Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias: Why the Pre… (2024)

Watching the acceleration of anger in politics over the last many decades, it has been difficult to find the fulcrum when the press descended to narrative reporting. Narrative reporting, for lack of a formal definition is when the reporter selects only the facts of the story that supports political position the media outlet supports. It’s not the typical who what when and why of good reporting.

Fleischer flushes out what happened to both ends of the media’s political outlets, as all have carved out their selective groups to report to. Fleischer points out that the new approach isn’t the way reporting was done in long past decades and further splits political audiences into angry silos.

Fleischer's book is a wonderful expose of the press' and media's failure over the last two decades. More important, as an insider with four decades in the press - he paints of a difficult portrait of the decline from honest reporting to clickbait for dollars and cheerleading.

Much thanks, Ari. Great book. - Tom L.

Because I get my news from a variety of sources that include liberal, conservative, moderate and European, most of the information in Ari Fleischer’s new book isn’t new to me. It is shocking, overwhelming and AGGRAVATING to read it all at once.

Fleischer has done a great job organizing a massive amount of information. Chapter 4 deals with the disintegration of media, (newspaper, reporting, publishing, tv), as the fourth pillar of democracy to becoming a weapon of “Suppression, Deception, Snobbery and Bias” and for the most part, the bias leans decidedly to the left. Gone are the days of honest, hard hitting, investigative journalism. We now have agenda publishing, truth be damned. What boggles my mind is the effect, or lack thereof, on the legal system. Where are the lawyers in the midst of all this prevarication that’s being perpetrated as truth?

By and large, demise of the press reaches its pinnacle with the rise of Donald Trump. It’s a mutual hate relationship and Fleischer provides details most people will probably have never heard about including what should have been an innocuous and innocent koi feeding event in Japan with Prime Minister Abe. The lengths this CNN reporter went to in order to fabricate “news” is astounding and when called on her subterfuge, America is left looking foolish internationally.

But wait, there is another example of international buffoonery that puts this one to shame. ABC World News and CNN fed off of each other’s emotional stupidity and declared that fireworks in London and church bells in France were in celebration for Biden being declared the winner of the 2020 election. Turns out that London is celebrating a 500 year old, annual event marking a failed assassination attempt on King James I and in France it was simply 6:00 mass! The European newscasters had great fun making mockery, as well they should.

Additional topics include details about how the media works, viewership, how stories come to life or get left on the floor, are too good to be messed with or are a worthy cause vs unworthy, depending on your politics, plus a deeper dive into CNN, NYT, COVID. Fleischer provided jaw dropping details for all of these.

Ari also includes all his notes and there are over 40 pages worth plus an index that’s over 20 pages. He employed a staff to do research and fact check plus what the publisher provided. There are actual photographs of tweets and handwritten notes included in the body of the book that add to the veracity. I was never a big fan of his but after plowing thru this book I’ve had a change of heart. He is truly burdened for the media and for generations to come.

So yes, my pup is snoring now. She was dragged out to go walking every 90 minutes because I couldn’t read any longer without a break. As a retired publishing exec, I’m sad about the lack of discipline and hope that books like this will bring a spark or shine a little light; whatever it takes. We the people need to be able to get our news from someplace TRUSTWORTHY and without having to access 6+ sources every day to figure it all out. My dog isn’t the only one who’s tired📚

If you’ve paid attention to the news over the past 30 or so years (the real news not the fake CNN/NY Times-style “news”), you’ve heard most of what Ari Fleischer covers in this book. BUT, he relates the stories very well, and it is useful to have them all in one place. It reminds us of how many fake stories they’ve put out and how long they have been at it.

The book is easy to read, well organized, and concise considering how much he had to cover. Ari writes like he speaks, which is to say, very well.

I have one disappointment about the book. Ari points out that news consumers have become tribal. He doesn’t use that word, but that’s what it is. And it’s not just news. Tribalism is affecting other industries as well, but let’s stick with news. When I say “tribalism”, I mean that consumers mostly support only those outlets with which they agree, and that the economic dynamic pushes content providers farther left or farther right than their average consumer. There is no economic incentive to be completely neutral and objective. Consumers have shown they won’t support that in large numbers. Ari does touch on this.

But here’s my disappointment: The final 3 sentences of the book are...
“Americans deserve a mainstream media that doesn’t suppress news it doesn’t like, a media that doesn’t deceive people ..., and a media that doesn’t consist of activists for a cause.
“It’s not too late to have a media that sees its cracks not as unfixable fissures, but as a chance to reshape itself to fulfill its commitment to the American people.
“Is that too much to ask?”

Unfortunately, and partly due to what Ari writes about in the book, I think it probably IS too much to ask. He just spent the whole book outlining why journalism is the way it is now. What realistically could possibly happen to bring about the changes he wishes for?

So, I would really have liked Ari to attempt to answer the final question he posed. Maybe that would have been outside the scope of this book. But it would have been interesting and useful.

That quibble aside, I do recommend the book. It is good to be reminded how pervasive the lies and subterfuge are.

Ari Fleischer's "Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias" is a partisan polemic of a book complaining about partisan media reporting. And if the world of American media and/or politics doesn't interest you, just skip everything about this book - including this review.

Now, if you're still with me, I want to say right from the beginning that I agree with a lot of the criticisms that the author mentions in the book. I also think the "Mainstream Media" needs to take a hard look at itself and do better. However, any book that complains about bias and partisanship needs to do much better in the hypocrisy department to deserve being taken seriously. Instead of a book that rightly and justifiably criticizes biased media reporting, this is essentially the author's butt-hurt whining about how unfair it is that the "other side" has copied "his side's" playbook.

There is no denying that biased reporting feeds divisions within society, and there's no denying that left-leaning media increasingly are dropping even trying to stay neutral. As Fleischer says, they know their target audience. What the author doesn't say - in fact, he repeatedly implies otherwise - is that the right-leaning media did the same much earlier, and it has been doubling-down ever since. Fleischer also presents the reader with any number of false comparisons and one-sided examples to argue how much worse off Republicans are on a playing field that he falsely portrays as essentially all liberal (in the American meaning of the word).

Of course, while CNN, MSNBC, and NYT are largely left-leaning, this "Mainstream Media" is more than compensated for by FOX NEWS and other right-leaning media. It also deserves mentioning, though, that the level of factual reporting varies in degree between the above mentioned left-leaning media - NYT is significantly more reliable than the other two. It is similarly important to note that the right-leaning media is generally both more partisan and less reliable factually than their left-leaning counterparts. Naturally, that message doesn't resonate as well with the intended audience for this book, so the author skipped it entirely.

I can't say that I'm particularly surprised by anything about or in this book. Neither the legitimate complaints nor the partisan slant of the book itself. I'm guessing that if you're interested enough in the topic to even consider this book - and aren't just reading it to confirm your own bias - you probably won't be blown away either.

Add decidedly average, repetitive writing to the mix and I can with a good conscience say: skip this one.

Instead, do some research of and on bias-measuring tools - there are a number of them, and the best ones will sometimes depend on the country - and make it a point to consume news from various perspectives. But don't be fooled into the no-bias trap here, where someone - as Fleischer repeatedly does in this book - argues that "unbiased" means giving equal weight to any two opinions on a topic.

All opinions and ideas are most definitely not equal, nor should they be weighed equally. I'm pretty sure Fleischer too knows this, but he also knows his target audience...

This is a book truly everyone should read, despite its hyperbolic, clickbait title. I have a lot of thoughts here in no particular order:

1. Journalism is at a crossroads. The younger generation believes that objectivism is not enough, that activism in journalism is the only path forward. This is deeply concerning to me and should be for all centrists, who depend on facts reported to make up our own minds and not simply have the reporters of the facts explain to me what I need to believe.
2. This book is a PERFECT summary for anyone left of center if they hope to understand why nearly everyone right of center has next to no faith in the mainstream news outlets.
3. Any fair minded person reading this should be gravely concerned about the destruction of objectivism, regardless of what you believe in. Journalists hold truth to power, and it should concern every person who believes in the core of classical liberalism that once the voices who ostensibly are for justice and representation of the overlooked came to power, they immediately started overlooking the voices of nearly half the nation.
4. The title of this book does point to the key ingredients of journalism’s failure over the last few decades:
- Suppression: You only see what they decide to print. The reason that Fox News is so popular (this is not the forum to discuss all of their own problems) is that they actually talk about things which are, at best, de-emphasized, and, at worst, completely unreported at other news organizations.
- Deception: When you have an agenda in mind, reporting the same facts in a specific way, combined with emphasis, can paint a picture of the issue completely at odds with the spirit of what happened.
- Snobbery: When you are convinced that you are “correct”, it makes it extremely easy to disregard other opinions, or to use language such as “Trump’s ‘so-called’ Covid relief bill”. You wouldn’t hear it called “the ‘so-called’ Affordable Care Act” would you?
- Bias: News organizations do a lot of things. Some (should) give the facts if a story and report the news. They (should) dig to find hidden truths, regardless of who it’s about, and they (should) make it very uncomfortable for those in power to abuse their power without the near certainty that they will be caught by the watch dogs. Then others give their opinions (such as the opinion column in the WSJ, or guest interviewees who the anchor should grill with tough questions, not just agree with).

In sum: two things can be true at once:
1. I believe Trump is a boor who I believe did great damage to the image of the country internationally, but who, like all presidents, bungled some things and did some things of great merit which should rightly be celebrated.
2. Regardless of being a boor and (correctly) being caught in lies or half truths many times, he was the most unfairly maligned president of my lifetime, with an entire news industry who only erred on the side of painting him in the worst light possible.

This should make everyone concerned, left, right, and center.

Accurate but not objective.

I did enjoy this book. It confirmed and provided support to my a!or already formed opinions. However it did not address the counter arguments that fox news is in the tank for Trump just as much as the rest of the media is actively against him. People need to watch multiple news sources to piece together any semblance of the truth. The main fault I saw in this bok is the it presents fox new as it used to be but had unfortunately gotten away from and that is "Fair and balanced" However if you want solid proof of how slanted most of the political news coverage is this is the book for you.

An interesting argument on how the news media has changed over the past 20 years. Good reminders to consider the bias of your news sources. Regardless of your political leanings, this is worth a read.

Excellent book. Ari is a straight shooter and when he is sickened by the MSM there is something to be said!

Not bad, but by this point unnecessary. Most concerned people know the US news media is irredeemably corrupt and out of touch with most of the country, and that it’s now made up of wealthy graduates of elite universities.

My complaints about Fleischer’s book are that it’s fairly repetitive internally, that Fleischer appears to be a Trump apologist and that he writes at a level that feels a tiny bit as if it were written down to a lower level than would have been natural.

4.5. I knew that news stories are pretty biased but I didn’t realize the degree of bias and inaccuracy. This book was uncomfortable to read in the best way.

A book with example after example after example after example of press hypocrisy. No doubt accurate, but I just feel exhausted after completing it.

This book is very well researched and includes an extensive bibliography citing sources. Fleischer gives numerous examples of similar situations that were treated very differently by the media depending on the political party of both Democrats and Republicans who were unquestionably at fault. Fleischer describes a news story where a Republican and a Democrat were involved in the same wrongdoing and includes photographs of the headlines showing how the story was covered in both instances. I’m sure this would be an eye opener for many but unfortunately the people who really should read this probably won’t. I’ve said for many years that I can read any headline and tell you without looking at the source whether it’s a left wing or right wing outlet and very often I can accurately guess the name of the outlet too. Many years ago when I was in school, I was taught that opinion is on the editorial page of the newspaper and the factual news was covered in the news stories. That is no longer the case, if it ever was. Every single article is laced with opinion whether it’s on the opinion page or in what is considered straight news.

Many years ago when there were only three major networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, the viewing audience was diverse and it included Independents, Republicans and Democrats. While journalism majors are overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal and probably were then as well, networks were very careful to find a middle ground so as not to alienate a significant part of their audience. It was a time when Walter Cronkite was voted the most trusted man in America.

I used to watch CNN all the time. In the past, the network had both liberal and conservative talking heads. I loved “Crossfire” and “Equal Time” where conservatives and liberals would make their case and the viewer could decide which argument(s) made more sense. James Carville, Paul Begala, Tom Braden, Geraldine Ferraro and others would argue for Democrats. Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson and others would argue for Republicans. Usually both sides made some good points as well as presented some rather weak arguments. Now the media model is to target a particular demographic audience and give them what they want to hear so they keep tuning in. CNN targets Democrats and their audience is overwhelmingly liberal. Fox News is conservative and their audience tends to be overwhelmingly Republican. So CNN gives their audience the liberal spin they want and leaves out anything that doesn’t fit the narrative. Fox News gives their audience the conservative spin. The result is that media outlets make lots of money catering to people who tune in by giving them exactly what they want to hear and leave out whatever doesn’t appeal to their target audience

Those on the left sometimes argue that the media they watch is not biased (it’s only the media on the right – wink wink) and that of course mistakes are made but they are rare. They obviously have no idea what is really happening. There certainly are accidental mistakes in all types of media because of a rush to be the first with “breaking news.” There are mistakes because anonymous sources are used and not fact checked first because the story is just too good and it fits the network narrative. If it turns out the anonymous sources were wrong, the media outlet spends very little or sometimes no time correcting the error and moves on. Few will hear the correction and the damage has been done. And there are mistakes of omission where there is a two-minute piece on a particular news story and something that is relevant but doesn’t support the accepted narrative is deliberately left out.

Every single news outlet, print or television has a bias without exception. The problem is that too many people think that the source of their news is an unbiased source and they only follow sources that tell them what they want to hear.

As a result, the media significantly contributes to the polarization of the electorate rather than serving as an objective fourth pillar of democracy as it was intended to be. This is not good for any of us or for our country.

Excellent read.

This book covers a lot of the same ground as Sharyl Attkisson's Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism, though it is better-written, better-researched, less histrionic, and with fewer personal scores to settle. I more-or-less agree with much of the content: yes, the media sometimes gets details wrong, is often quicker to report than to retract, picks and chooses what to report based on a narrative, and individual reporters and news outlets do have biases. The media has a responsibility to do better. And yes, the demographics of the media should better reflect the demographics of America ideologically and culturally. Where I have a problem with this book is that all of the author's vitriol is directed at the left-of-center media, while ignoring the even-more-extreme journalism right-of-center.

Like Slanted, this book fails to grapple with the problem of what to do with misinformation. When a politician lies or distorts the truth, is the media supposed to blindly pass along those untruths to their audience, without comment? Should lies be given just as much weight as the truth? When there's a truth imbalance between political parties, how should the media cover that? These are not easy questions to answer.

I try to consume media from across the political spectrum, even when that is painful or unpleasant. I find the "AllSides" website useful, as it rates the bias of most mainstream media, with roughly equal representation from left to right.

I think this book is a valuable entry in the media studies conversation. It has it's own perspectives and biases, which is fine. It is thought-provoking, at least.

QUOTES FROM THIS BOOK:
"This brings me back to Columbia Journalism School and every other journalism school in the US. Don't these top schools want to graduate reporters who represent diversity of thought instead of a crop of reporters who all think the same way . . ."

"'News is laid before the citizen's mind so packaged and tarted up with a narrative line that the simple facts are often impossible to discern.'"

"The elements sowing and sustaining this phony narrative draw strength from journalism's original sin: its hom*ogeneity of thought."

"Time after time, the mainstream media covers news differently depending on who is making it."

"The American people have lost trust in the press because the press doesn't always report news that can be trusted."

Goodread - with NO surprises.

For those with eyes to see, much of this book is story we're so familiar with already. But Fleischer does an excellent job of showing the evidence of the heavy one-sidedness of the media, not only during the Trump and Biden administrations, but for decades.

Whether or not this book convinces anyone of anything they don't already know/believe or want to acknowledge, there is great value in this book for historical value, if nothing else.

At some point in the (probably distant) future, the general public will actually care about the great dishonesty of the media and the effects of that terrible behavior.

This book will serve that purpose.

In "Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias," Fleischer investigates numerous instances of media bias in its coverage of various political events. Throughout the book, Fleischer makes the argument that the media is extremely biased against conservatives by providing numerous examples. One example is Stacey Abrams accusation that there were significant instances of voter fraud in the last Georgia gubernatorial race. In his argument Fleischer argues that the media gave Abrams a pass while condemning Trump for making the same accusations about the 2020 Presidential election. Overall, while I listened to the audiobook, I still learned valuable information and arguments.

Ari Fleischer presents a well- researched synopsis of the press' performance since 2016 (generally), which is indicative of a press that aligns with a political ideology. That phenomenon runs contrarian to the previous and general expectation as the press serving an impartial role in reporting. The problem is complex and funneled by the changing of the guard within the journalism profession. Schools of higher education are consistently aligned with the liberal methodology, and consequently, new reporters are aligned as well. Not confident that the situation will redirect itself anytime in the near future.

Such a sad state of affairs in our country. We don’t have a free press anymore. There is almost no news reporting it’s mostly propaganda. Think back to Nazi Germany. They only reported one view of the news and we now have the same here. To find the real truth you have to do your own research and most people won’t do the necessary work. So most Americans are uninformed about what is happening to our American freedoms and Constitutional rights.

Wow! If you consider yourself fair-minded, this is the book for you.
The data laid out and the history of journalism is a compelling read. I have definitely gained new knowledge. I did live through the days of journalism that appeared more balanced and had wondered how we got to where we are now, interesting insight. The author also impressed me, I would be interested in hearing more he has to say.

A great primer on what's wrong with the media today

Anecdotal stories were interesting and illustrative but redundant because the issue is, to wit: in today's media "newsrooms," it's vogue to be anti-rightists and anti-Republican. Good suggestions if they want to become more global in pitch,e.g., diversity in thought, identities, views, etc. The final chapter includes actual action tips newsrooms could address if only they will!

Watching the navigation of anger in politics over the last many decades, it has been very difficult to find the fulcrum when the press descended to narrative reporting. Fleischer's book is a wonderful expose of the press' and media's failure over the last two decades. More important, as an insider with three decades in the press - he paints of a difficult portrait of the decline from honest reporting to clickbait for dollars and cheerleading.

Much thanks.

Former journalist here. Disheartened by what passes for news and reporting today. We were taught in J School 30 years ago that anonymous sources were not sources at all, that there are multiple (not just two) sides of a story, and that information should be corroborated by two independent sources before publishing. None of this exists anymore in the race to scoop the others in this new era of entertainment, ideologically driven journalism.

Although most of the information in this book was not new to me, I felt reading it all in one book really gets across the point that the press is biased, and that is very bad for our country. The press is supposed to be the fourth pillar of our society and at least half the country has no faith in what they report, which further polarizes the country, and suppresses reasonable debate.

Truth told about press bias

The truthful press is an important fabric of our nation. We rely on honest, unbiased reporting to uproot government abuses, government corruption and government unfairness. Fleischer reports why we don’t have these safeguards.

This book just told the plain truth.

Our democracy needs honesty from the press. The biased press is actually against democracy. Conservatives must defend freedom and the Constitution.

A Wake Up Call for the Press

I strongly recommend this book to all journalists and editors. I'm a moderate independent and I concur with the author's analysis of the mainstream media. This is a good read for both sides of the aisle. Time to wake up.

open your eyes.

Everyone should know the truth, and there is only one way.read facts not fiction.this should be a school book.mandatory.truth is infectious.

So good. Thank you Ari for pulling this together and articulating conservatives’ daily experience with the media.

If you always knew the main stream media is one sided Ari confirms it with specific examples! A must read to combat misinformation.

Good book, but the author is quite naive about the gravity of the dispute and difference in question. It isn't democrat vs republican or liberal vs. conservative. The division in question is far more profound than that.

He has two theses: 1. why the press gets so much wrong, and 2. why they don't care. He very clearly demonstrates the first with a great deal of exposition of recent examples of the media's gross and shameless slant. The second point about why they don't seem to care is where the book comes up a bit thin.

He talks a lot about how media is made up almost entirely of college educated democrats who all think alike and thus the echo chamber produces this effect. But this doesn't quite answer for it all.

The essay titled "Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse explains the ideological basis that underpins the media phenomena described in the book. Simply stated: there are good people and bad people. Obviously we want the good people to win because that's good. Therefore allowing bad people to have a platform is only crowding out the good. Therefore the good people should have license to silence and repress the bad people in the name of doing good.... Now you might ask: But why are the good people good? Well that is because they are morally superior, more intelligent, better informed, and more cosmopolitan than the backwards, racist, hom*ophobic and ignorant deplorables that oppose them. It is right and just that they be in power you see.

The entire point of the operation is to convince you, the reader, of two things: 1 that the "good people" should be in power with no quarter being given to the "bad people" they are bad afterall! and 2. to give you your daily/hourly hit of righteous moral and intellectual superiority that fuels this belief. It's the only way you can sell power really. Dress it up in righteousness.

The divide isn't liberal vs. conservative. It is liberty vs power. Notice all the republican politicians that seem to escape the scathing media assault are the RINO's, the republicans that basically just act like democrats. To go back to the authors core thesis: the reason the media doesn't care that they keep getting stuff so wrong is that they don't care about getting things right, they care about getting power, convincing you that you are superior to the "others". They aren't after fairness, they are after power and they mean to have it.