Into The Buzzsaw (Hardcover)

I found 'Into the Buzzsaw' troubling, but not for the reasons you might think. The primary source of uneasy tension I felt while reading the book sprouted because I just wasn't sure whether I could believe the assertions of the various contributors or how far I could trust their veracity. It's not an easy question to wrestle with, and there is no solution between the covers of the book.

In his book 'Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion', Robert Cialdini shows how we take our cues about credibility from symbols of authority and that we look for reinforcement of our opinion from others who believe the same as we. Such a system gives a high level of credibility (though not an unimpeachable one) to major papers such as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. It also leads us to add weight the opinions and statements of people who hold elected office or some other government position - an official imprimatur of authority. It does not, however, lend itself automatically to a high level of credibility for a book put together by a loose band of journalists and other media figures who buck the conventional wisdom - (another source of anonymous authority - who decides what that wisdom is and where do they hold the convention?).

Further difficulty arose from the fact that a few of the contributors appear to have an axe to grind. Vindictiveness can come through in writing, and when it occurs, it can lead the reader to the credible alternative theory that the author is slanting facts to support a pre-determined, biased conclusion. This undercuts the argument that these authors are attempting to make. Also, in one or two instances, there appeared to be significant questions about the situations that were not explored fully enough to rule out alternate explanations for the events described. Finally, in reading this book I also began to have questions about the limits journalistic expertise when it comes to various subject matters. There were one or two times when I didn't trust the reporter to know enough about the subject to be able to draw correct conclusions from the limited evidence they presented, particularly in the 2nd chapter regarding bovine hormones.

That said, this is an important book and well worth reading. Most of the authors are credible and appear to be primarily concerned with shedding light on the workings of the modern media, not with promoting their bias. You don't have to believe everything that the individual contributors assert to understand and recognize the validity of the primary point - that there is an underlying form of censorship (including self-censorship) that acts to protect powerful interests. There are innumerable examples independent of this book that show how such organizations, in a position of influence, use that influence to shape or suppress, distort or obfuscate coverage of their activities. Watergate and Travelgate come to mind for starters. This book does a good job of breaking down the credibility lent by cues of authority and reinforcing the healthy and appropriate skepticism that should accompany assertions by 'official sources'.

Had I proofed this book before publication, I would have advised a few of the authors to tone down their writing - to make it more serious. I'm no fan of plodding writing and I enjoy a good Dave Barry column as much as anyone - but loose language is sometimes inappropriate when your credibility is at issue. Nevertheless it is an entertaining read and will make you think, in more ways than one, about an issue that is at stake in any healthy democracy - who do we trust to give us our information? I gave it 4 stars to reflect the tension I felt in reading 'Into the Buzzsaw', but if the subject of the media, government, bias and censorship at all interests you, this is an excellent book to read.

Publisher's Weekly seems to think this book is "uneven" because most of the other essays don't present as many details about their authors' investigations as the four I mentioned above. For example, the essay by Jane Akre is mostly an account of how Fox News was pressured by Monsanto to cancel her story about the consequences of giving recombinant bovine growth hormone to cows in order to stimulate higher milk production.

However, several of the essays provide valuable insights without describing specific cases their authors investigated. The concluding chapter, by Robert McChesney, reviews the history of journalism, pointing out that partisan presses were the norm at the time the Constitution was ratified. The notion of "objective" or "professional" journalism arose in the 20th century, and had some unintended drawbacks such as its emphasis that each story must have a "hook" or "peg" (which explains why starvation and pollution don't get covered unless a disastrous event occurs).

I highly recommend this book to anyone involved (or just interested) in investigative journalism. The opening chapter by Gerard Colby is of more general interest because he describes the practice of "privishing" (privately publishing a book in a way that kills it), which since the 1970s has been done increasingly for reasons of profitability not just politics. Colby details how his book *Du Pont: Behind the Nylon Curtain* was privished because the du Pont family took offense at some of its facts and allegations (e.g., a description of the Gunpowder Trust and a quote from Secretary of War Newton Baker about the family overcharging the US government $250 million during WW1).

The essay "Silence of the Lambs" by Gregory Palast is not a mere "rant" as claimed by Publisher's Weekly. He outlines his evidence that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris illegally purged over 50,000 voters from the Florida rolls before the 2000 election. In addition, he describes key differences between US and UK laws about press freedom and libel, illustrating with his own case of being sued in the UK by Barrick for describing an alleged incident at one of their African mines which occurred *before they owned it.*