Scan barcode
labunnywtf's review against another edition
2.0
Received via Edelweiss in exchange for a fair review.
I finally fought my way through this after finishing Game of Thrones. And I do mean fought.
The shameful part is, almost everything in this book means something to me. In some cases, a great deal. The only chapter I couldn't relate to was veganism, and we'll get to that in a second.
These authors are rather in love with themselves, and their view points. As someone in love with my own opinions (and the sound of my own voice, as people who read my reviews know), I understand. But something about the tone and delivery of these chapters turns me completely off.
This was most obvious to me on the one chapter I didn't agree with, which was the one on veganism. I am a huge believer in animal rights (seriously, don't get me started on how stupidly animal friendly I am), and while I really, truly, seriously know how insane it is for someone who stops the car to move snakes out of the road to eat meat, I am not in the position to give it up at the moment. It could happen, though.
But if I had someone in my ear speaking to me this way about why I should be a vegan, it would make me eat bloody rare meat every day for every meal. Steak and eggs, bitches. DEAD COW AND CHICKEN ABORTIONS ALL DAY.
That's not how I roll. And I don't like feeling that way. And I'm glad only one chapter made me lose my mind. But the rest of them.
I've never heard of Citizen Radio before picking up this book. I picked it up with the impression that it would address news stories ignored by the media, and talk about them honestly and humorously. I'm rather disappointed.
I finally fought my way through this after finishing Game of Thrones. And I do mean fought.
The shameful part is, almost everything in this book means something to me. In some cases, a great deal. The only chapter I couldn't relate to was veganism, and we'll get to that in a second.
These authors are rather in love with themselves, and their view points. As someone in love with my own opinions (and the sound of my own voice, as people who read my reviews know), I understand. But something about the tone and delivery of these chapters turns me completely off.
This was most obvious to me on the one chapter I didn't agree with, which was the one on veganism. I am a huge believer in animal rights (seriously, don't get me started on how stupidly animal friendly I am), and while I really, truly, seriously know how insane it is for someone who stops the car to move snakes out of the road to eat meat, I am not in the position to give it up at the moment. It could happen, though.
But if I had someone in my ear speaking to me this way about why I should be a vegan, it would make me eat bloody rare meat every day for every meal. Steak and eggs, bitches. DEAD COW AND CHICKEN ABORTIONS ALL DAY.
That's not how I roll. And I don't like feeling that way. And I'm glad only one chapter made me lose my mind. But the rest of them.
I've never heard of Citizen Radio before picking up this book. I picked it up with the impression that it would address news stories ignored by the media, and talk about them honestly and humorously. I'm rather disappointed.
adamrbrooks's review against another edition
3.0
First of all, before reading, watch Kilstein's appearance on Conan. It will help you get the voice of the book (though I didn't watch it until nearly the end, when he tells the story).
If you pick it up, you probably know the authors are purporting to talk about how the media is failing our democracy. Which, to be fair, is probably true. But the book is largely just lectures on things they see as problems -- politics, foreign policy, the war on drugs, the war on women, eating meat, etc. And in almost all cases, I agree with them. But they just want to talk about those issues, then say, "And the corporate media doesn't agree with us." True, but they aren't really examining why and how that happens.
Ultimately, they tend to fall into a common trap of thinking, "If only people know what we do, they would see the light!" But it's not necessarily true. There are legitimately people who believe the war on drugs is legitimate, that racial bias in sentencing is because of differences in people, that convicts and drug users SHOULD suffer in prison for their sins/crimes, etc.
Maybe it's just that I'm fairly well-informed (so I think), but I didn't feel I learned much from this book. Maybe that's what I really want from non-fiction.
If you pick it up, you probably know the authors are purporting to talk about how the media is failing our democracy. Which, to be fair, is probably true. But the book is largely just lectures on things they see as problems -- politics, foreign policy, the war on drugs, the war on women, eating meat, etc. And in almost all cases, I agree with them. But they just want to talk about those issues, then say, "And the corporate media doesn't agree with us." True, but they aren't really examining why and how that happens.
Ultimately, they tend to fall into a common trap of thinking, "If only people know what we do, they would see the light!" But it's not necessarily true. There are legitimately people who believe the war on drugs is legitimate, that racial bias in sentencing is because of differences in people, that convicts and drug users SHOULD suffer in prison for their sins/crimes, etc.
Maybe it's just that I'm fairly well-informed (so I think), but I didn't feel I learned much from this book. Maybe that's what I really want from non-fiction.
guinness74's review against another edition
3.0
Per FTC regulations, I received this book as part of the GoodReads First Reads giveaway program.
Let me start by saying that podcasts are not my thing. They're not how I prefer to receive information. And, unfortunately for the authors of this book, I happened to download one of their podcasts before reading this book. I listened for about 10 minutes to 3 women who were discussing anything but what might have been the topic. It was more of a mutual admiration society wherein one would tell the others where she'd seen their work recently, and the others would ooh and aah. And, all of this was poorly recorded (in my not so professional opinion) as the audio levels were sort of all over the place for each speaker. Almost like one was sitting directly in the microphone, and the other was off on a couch somewhere enjoying a glass of wine or something. It was very disconcerting and I didn't enjoy it at all.
Next, I experienced this book in a sort of dichotomy. I read the first half or so before the most recent mid-term elections and I wasn't impressed. It was funny, but not uproarious; it was authoritative, but a little whiny. And, the authors kept referring to themselves as "the authors" throughout the book, which made for some rather odd reading. "We" is a pronoun for a reason. Anyway...so I did not start off liking it. However, as with all First Reads books, I really want to make it through before I review because there's a reason I requested it in the first place. So, the second half was read after the mid-term elections (in which my "side" was taken to the woodshed) and I'm not sure if I began to read it in a different light, or if I simply resonated with the latter chapters more. Regardless, it got better.
Here's the thing: I applaud what they're doing. And possibly, if you like podcasts, you will enjoy theirs. This book doesn't really read like a podcast, though. It's almost the "Guide to Misadventures in Podcasting." But, they raise some excellent points about media and journalism and its ties to corporate dollars in the United States. They also manage to be self-deprecating, which I typically enjoy.
In short, it's not groundbreaking, but it's worth a read if you think that maybe the news isn't all that great.
Let me start by saying that podcasts are not my thing. They're not how I prefer to receive information. And, unfortunately for the authors of this book, I happened to download one of their podcasts before reading this book. I listened for about 10 minutes to 3 women who were discussing anything but what might have been the topic. It was more of a mutual admiration society wherein one would tell the others where she'd seen their work recently, and the others would ooh and aah. And, all of this was poorly recorded (in my not so professional opinion) as the audio levels were sort of all over the place for each speaker. Almost like one was sitting directly in the microphone, and the other was off on a couch somewhere enjoying a glass of wine or something. It was very disconcerting and I didn't enjoy it at all.
Next, I experienced this book in a sort of dichotomy. I read the first half or so before the most recent mid-term elections and I wasn't impressed. It was funny, but not uproarious; it was authoritative, but a little whiny. And, the authors kept referring to themselves as "the authors" throughout the book, which made for some rather odd reading. "We" is a pronoun for a reason. Anyway...so I did not start off liking it. However, as with all First Reads books, I really want to make it through before I review because there's a reason I requested it in the first place. So, the second half was read after the mid-term elections (in which my "side" was taken to the woodshed) and I'm not sure if I began to read it in a different light, or if I simply resonated with the latter chapters more. Regardless, it got better.
Here's the thing: I applaud what they're doing. And possibly, if you like podcasts, you will enjoy theirs. This book doesn't really read like a podcast, though. It's almost the "Guide to Misadventures in Podcasting." But, they raise some excellent points about media and journalism and its ties to corporate dollars in the United States. They also manage to be self-deprecating, which I typically enjoy.
In short, it's not groundbreaking, but it's worth a read if you think that maybe the news isn't all that great.
mistylloyd's review against another edition
3.0
You know, this book *was* wonderful, but I will be that person and point out the major push for veganism was annoying and took away from it for me.
joshhw's review against another edition
4.0
A good primer on social issues of our times, unfortunately most people who aren't concerned with social issues won't know about Citizen Radio.
jessfeldish's review against another edition
2.0
I'm not really a fan of their podcast (humor style, not content), so I'm not surprised those same feelings translated to reading this book. I picked it up for a quick read and didn't learn anything new.
mattpr_co's review against another edition
5.0
I listened to Citizen Radio for many years. It would not be hyperbole to say that Jamie Kilstein and Allison Kilkenny changed my life over those years, helping me see the world differently than I previously had. In the past few months, though, I listen to Citizen Radio less and less. I felt the hosts strayed too often from what they're really good at, having to fill 5 hours of show every week. With that trend, I was going to skip their book. I'm really glad I didn't.
Though, I'm familiar with all the content in the book from my years of listening to the authors talk, it's not tired. It needs to be said over and over to as many people whose ears will hear it or eyes will read it. This is the stuff that Kilkenny and Kilstein are great at reporting. I am proud to have been a supporter of these two for so long and proud to see how great the book turned out. I wholeheartedly recommend the book to anyone.
Though, I'm familiar with all the content in the book from my years of listening to the authors talk, it's not tired. It needs to be said over and over to as many people whose ears will hear it or eyes will read it. This is the stuff that Kilkenny and Kilstein are great at reporting. I am proud to have been a supporter of these two for so long and proud to see how great the book turned out. I wholeheartedly recommend the book to anyone.
chidseyca's review against another edition
4.0
I don't know about this book. I agree with their positions but I'm their target audience so.... I don't think they're trying to convert anyone to their ideology though; I interpreted this book as more of a love letter to their fans. That being said, I did think parts of it were funny and their relationship was really sweet. However, the authors were generally smarmy and self indulgent. As much as they opposed big media and propaganda pushing, it was hard for me to ignore that this book was basically a giant piece of propaganda for their radio show. Also, it was published by a major press which is kind of ironic.
tttm333's review
4.0
This was my choice for the BookReads Read Harder Challenge 2016: a book about politics, in your country or another (fiction or nonfiction).
I first heard about this book on Melissa Harris-Perry's (sadly cancelled) show, and the authors were interviewed when this book was released. I had not listened to their Citizen Radio show, but I enjoyed their interview, so when this challenge came up, I picked #Newsfail.
I've seen a few comments regarding putting all 'media' into the same barrel, but that is the premise of the book. The mainstream/corporate media - regardless of whether it's TV, Cable News, or Print - does fail us, by virtue of its structure and profit model. The very fact that news needs to be 'profitable' should outrage us all, actually. The authors have their own way of combatting this (via their own reporting and Citizen Radio) but they reference many other journalists and others who report the news that actually is news, not just propaganda and talking points.
For instance, the authors note that - in a discussion about gay rights - CNN (trying to be 'objective') asked Tony Perkins of the incredibly conservative and bigoted Family Research Council to weigh in... As if both sides are equivalent, have equal merit, and it's just a matter of opinion whether or not gays are people. Kilstein/Kilkenny write, "But the real question is: why is CNN asking uninformed bigots their opinions in order to skew the debate?" This is not journalism, this is talking heads trying to fill a segment until the next commercial.
Each chapter in #Newsfail deals with a different theme (gays, guns, climate change, women's health), and is written in a very familiar or blog-type way. Some may be put off by this style, but the substance is worth paying attention to. Even if I disagreed with an individual opinion, I could not refute the main thesis: the MSM is not telling us what we need to know to make an informed decision about the topic.
The Mainstream Media is what most people see (thus 'Mainstream'). They have abdicated their responsibility to be a check on power, and instead have become a mouthpiece for it. Luckily, there are many outlets for news, if you want to look, but we have to CHOOSE to move away from the corporate sources, and find the independent sources - the ones who may not tell you what you want to hear, but will tell you what you need to know.
I first heard about this book on Melissa Harris-Perry's (sadly cancelled) show, and the authors were interviewed when this book was released. I had not listened to their Citizen Radio show, but I enjoyed their interview, so when this challenge came up, I picked #Newsfail.
I've seen a few comments regarding putting all 'media' into the same barrel, but that is the premise of the book. The mainstream/corporate media - regardless of whether it's TV, Cable News, or Print - does fail us, by virtue of its structure and profit model. The very fact that news needs to be 'profitable' should outrage us all, actually. The authors have their own way of combatting this (via their own reporting and Citizen Radio) but they reference many other journalists and others who report the news that actually is news, not just propaganda and talking points.
For instance, the authors note that - in a discussion about gay rights - CNN (trying to be 'objective') asked Tony Perkins of the incredibly conservative and bigoted Family Research Council to weigh in... As if both sides are equivalent, have equal merit, and it's just a matter of opinion whether or not gays are people. Kilstein/Kilkenny write, "But the real question is: why is CNN asking uninformed bigots their opinions in order to skew the debate?" This is not journalism, this is talking heads trying to fill a segment until the next commercial.
Each chapter in #Newsfail deals with a different theme (gays, guns, climate change, women's health), and is written in a very familiar or blog-type way. Some may be put off by this style, but the substance is worth paying attention to. Even if I disagreed with an individual opinion, I could not refute the main thesis: the MSM is not telling us what we need to know to make an informed decision about the topic.
The Mainstream Media is what most people see (thus 'Mainstream'). They have abdicated their responsibility to be a check on power, and instead have become a mouthpiece for it. Luckily, there are many outlets for news, if you want to look, but we have to CHOOSE to move away from the corporate sources, and find the independent sources - the ones who may not tell you what you want to hear, but will tell you what you need to know.