Reviews
Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload by Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel
krissyronan's review
1.0
Further evidence of me not enjoying nonfiction.
Valid points are made, great examples are given, thought provoking topic, and yet...I had to push myself to read this through to the end.
Valid points are made, great examples are given, thought provoking topic, and yet...I had to push myself to read this through to the end.
gls_merch's review against another edition
3.25
The book starts off with an intriguing premise, following how news and information is transmitted following a nuclear disaster. Intriguingly,we find that the anecdote provided was mostly true, taken from real stories surrounding the Three Mile Island accident. Using TMI as a starting point, the authors begin to discuss how news dissemination and journalism have changed in the age of digital information that has arisen since TMI. The authors really care about the quality of journalism and prescribe several solutions for the new era of journalism. In particular, in an age of multiple information sources, people are looking for news functions beyond the traditional investigative reporting as we seek to authenticate and understand what is going on. As an afterward, we can now see the real world reaction to a nuclear disaster due to the events of Fukishima in 2011.
NOTE: I received this book for free through the GoodReads First Reads program.
NOTE: I received this book for free through the GoodReads First Reads program.
jdscott50's review against another edition
4.0
The author Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel attempt to resurrect good journalism with their book Blur. Both being authors of The Elements of Journalism, this book also has the failing of being as dry as a textbook. However, most of the book has interesting examples of how the government, corporations, and media manipulate the public, and it is our job to be able to identify what is happening. There are different kinds of ways to report a story and if the public can identify what that is, we can better decipher the information or identify manipulation. It’s critical with so much information and disinformation being thrown at us to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. This book can help us do that, but the book can also address concerns directly at journalists rather than the general public.
I’ve read other accounts of media manipulation from the Net Delusion to The Filter Bubble. Where those two fail, is where Blur succeeds. It’s the ability to provide tools to decipher the lies and manipulation in a story. Furthermore, it doesn't have quite the dire and cynical perspective about the manipulation, there is something that can be done about it.
When it is not attempting to get journalists to go back to their roots, the authors provide examples of key journalists and their investigative techniques. I found these histories fascinating from Homer Bigart’s reporting that changed the way journalists reported on Vietnam (not taking the government’s word for anything) to Seymour Hersh’s reporting (journalism by verification). The authors go on further to identify types of journalism to look for in order to determine if someone is simply stating facts or attempting a journalism of assertion, where facts are picked selectively to prove a point.
We have to be vigilant and have “Skeptical Knowing” so that we use our analytical and skeptical mind to find what’s being attempted information or disinformation. In todays rush the facts find the truth later type of news as well as the change the information to suit the political points kind of news it's important to understand the distinctions. It’s also a great analysis of what the news should be, and while much of that is directed at journalists in attempt to turn the ship to best serve the public, it’s a great lesson everyone needs to learn.
Favorite parts/passages:
“Our understanding of the news must be built on a foundation of facts—an accurate understanding of what has occurred. And this process of moving from understanding to assigning meaning is one that should be arrived at through a sequence.” P. 31
"When everything is unchecked, all assertions become equal--those that are accurate and those that are not. The news, and journalism, becomes more of an argument than a depiction of accurate events that argument, debate, and compromise can build upon." p. 126
"In the new world of information and self-editing, we should be just as wary. Anecdotes illustrate; they do not prove. Single statistics hint, but they do not establish. Examples or stray numbers offered as proof are a red flag. When you see them, take care. They are a sign of cherry-picking, a hallmark of the journalism of affirmation." p. 136
"This bring us to the checklist we introduced for becoming a more conscious and careful consumer (a skeptical knowing) of news about the world:
1. What kind of content am I encountering?
2. Is the information complete; and if not, what is missing?
3. Who or what are the sources, and why should I believe them?
4. What evidence is presented, and how was it tested or vetted?
5. What might be an alternative explanation or understanding?
6. Am I learning what I need to?
p. 168
I’ve read other accounts of media manipulation from the Net Delusion to The Filter Bubble. Where those two fail, is where Blur succeeds. It’s the ability to provide tools to decipher the lies and manipulation in a story. Furthermore, it doesn't have quite the dire and cynical perspective about the manipulation, there is something that can be done about it.
When it is not attempting to get journalists to go back to their roots, the authors provide examples of key journalists and their investigative techniques. I found these histories fascinating from Homer Bigart’s reporting that changed the way journalists reported on Vietnam (not taking the government’s word for anything) to Seymour Hersh’s reporting (journalism by verification). The authors go on further to identify types of journalism to look for in order to determine if someone is simply stating facts or attempting a journalism of assertion, where facts are picked selectively to prove a point.
We have to be vigilant and have “Skeptical Knowing” so that we use our analytical and skeptical mind to find what’s being attempted information or disinformation. In todays rush the facts find the truth later type of news as well as the change the information to suit the political points kind of news it's important to understand the distinctions. It’s also a great analysis of what the news should be, and while much of that is directed at journalists in attempt to turn the ship to best serve the public, it’s a great lesson everyone needs to learn.
Favorite parts/passages:
“Our understanding of the news must be built on a foundation of facts—an accurate understanding of what has occurred. And this process of moving from understanding to assigning meaning is one that should be arrived at through a sequence.” P. 31
"When everything is unchecked, all assertions become equal--those that are accurate and those that are not. The news, and journalism, becomes more of an argument than a depiction of accurate events that argument, debate, and compromise can build upon." p. 126
"In the new world of information and self-editing, we should be just as wary. Anecdotes illustrate; they do not prove. Single statistics hint, but they do not establish. Examples or stray numbers offered as proof are a red flag. When you see them, take care. They are a sign of cherry-picking, a hallmark of the journalism of affirmation." p. 136
"This bring us to the checklist we introduced for becoming a more conscious and careful consumer (a skeptical knowing) of news about the world:
1. What kind of content am I encountering?
2. Is the information complete; and if not, what is missing?
3. Who or what are the sources, and why should I believe them?
4. What evidence is presented, and how was it tested or vetted?
5. What might be an alternative explanation or understanding?
6. Am I learning what I need to?
p. 168
joemurphy's review
3.0
The most common criticism of late-20th and early 21st century journalism seems to be that it's not "real journalism" anymore. Kovach and Rosenstiel offer a model which considers that the thing we call "journalism" might not be a monolith. They find historical precedents for 4 different models - a "journalism of verification" which matches that "real journalism" category, a "journalism of assertion" which values immediacy over analysis, a "journalism of affirmation" which presents news in a way most likely to reinforce the beliefs of its audience, and an "interest-group journalism" in which special interests create content which looks like news to an uninformed viewer. They also recognize a "journalism of aggregation", in which organizations and individuals curate the "news feed" that is interesting to them.
While the bulk of the book talks about the first 3 models, and how to recognize and analyze them, the real theme of the book might be the last category. Individuals have increasingly accepted more of the responsibility for collecting their own varied sources of news, and the broad journalism industry has responded in logical ways to stay in business. If we are all becoming "aggregators" in one sense or another, we need to understand the different kinds of journalism, and know how to evaluate them (as what they are, not what we wish they were).
I didn't find the last section, on the future of news, as satisfying as the rest of the book. As good journalists, Kovach and Rosenstiel are measured in their language and conservative in their predictions. Unfortunately, that style which works so well for the rest of the book doesn't match the job of forecasting. (This is also the section where I felt too many sentences began or ended with "as we discuss in our other book...")
This book should be taught in high school, as part of preparation for informed citizenship. (Sadly, it probably will mostly be taught in college journalism classes.)
While the bulk of the book talks about the first 3 models, and how to recognize and analyze them, the real theme of the book might be the last category. Individuals have increasingly accepted more of the responsibility for collecting their own varied sources of news, and the broad journalism industry has responded in logical ways to stay in business. If we are all becoming "aggregators" in one sense or another, we need to understand the different kinds of journalism, and know how to evaluate them (as what they are, not what we wish they were).
I didn't find the last section, on the future of news, as satisfying as the rest of the book. As good journalists, Kovach and Rosenstiel are measured in their language and conservative in their predictions. Unfortunately, that style which works so well for the rest of the book doesn't match the job of forecasting. (This is also the section where I felt too many sentences began or ended with "as we discuss in our other book...")
This book should be taught in high school, as part of preparation for informed citizenship. (Sadly, it probably will mostly be taught in college journalism classes.)
More...