ideological dogmatism and political animus. The intellectual instincts of his sectarian past persist. He's got a lot of nerve accusing others of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.

Bill Barnes

Oakland, CA