Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law)

Book Description

The seven original essays included in this volume offer a sophisticated perspective on issues about the objectivity of legal interpretation and judicial decision-making. They examine objectivity from both metaphysical and epistemological perspectives and develop a variety of approaches, constructive and critical, to the fundamental problems of objectivity in morality. This is the first volume to consider the intersection between objectivity in ethics and the objectivity in law. It presents a state-of-the-art survey of live issues in metaethics, and examines their relevance to theorizing about law and adjudication.

Average customer rating:

How far should they go?
There's more where this came from ...
Zero stars - pointless exercise...
Looking at the murky world of journalistic ethics.
The ethics of blabbermouths

The Journalist and the Murderer
Janet Malcolm
Manufacturer: Vintage
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Ethics | Business Life | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

True Crime | True Accounts | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

General | Foreign Languages | Reference | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0679731830
Release Date: 1990-10-31

Book Description

In two previous books, Janet Malcolm explored the hidden sides of, respectively, institutional psychoanalysis and Freudian biography. In this book, she examines the psychopathology of journalism. Using a strange and unprecedented lawsuit as her larger-than-life example -- the lawsuit of Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted murderer, against Joe McGinniss, the author of Fatal Vision, a book about the crime -- she delves into the always uneasy, sometimes tragic relationship that exists between journalist and subject. In Malcolm's view, neither journalist nor subject can avoid the moral impasse that is built into the journalistic situation. When the text first appeared, as a two-part article in The New Yorker, its thesis seemed so radical and its irony so pitiless that journalists across the country reacted as if stung.

Her book is a work of journalism as well as an essay on journalism: it at once exemplifies and dissects its subject. In her interviews with the leading and subsidiary characters in the MacDonald-McGinniss case -- the principals, their lawyers, the members of the jury, and the various persons who testified as expert witnesses at the trial -- Malcolm is always aware of herself as a player in a game that, as she points out, she cannot lose. The journalist-subject encounter has always troubled journalists, but never before has it been looked at so unflinchingly and so ruefully. Hovering over the narrative -- and always on the edge of the reader's consciousness -- is the MacDonald murder case itself, which imparts to the book an atmosphere of anxiety and uncanniness. The Journalist and the Murderer derives from and reflects many of the dominant intellectual concerns of our time, and it will have a particular appeal for those who cherish the odd, the off-center, and the unsolved.

Customer Reviews:

How far should they go?.......2007-05-30

Joe McGinniss put himself on the map writing the classic 1969 book, THE SELLING OF A PRESIDENT. That book detailed how Richard Nixon was sold to the public like any other consumer product. It's worth reading if you can find a copy. The Nixon book was such a hit and McGinniss was so young he couldn't find material good enough to follow it up and his next few books were mediocre.

Determined to find another worthy subject, he tackled the case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, a man accused of killing his wife and children. That story became the bestselling FATAL VISION and this book, THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER, chronicles the techniques that McGinniss used to get close to McDonald, and how he pretended to support McDonald through the years of legal proceedings although he always thought him to be guilty and wanted a guilty verdict for a better book. McGinniss' technique led to unfettered access to legal files, evidence, but most importantly access to McDonald. They'd drink together, strategize together and were pals during the experience.

The central question is how far can a journalist go to get the story? Although a jury found McDonald guilty of murder, a later jury found in favor of McDonald in his suit against McGuinniss because they felt that his techniques were so underhanded and self-serving that even a murderer deserved better. The book shows the divide between the win-at-any-cost media and the public that grows weary of the techniques used against people to create news. Does the public have the right to know enough that journalists can lie to subjects to bring the story to press?

This short book makes you question a number of journalistic techniques and it doesn't hurt either that McDonald has strong supporters and could possibly be innocent of the murders, at least in the context of this book.

There's more where this came from ..........2004-11-10

Ms. Malcolm slices off the hand that feeds her

With regard to item "a)" from "...pointless exercise," MacDonald v. McGuiness was over when Ms. Malcolm got involved. According to Fatal Justice by Palmer & Bost, McGuiness's lawyers threw a post-trial press conference for the court of public opinion: only Ms. Malcolm showed up.

Otherwise, Journalist & Murderer is mainly about journalistic ethics, if there are any. Here, McGuiness insinuated himself into the defense team (he was privy to trial strategy) of Jeffrey MacDonald, with the promise presenting him in the best possible light. When McGuiness sours on MacDonald, he puts up a cheery front & presses on. After Fatal Vision, MacDonald felt betrayed.

Of course, in our Cartesian-dualist society, since it's always either-or, we ask why he should feel betrayed? Guys convicted of killing their families have no reason to feel betrayed. They're bad guys; they deserve betrayal.

However, when McGuiness concluded that MacDonald was guilty, trial evidence just wouldn't do. McGuiness shamefully proved himself a member of the old Star Chamber (maybe Joe expected some votes as Cheney's heir @Halliburton?) by trundling out Cleckley's (1941) old psychopathology checklist & diagnosing Dr. MacDonald an incurable, speed-fueled sociopath. Dr. Phil's forbearer: super!

Ms. Malcolm is my favorite contemporary writer: she is foremost literate & like my favorite noncontemporary writer Mencken, she can be vicious without being vengeful. However, when you read, say, 1999's Sheila McGough, you may well wonder what sort of journalistic ruse Ms. Malcolm might cook up while slicing vegetables in the McGough kitchen. The Journalist & the Murderer is a blueprint for any such ruse. Better news is that after reading J&M, you can laugh without a twinge of guilt @gaudily & nightly paraded notions like "journalistic integrity."

Zero stars - pointless exercise..........2003-11-10

I'd have a bit more respect for Ms. Malcolm if:

a) she had actually attended MacDonald vs. McGinniss, so that she could write from an informed viewpoint instead of relying on second- and third-hand accounts;

b) she had spent less time oohing and ahhing over MacDonald's personal magnetism, and stuck to the facts of the case at hand;

c) she had bothered to read the literary releases to McGinniss's publishing company, SIGNED BY MACDONALD HIMSELF, that gave McGinniss license to write any type of book he wished (including, one presumes, a book that might actually say that McGinniss himself had concluded that MacDonald was guilty, despite the friendship the Journalist may have felt for the Murderer);

d) she hadn't stated - repeatedly - the total fiction that the jury hung 5-1 in MacDonald's favor. The fact is, the jury hung on ONE QUESTION OUT OF THIRTY-SEVEN, never actually voting on the other 36, because one juror believed that MacDonald had violated his agreements with McGinniss by cultivating other journalists and by ignoring his agreement not to sue McGinniss.

Or is MacDonald next going to sue Malcolm, because in her very title, she herself calls him a murderer?

Let's call an egg an egg, Dr. Jeff. You killed them. Pay the price. Be done with it.

Looking at the murky world of journalistic ethics........2003-06-30

In 1970, a respected army physician named Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald claimed that four strangers broke into his home in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and killed his wife and two daughters. Although an army tribunal tried Dr. MacDonald and cleared him, years later the case was reopened. This time, MacDonald was convicted and sent to prison, where he still is today.

Janet Malcolm does not reopen the MacDonald case in her book, "The Journalist and the Murderer." Rather, she examines the issues behind a libel suit that MacDonald brought in 1984 against his supposed friend, Joe McGinnis, author of "Fatal Vision." Joe McGinniss posed as an ally of Jeffrey MacDonald for years. McGinnis lived with MacDonald for a while and even joined his defense team. McGinniss sent MacDonald sympathetic letters in support of his cause. In these letters, he frequently expressed his belief in MacDonald's innocence.

It was only after "Fatal Vision" was published that MacDonald discovered the truth. McGinniss did not believe in MacDonald's innocence; on the contrary, he portrays MacDonald as a psychopathic murderer. The author posed as a friend for the sole purpose of keeping MacDonald in the dark so that McGinniss would continue to have access to his subject. "Fatal Vision" became a huge bestseller and it eventually became a miniseries.

Malcolm's book, written in 1990, takes on added significance in 2003, when the ethics of journalists are under fire as never before. Time and again, a small number of journalists have been accused of plagiarizing and fabricating stories. The public is beginning to recongnize that reporters are fallible people who suffer from the same pressures, ambitions, and even psychological disorders as other ordinary mortals.

Malcolm's book is not merely a condemnation of McGinniss's behavior towards MacDonald. Her premise is that the journalist's relationship to his subject is, in its very essence, a perilous one. The gullible subject babbles away to his "sympathetic" listener, revealing more of himself than he realizes. When all is said and done, only the journalist and his editors have control over the final product. They are sometimes tempted to distort the facts to make the piece more interesting.

Malcolm asserts that certain journalists are con men who prey on people's loneliness, credibility, and narcissism to get a good story. Journalists have their own agendas and the "truth," which is elusive at best, is not always their top priority. Malcolm's book is a warning not to believe everything that is printed in a newspaper or a magazine, since each story is only one version of reality.

The ethics of blabbermouths.......2003-06-02

In The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm examines the transactional relationship between a journalist and her subject, especially the dynamic of what happens during an interview. (Why do so many people repeatedly and voluntarily blabber stupidly to the media? Why is it so difficult to refuse a microphone?) And what moral obligation does a journalist have to her subject?

Malcolm answers these questions (as much as she's able to) in the context of a murder trail that journalist Joe McGinniss wrote about, after being given unlimited access to accused murderer Jeffrey MacDonald and his defense team. McGinniss, originally sympathetic to MacDonald, comes to believe that he is guilty of the murder (the jury agreed), but does not reveal his change of heart to MacDonald, in order to maintain access to him. Once McGinniss's book, Fatal Vision, is published, MacDonald is horrified by the portrait presented to him and sues McGinniss for fraud.

Book Description

For more than two decades, the law and economics movement has been one of the most influential and controversial schools of thought in American jurisprudence. In this authoritative intellectual history, James R. Hackney Jr. situates the modern law and economics movement within the trajectory of American jurisprudence from the early days of the Republic to the present. Hackney is particularly interested in the claims of objectivity or empiricism asserted by proponents of law and economics. He argues that the incorporation of economic analysis into legal decision making is not an inherently objective enterprise. Rather, law and economics often cloaks ideological determinationsâparticularly regarding the distribution of wealthâunder the cover of science.

Hackney demonstrates how legal-economic thought has been affected by the prevailing philosophical ideas about objectivity, which have in turn evolved in response to groundbreaking scientific discoveries. Thus Hackney’s narrative is a history not only of law and economics but also of select strands of philosophy and science. He traces forward from the seventeenth-century the interaction of legal thinking and economic analysis with ideas about the attainability of certitude. The principal legal-economic theories Hackney examines are those that emerged from classical legal thought, legal realism, law and neoclassical economics, and critical legal studies. He links these theories respectively to formalism, pragmatism, the analytic turn, and neopragmatism/postmodernism, and he explains how each of these schools of philosophical thought was influenced by specific scientific discoveries: Newtonian physics, Darwin’s theory of evolution, Einstein’s theories of relativity, and quantum mechanics. Under Cover of Science challenges claims that the contemporary law and economics movement is an objective endeavor by historicizing ideas about certitude and empiricism and their relation to legal-economic thought.

Customer Reviews:

Insightful, important, and very well-written .......2007-08-04

Professor Hackney, who teaches torts, corporate law, and jurisprudence at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, Massachusetts, is the author of several important articles on the relationship between law and science in legal theory. Prof. Hackney's prologue outlines the context of the project. Certain influential theorists have long used the rhetoric of science and claims of objectivity to maintain law's authority and promote their economic vision. Prof. Hackney implicitly questions these claims to objectivity. But his book does much more than that. Prof. Hackney's book examines the intellectual history of legal theory as it relates to economics and science, and draws some lessons about the future. While Prof. Hackney is particularly interested in examining claims to scientific authority in the context of accident law, his lens is much broader than that. This perceptive and wide-ranging book takes readers from U.S. legal theory before the Civil War all the way through to contemporary times. His tracing of the trajectory of legal-economic theory is an indispensable review of many influential legal thinkers both in law schools and in the courts. Its clarity makes it accessible to general readers interested in legal theory as well as legal academics and law students. In addition, Prof. Hackney insightfully links developments in science with developments in legal theory, particularly in the twentieth century. This excellent and erudite book is written in a lucid, engaging style and is an important addition to the library of anyone who is interested in the history of ideas relating to law, science, and economics.

Narrow scope, shaky historical technique.......2007-07-28

Open up a book with a title like "Economic analysis of XYZ law", and it's usually filled with graphs and differential equations. How did law come to this pass? What kind of authority are the authors "appropriating" by imitating physics and other sciences, or at least by imitating economists' imitations of those sciences? Where did the protagonists of the Law & Economics movement (L&E) come from? And most importantly, are judges really persuaded by this scientific-looking stuff?

James Hackney, Jr.'s (JH's) book aspires to be an intellectual history of the impact of legal economic thought on accident law, a branch of torts. The book's title is a barbed comment on the stance of the Chicago School of L&E, the L&E theorists that most conspicuously manifested a "quest for objectivity and scientific pretensions" (@ xiii). According to JH, Richard Posner and other Chicagoans too long pretended that there wasn't any need for L&E to address questions about the unequal distribution of income and wealth, and too long denied that they were expounding a "political philosophy." This polemical aspect of the book, expressed in a usually clear and expressive writing style that is much more comfortable to read than typical legal academic prose, is one of its more successful features. (I also tend to agree with JH's political stance vis-à-vis Judge Posner's politics.)

But since the book also aims to be an intellectual history (see Acknowledgments @ ix-xii), I was hoping to get at least a partial answer to my questions from reading it. Unfortunately, these hopes weren't fulfilled.

Partly this is my mistake: I didn't take JH's subtitle literally enough. The word "theory" really means theory. Aside from one 1905 US Supreme Court decision (Lochner v NY, which doesn't relate to accident law, BTW), you won't find any court decisions mentioned in this book. You also won't find any discussion of the role of judges, although O.W. Holmes, Judge Posner and JH's former torts professor Guido Calabresi (now also a Federal judge) are discussed in their roles as theorists. This book is mainly about controversies among law academics.

However, the book also has a number of problems with its execution as historical writing. Those will be my focus in the remainder of this rather long review. Roughly, my issues can be grouped under three main heads: (1) problematic choice of sources, (2) gaps in the chain of intellectual provenance, the "chain of intellectual title" that shows who was influenced by whom, and (3) anachronisms and other weaknesses in interpretation of sources.

1. CHOICE OF SOURCES

(A) JH relies only on a narrow selection of published works. He doesn't mention any archival research or interviews, nor is there any indication that interviews were sought but declined. Given that many of the key figures in this book are still alive, especially Posner and Calabresi, the omission of interviews in this intellectual history is surprising.

(B) The selection principle for primary sources is very unclear. E.g., after mentioning that "the principal influence" of the "analytic turn" in philosophy on legal economic theory, "can be traced to the Vienna Circle" (@81), JH proceeds to focus on a book by Oxford don A.J. Ayer, who was not a Vienna Circle member. No attempt is made to demonstrate the direct influence of this book on any L&E theorists. (To be fair, Vienna Circle member F.J. Hayek, who was an important factor in the early history of the Chicago School, is discussed later in a different context, albeit briefly and at times puzzlingly, as when a 1951 speech by Frank Knight is said "to foreshadow" Hayek's 1944 book, _The Road to Serfdom_ (@103).)

(C) Although the book proposes to analyze the impact of scientism in L&E, JH doesn't engage with a wealth of directly apposite secondary scholarship on the history of the uptake of mathematical and scientific metaphors by economics, the history of science and other pertinent topics. When I say it doesn't "engage with" them, I mean it doesn't refer to them at all, whether for support, to distinguish them or to refute them. Some of these sources include Philip Mirowski's _More Heat than Light_ (1989) and _Machine Dreams_ (2002) and Roy Weintraub's _How Economics Became a Mathematical Science_ (2002, from the same press as JH's book). Mirowski's books in particular are copiously documented and based on extensive archival research. JH also neglects the historiography of the concept of objectivity, as exemplified by T. Porter, M. Poovey, L. Daston, and others. I discuss some issues raised by these works for JH's analyses further below.

2. GAPS IN CHAIN OF PROVENANCE

To show how L&E pretended to be scientific, you need to establish at least one of these three logical chains of intellectual influence:

(i) L&E < < science
(ii) L&E < < law < < science, or
(iii) L&E < < economics < < science,

where I use "X <
(iv) split of L&E -> "institutional" L&E (= Calabresi/Good Guy L&E) + Chicago L&E (= Posner/Bad Guy L&E), and
(v) how Bad Guy L&E became scientistic, while Good Guy L&E didn't.

(BTW, of course I mean "guy" in a gender neutral way; however, all the theorists discussed by JH happen to be men.) Scientism means "privileging knowledge forms deemed scientific" (@xiv; see also the comment about Posner @ 108).

JH doesn't attempt to show linkage (i), and he bases (iv) on the dyads Chicago < < Coase (@105ff) and institutionalists < < Pigou (@96ff, 107), so I won't discuss these further. But he does attempt to demonstrate the rest, with varying degrees of success. I will focus on (ii) and (iii), and discuss (v) in the context of each.

(A) L&E < < law < < science

JH takes the linkage L&E < < law for granted, which seems reasonable; so let's see what he does with the anterior link, law < < science. In Chapter 1, JH asserts a link between Newton and Blackstone (and an even vaguer connection between Blackstone and Leibniz). As JH misses several opportunities to connect Blackstone to later thinkers (esp. Hayek concerning natural law and liberty), I won't dwell on this. Suffice it to say that JH fails to show that Blackstone's notions of "natural law" had any direct connection to Newton's physical theories instead of other notions of "natural law" floating around at the time (Selden, Grotius, Locke, et al.). Nor, aside from a broad quote from John Dewey (@18), does JH provide evidence for his assertion that Blackstone's "axiomatic" presentation of law was based on Newton (@16). Assuming it was indeed "axiomatic," couldn't that approach have been modeled on geometry, for example? A geometry-based approach had plenty of precedent, e.g. Spinoza. Better evidence (and more contemporary with Blackstone) for the Newton connection would have been helpful. See also section 3.A of this review.

In Chapters 2, 3 and 4, JH talks about the influence of the theories of, respectively, Darwin, Einstein and quantum mechanics (QM), which have "far-reaching philosophical implications," and which "forced intellectuals to reconsider deep-seated (but often-unspoken) beliefs about ways the world works" (@ xv-xvi). How convenient that they were unspoken - that liberates JH from any need to demonstrate explicit connections between thinkers. E.g., JH connects Darwin to "an eclipse of certainty" that begets pragmatism, which begets O.W. Holmes and N. Green, with their skepticism about strict causation in tort law (@49-56). Although this may sound plausible, JH doesn't support it with any specific references to Darwin in these men's writings, correspondence, etc.

His connections from relativity and QM to law are even more Zeitgeist-y and vaguely asserted. Relativity "re-established the supremacy of the view that science is in large part deductive and determinate" (@82), and "inspired confidence in the progress of the species under the comforting umbrella of science" (@85); while QM "marked the end of the 'quest for certainty' in physics" (@125). From JH's account, we are asked to believe that relativity and QM whiplashed intellectuals' world views twice within about 10, or at most 20, years; he doesn't cite any evidence for how quickly or slowly each of these ideas diffused outside of physics per se. And as with Darwinism, JH doesn't show any direct influence of the scientific theories on the education, writing, etc. of L&E theorists. So on the linkage of science to legal theory, he is satisfied with a level of explanation about as deep as a freshman lecture course on the history of Western thought.

Does JH use science to differentiate the two main L&E schools? Yes, through the literary device of discussing "determinate" relativity in the chapter about the rise of Bad Guy L&E, and "uncertain" QM in the chapter about the rise of Good Guy L&E. That QM had been around for 35 years by the time Chicagoan Coase published his social costs essay, and for more that 45 years by the time Posner published his first book, is never mentioned, much less addressed. And even if JH had proved that each school is influenced by a different branch of physics, this wouldn't explain why Chicago L&E is fonder of "scientific trappings" than its institutional cousin. Will looking at the linkage between science and economics help us understand this?

(B) L&E < < economics < < science

Let's start with economics < < science. In his chapter about Bad Guy L&E, JH tells us "Neoclassical economic thought ascends in an intellectual environment shaped by the philosophical implications of Einstein's theories" (@89). As far as I can tell, the most concrete case JH makes for this is that: (I) Einstein was influenced by Ernst Mach (@85), (II) the Vienna Circle was interested in Mach and Einstein (id.), (III) Hayek hung around the Vienna Circle and had studied Mach (@89), (IV) Hayek influenced neoclassical economics and the Chicago School. In other words, Einstein and Hayek had read some of the same books (maybe by German cowboy novelist Karl May too? Einstein was a fan). In fact, there is a further irony in using Hayek as a link to scientism, as mentioned below.

JH's claim for the importance of Einstein's theory for neoclassical economics (NCE) doesn't square with the research of Mirowski (1989), who exhaustively documented the explicit connections between NCE and a mid-19th Century version of thermodynamics - as in "equilibrium" and all those other notions that are taught in Econ 101. Contrary to JH's point, Mirowski's treatment of relativity theory and QM (in the context of their reducing the status of the "law" of energy conservation) shows how *divergent* the ideas of modern physics are from the formalism adopted by NCE (Mirowski 1989 @77-98). In addition, Mirowski (2002) and Weintraub (2002) document the connections between WWII operations research (OR) and the NCE program, as well as the influence of the Bourbaki school of mathematics on NCE. They don't rely on vague assertions of "intellectual environments", but on citations, correspondence, who studied with whom and who funded whom. The protagonists of Mirowski's and Weintraub's stories include Samuelson, Arrow, Debreu, and von Neumann, plus a cameo role for Milton Friedman, who was involved in OR during the war. JH doesn't mention any of these folks in his book, aside from a triple-play snide reference Friedman, Posner and Adam Smith (@140). His failure to engage with Mirowski, Weintraub and similar research, much of it put together with deep historiographical craft and scientific literacy, is a critical flaw in his account of the economics < < science linkage.

Unlike the accounts of Mirowski and Weintraub, JH's story doesn't illuminate how all those graphs and differential equations - "scientific trappings" - got into economics texts, much less Posner's. In his Bad Guy chapter, the economists JH discusses at most length are Hayek, Knight and Lionel Robbins.

OK, Hayek and Knight were directly connected to the Chicago School. However, Hayek's inclusion in this context is based solely on _The Road to Serfdom_. JH doesn't include any discussion of Hayek's anti-scientism writings such as _The Counter-Revolution of Science_ (1952). (See also, P. Mirowski, "Economics, Science and Knowledge: Polanyi versus Hayek" (1998), reprinted in Mirowski, _The Effortless Economy of Science?_ (Duke U Press 2004).) Hayek actually opposed economics' reliance on the methods of the physical sciences, because such reliance ignored human purposes. Hayek's view was that economics was making a political mistake by adopting a scientific point of view. To say the least, this complicates JH's reliance on Hayek; JH's failure to engage the 1952 book or related writings once again illustrates the limitations of the Great Books (a/k/a "historically significant exemplar" @81) method of intellectual history.

As for Knght, JH attaches significance to his assertion that economics "is the only one of the social sciences which has aspired to the distinction of an exact science" (quoted @ 100). But this is just an assertion of scientific status, not evidence of "trappings". Compare JH's account to that of Mercuro & Medema (M&M) in their survey of L&E, _Economics and the Law_: "Knight's interest and strength did not lie in the use of formal mathematical and quantitative tools, but rather in the economic way of thinking" (2d ed. 2007 @ 99; JH cites to the 1st ed. of M&M, in other contexts). This makes the scientism of the Bad Guys all the more mysterious.

As for Robbins, he made similar assertions of the scientific nature of economics in his _Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science_ (1931) (discussed @94ff). But what was his connection to the Chicago School? Apparently that he taught at the London School of Economics when Hayek was there - but according to JH, Hayek seems to have influenced Robbins, rather than the other way round (@ 203n64). JH makes many protestations about the importance of Robbins's book, including that one E.J. Burtt, Jr. viewed it (in 1972) as the "'clearest expression' of the twentieth-century view of economics as 'pure science' and as a 'highly influential work'"(id.). But that doesn't mean Robbins's book instantiated the science - only that it arrogated the status of science to economics. Neither M&M nor Weintraub mention this "influential work" at all.

Two years before E.J. Burtt wrote his encomium of Robbins, some Swedes wrote this about someone else: "Generally speaking, [his] contribution has been that, more than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science." The authors were the bankers who give out what we lazy folks call the Nobel Prize in Economics, and they were describing Paul Samuelson (second person to receive it). Actually, Samuelson really did try to combine QM with economic theory, in an explicit mathematical way (see detailed description in Mirowski 1989 @ 378-386). If I could nominate an "influential work" in economics, near the top of my list would be Samuelson's introductory textbook (1st ed. 1947), which has trained generations of economists, lawyers and everyone else. But as already noted, JH is mum about him. Why? Because his politics don't fit into the Bad Guy libertarian paradigm? Because most of his work (other than about public goods) is outside the tunnel vision of L&E theorists? Maybe it's hard for them to see Samuelson's contribution because they're standing on it.

How does JH see the L&E < < economics link? We have the connection of Hayek to Chicago, and a bunch of protestations by Chicago & LSE folks about economics being scientific, but anything more? Coase and Posner were at Chicago. But here is a curious thing about this intellectual history: it doesn't contain any description of the biography, education, personality or Bildung of L&E's most influential practitioner. Who put the bee in Posner's bonnet about all this economics stuff? How did he become L&E's poster boy? He didn't go to school at Chicago, so how did he wind up there? And where did Posner first learn about scientific trappings - from Samuelson's textbook, or somewhere else? We are never told. And that is a darn shame.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Couldn't "under cover of science" merely refer to the rationalizations that Posner et al. employed to pretend that they were being "objective" and apolitical? Of course. In that case, it would be enough for JH to show that Knight, Posner et al. merely asserted a scientific basis for their positions, and then to show that they weren't in fact "objective" or apolitical. But if that's all JH wanted to talk about, why drag in Newton and Einstein and all the rest?

3. ANACHRONISMS &C.

(A) Paraphrasing Blackstone's writings on the study of law (Commentaries I. 1), JH says "A university education was necessary for future lawyers to understand the scientific [sic] method. Practicing lawyers were not only to be legal practitioners but legal scientists (theorists). It was important to claim the mantle, the cover, of science, because in the modern world science provided a basis for legitimacy" (@17). He offers no evidence for this "important[ce]" in the 18th Century - a time when theologians and authors were also respected; but I want to focus on textual matters.

I read - and text-searched - Blackstone I.1 after reading JH. None of the phrases "scientist," "scientific method" or "theorist" appear there. The word "science" appears often - but in Blackstone's day the word's meanings included branches of learning that encompass all the liberal arts (see New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary @ 2717). It's clear that he used the word in this flexible context; Blackstone also quotes (@ p. 16 of Avalon edition) a comment of from 15th Century lawyer Sir John Fortescue referring to the common law as "that science" - this more than 200 years before Newton. Moreover, the phrase "scientifical method" does appear in Blackstone (@p.34 of Avalon edition); NSOED's meanings of "scientifical" include "designed for the furthering of knowledge" (its most likely meaning in this context), rather than the Baconian empirical method. In the face of all this ambiguity, JH has the burden to show that Blackstone's specific words had the meanings JH imputes to them. Sensitivity to what words meant at the time they were used is the burden of any historian. It is not carried in this book.

(B) Similarly, JH mentions for Blackstone "[t]he scientific gloss was key to putting forth the appearance of objectivity for the Commentaries and the claims to legitimacy for English law" (@17). What does "objectivity" mean here? Does it mean the "objectivity" that was associated with science in the 20th Century? As, e.g., T. Porter shows in his book _Trust in Numbers_ (1994), as late as the 19th Century, professional judgment was prized more highly than depersonalized quantitation. Or maybe "objectivity" means "nonpolitical adjudication" (@xiv)? According to Porter, it was more likely judges who leant their prestige to science than the other way around (see, e.g., Porter @ 227).

(C) I could go on, but I'll close with one more observation: JH often interpolates his own words into those of other authors, but these interpolations are often anachronistic, more confusing than helpful, or both. "Theorists" above is one example, another is his interpolation of "efficiency" into a comment of Calabresi's as an explanatory gloss on "avoidance of waste" (@139). So is avoidance of waste what he means when he says of Hayek's views of property that "Efficiency was the ultimate criterion" (@90)? Or does he mean Pareto efficiency? Kaldor-Hicks efficiency? Something else? We'll never know: aside from that solitary parenthetical aside, "efficiency" is never defined in the book.

CONCLUSION

JH relates that a professional colleague and friend told him that "you become an intellectual historian by doing intellectual history" (@ x). In retrospect, that well-intentioned advice was at best way too simplistic. Lawyers and economists are indeed like physicists, in that they (we, actually) seem to think they're qualified in anyone else's intellectual field too, as long as it isn't a legal specialty outside our own (could get sued if we mess up). In fact, historiography is a profession too, and there's a lot to be learned from the pros. JH's heart seems to be in the right place, and he can express himself more directly than most law professors, so I wish him good luck in a subsequent attempt. He writes vigorously enough that I'd also encourage him to aim for a broader readership. But I hope he'll roll up his sleeves and try to do it right next time.

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News

Average customer rating:

Perception Management And The Basic Assumption of Official Doctrine
You are as liberal as the man who owns you
Really.....Reporter Bernard Goldberg disagrees...
What Liberal Media? What Round Earth?
Why Are We In Iraq? Where Is Osama? Why Are We $9 Trillion in Debt? Right-Wing Spin Machine!

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News
Eric Alterman
Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Media Studies | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Journalism | Writing | Reference | Subjects | Books

General | Foreign Languages | Reference | Subjects | Books

General | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0465001769
Release Date: 2003-02-04

Amazon.com

The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion. --John Moe

Book Description

The question of whose interests the media protects-and how-has achieved holy-grail-like significance. Is media bias keeping us from getting the whole story? If so, who is at fault? Is it the liberals who are purported to be running the newsrooms, television and radio stations of this country, duping an unsuspecting public into mistaking their party line for news? Or is it the conservatives who have identified media bias as a reliably inflammatory rallying cry around which to consolidate their political base as they cynically "work the refs?" The media has become so pervasive in our lives that regardless of exactly where on the ideological fence you sit, the question of media bias has become all but unavoidable.

Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.

What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for "liberal" bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.

After reading What Liberal Media? you will understand that the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right-regardless of how "liberal" any given reporter may be.

Customer Reviews:

Perception Management And The Basic Assumption of Official Doctrine.......2007-08-27

What the accusation of a liberal-leaning media structure does is establish a [corporate/state nexus] desired framework which serves as a crucial overarching structure for journalism/discussion: this far, and no further. That way, anything that falls outside of the framework is ignored, attacked, spun, or omitted outright. It is an exercise in obfuscation. Within the various mediums of mainline media, it is difficult for many to distinguish between "news," entertainment, and indoctrination. [lean heavily towards the latter] "News," shows, movies, sports and Empty-V all deliver products which essentially sell a specific mindset, and can do so even more effectively than "commercials" do, yet are essentially little more than advertisements. How? People have long been conditioned to identify themselves with such 'products' and not to see reality as it is, thereby establishing a media induced unreality. Which leads to Alterman's book.

I found my copy in a used book shop last week, and even though I was already quite aware of the right-wing fostered mythos of the so-called liberal media, decided to pick it up and wasn't disappointed. He's not exactly covering new ground - linguist and life-long activist/dissident Noam Chomsky was making the same point decades ago. The works of Charles Lewis, Mark Crispin Miller, Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman also come to mind. Most of what is seen or read in mainstream "news" is so carefully managed that the result is little more than the transmission of elite opinion to the masses for strategic purposes. People are instructed as to which views they should adhere to based around the desires of hawkish elites and vested corporate interests, hardly "liberal" in their professional/institutional capacities, who have to sell an open society a democracy-friendly movie script in order to, from their standing, win as many "hearts and minds" as possible in order to suppress dissent i.e. democratic interference to illegality and immorality. As Chomsky warns, "propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian society." Or to cite Alterman, "many conservatives who attack the media for its alleged liberalism do so because the constant drumbeat of groundless accusation has proven an effective weapon in weakening journalism's watchdog function."

The agenda setting mainline media is nothing more than a bullhorn public relation's/propaganda effort for the corporate and political interests it is owned by. The media is supposed to serve as a checks and balance system between Power and The People, but instead it does the exact opposite and ensures the right-wing profits over people agenda. There is always a subversion of language which precedes fascist movements. Such movements seek to instill a parallel reality while vehemently attacking any who dare question motive or validity. It is for this reason that free thinking moral agents need be gravely concerned over what's happened to our media, and the ensuing belligerence of authoritarians who relish its dumbed down, militant tone. For the accusation of a liberal slant gets incredible mileage in shifting the entire national debate much further to the right than what many are able or are willing to concede. Alterman himself even steps lightly here, and although is willing to state the obvious with regard to the 2000 and 04 elections, is quick to avoid venturing onto conspiratorial groud per se, something more professional liberals need to overcome as an effective means of altering the established national dialogue. The fact is, people with convergent interests, often times unaccountable to the public, conspire to carve a bigger slice of pie for themselves all the time. Yet this top-down, deeply ingrained bias against lending credence to conspiracies is a cornerstone of right-wing rhetoric and has unfortunately prevented many, liberal or authoritarian, from seeing what should be many painfully obvious truths regarding the American empire. Although the tide is shifting, I remain unconvinced that the brainwashed public mind will evolve beyond serving the interests of dominant institutions.

You are as liberal as the man who owns you.......2007-08-13

One Republican troll who probably did not read the book said, "First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.".

But there is a problem. The corporations that own the media outlets where these reporters work sympathize for the Republican party. The Republican party is the party of corporations.
In one of the chapters Alterman explains that no matter how liberal a reporter is, he will censor his own work, trying to please his editor, and the editor about that editor, and the managing editor, all the way to the top, which in the case of MSNBC, is General Electric, for example.

Right-wingers do not give us example of media bias, but go on yapping about how polls show reporters vote Democratic.

Prove it with a study. Prove it that corporate-owned TV channels and newspapers are publishing lefty stuff. That's right. You don't have anything but cries of "liberal media!, liberal media!"

91% of talk radio (political) content is conservative.

Really.....Reporter Bernard Goldberg disagrees..........2007-03-23

First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.

Moving on...Bernard Goldberg has a book out called "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News"

Here is some of what he had to say in an interview:

"Well, I think we marginalize conservative views. I think too many people in the big-time media think conservatives, in too many cases, are just right-wing nuts."

"They marginalize conservatives mainly.. . I could give you many, many examples, Terry, but mainly by identifying every conservative who's in a story because -- and I think rightly -- the audience needs to know that these people are conservatives, that their views are conservative views and we should know, as they say, where they're coming from. But the very fact that we rarely identify liberals tells you, at least it tells me, that journalists very often think that these liberal views aren't liberal at all, but really mainstream, civilized, reasonable views. And that's the problem, I think."

"Let me just give you one little example. It was during impeachment, which we can all agree was a very, very big, very important story. And right before the impeachment proceedings began, Senators went up to sign what they call "an oath book," promising to be fair and impartial. As they went up, Peter Jennings, doing a live play-by-play, on ABC, identified Senator Santorum as a young conservative Senator from Pennsylvania -- determinately conservative. Then Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was also a determined conservative. Senator Smith from New Hampshire was a very, very conservative Senator from New Hampshire. Those are exact quotes. And I think that's absolutely fine.

This is impeachment, it's a political process, we need to know that these are conservatives, and their conservatism may affect their views. But Marvin, Barbara Boxer was simply Barbara Boxer from California. Ted Kennedy was simply Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Paul Wellstone was simply Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Now, did Peter Jennings, who is a bright, intelligent, excellent, first-rate newsman, did he really think that the conservative views would affect the vote, but that liberal views wouldn't affect the vote?

You see, this reminds me of the bad-old days, and we both remember these days, Marvin, when the only time a criminal was identified in a news story by race is if he were black. Why was that? And if the criminal was white, by the way, his race meant nothing because the black criminal was seen as what -- different, out of the mainstream, certainly inferior, not just inferior to you and me, inferior to white criminals, and possibly dangerous, too."

What Liberal Media? What Round Earth?.......2006-06-14

Alterman tries to deny the obvious left-wing bias of the media through fallacious arguments. For one, he compares complaints of liberal bias with complaints about media bias against minorities. In actuality, at one time, minorities were in fact seldom shown on TV, and then almost always in negative, stereotyped roles (e. g., black maids, Asian coolies). But those times have changed. Not so with the liberal bias. In fact, I sensed the liberal bias of the media even as a child, long before I knew what a liberal even was. I saw the constant glorification of hippies and those who protested the war in Vietnam, while there was complete silence on the cruelties of the Communists. At that time, I wondered why. Now I know.

Alterman tries vainly to ridicule the expose of liberal media bias by stating that there would have to be some sort of conspiracy in order for there to be a bias. In actuality, since most journalists are liberals, no conspiracy of any kind is necessary for a liberal bias to exist. Liberals simply do what comes naturally to them. As it stands, when a new set of Democratic phraseology arises, it almost simultaneously is spoken also by members of the mainstream media. This proves that there is some degree of organized collusion between the media and the Democratic party.

Every election cycle, it is the same. Every charge against a Republican is publicized, no matter how trivial. Democrats are coddled-unless their conduct is so egregious that it cannot possibly be ignored. Whenever Jesse Jackson opens his mouth, especially against Republicans, he gets profuse, uncritical coverage, no matter how racially inflammatory and baseless his accusations are. Conservative blacks get almost no coverage.

Alterman tells us that "when it bleeds, it leads". Nice try, but this does not absolve the media of its left-wing bias. There is a double standard against violence. Violence against homosexuals is reported, while violence by homosexuals is not. Right wing violence (e. g., abortion clinic bombings) is demonized, while left wing violence is not. The persecution of Christians worldwide has received almost zero coverage in the mainstream media, because it does not fit their agenda of who a victim is. One can go on and on.

Why Are We In Iraq? Where Is Osama? Why Are We $9 Trillion in Debt? Right-Wing Spin Machine!.......2006-03-24

The truth is out and finally people have started waking up! Pravda, I mean, Fox News, is the Republican spin machine. Anyone who wishes to know why this country has gone downhill in the last six years, only has to look at the garbage compiled on mediamatters.org. This is nonsense America is being fed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Republicans now have all branches of Congress, the presidency, and the media, and they still can't get it together. They've failed, and their drones, Ann Coulter, who doesn't even research her info before she's interviewed and is pulled out onto the carpet when she isn't on the GOP's Fox News, Michelle Malkin, who like Coulter, has been caught plagerizing on more than one occasion, and thinks detainment camps are just great, even though she's Japanese herself, but don't let that rich immigrant parents background she has get in the way, college drop outs, Sean Hannity, and drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, pervert and sexual harasser, Bill O'Reilly, and the list goes on and on and on. These guys are running out of material. If Coulter isn't advocating poisoning the Supreme Court, or saying that New York would surrender to terrorists, she's saying that the left are traitors. Which party is outting the CIA which is the very definition of treason? Which party put Hollywood in positions of power in the government, (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono)? THE RIGHT WING! These people are flunkies, and they continue to get their pockets lined, while the Right wing steals our money.

Objectivity in Ethics and Law (Collected Essays in Law)

Average customer rating:

Objectivity in Ethics and Law (Collected Essays in Law)

Manufacturer: Ashgate Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Ethics & Professional Responsibility | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Non-US Legal Systems | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 0754623297

Average customer rating:

Law and Objectivity
Kent Greenawalt
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Jurisprudence | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Philosophy | Law | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 0195098331

Book Description

In modern times the idea of the objectivity of law has been undermined by skepticism about legal institutions, disbelief in ideals of unbiased evaluation, and a conviction that language is indeterminate. Greenawalt here considers the validity of such skepticism, examining such questions as: whether the law as it exists provides determinate answers to legal problems; whether the law should treat people in an "objective way," according to abstract rules, general categories, and external consequences; and how far the law is anchored in something external to itself, such as social morality, political justice, or economic efficiency. In the process he illuminates the development of jurisprudence in the English-speaking world over the last fifty years, assessing the contributions of many important movements.

Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us

Average customer rating:

Well written, but it misses at every point
sloppy reasoning by a lawyer
why would I want to bother shooting him?
Well written, but it misses at every point.
A riveting, must-read for anyone who cares about freedom.

Don't Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us
Bruce Sanford
Manufacturer: Free Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Civil Rights & Liberties | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Media Studies | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Media & the Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Journalism | Writing | Reference | Subjects | Books

General | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0684828138

Amazon.com

First Amendment specialist Bruce Sanford believes that a tidal wave of antimedia sentiment and distrust is undermining one of the most basic rights of the United States. "Loathed and distrusted by the public they hunger to serve," Don't Shoot the Messenger asserts, "the media is discovering that its crumbling credibility with the public is reflected in the courts." Sanford uses anecdotes, public opinion polls, and research to bolster the claim that over the past two decades the public has grown increasingly mistrustful of media motives and accuracy. Polling results point to media cynicism, relentless aggressiveness, sensationalism, and suspected bias as the chief culprits in the public's increased disdain for those who present the news. But it's not exactly clear whether Sanford sides with the public or the media; he seems to simultaneously deride the media for intrusive and unfair reportage--citing incidents as varied as profiles of Dan Quayle and ride-alongs with law enforcement officers as they move in on suspects--and for lack of backbone (for settling lawsuits brought against news organizations out of court). He presents deserved criticism of news organizations' tactics and increased obsession with the bottom line, but his defense of the media is lackluster in comparison, and it seemingly contradicts his expressed alarm over recent court decisions that have had the effect of reining in the media. If reporters don't clean up their act, he worries, the court decisions are likely to get worse. --Linda Killian

Book Description

The First Amendment and the American news media are under siege. Loathed and distrusted by the public it hungers to serve, the media faces a backlash of unprecedented proportions. With wit and revealing tales from the trenches, Bruce Sanford, one of our leading First Amendment lawyers, shows that our hatred of the media has reached such heights that even judges and juries have turned against news organizations:

* Multimillion-dollar verdicts have been leveled against ABC and other media companies

* The Gannett Company paid Chiquita Brands International more than $10 million to avoid a morass of litigation over a series of articles built on the unauthorized interception of voice mail messages.

* In the Paula Jones case, Judge Susan Webber Wright called the media "disingenuous," "callous" and "driven by profits," slamming the door on access to information about the President of the United States.

In case after case, judges, dismayed by the media's newsgathering practices, are curtailing constitutional protections for the press while the Supreme Court maintains a stony silence.

When the First Amendment erodes in the courtroom, we all need a wake-up call. This lively and richly storied work is the first to help us understand the dangerous consequences of the disintegration of trust between the public and the news media. In a masterful twenty-year retrospective, Sanford sifts through historical evidence and polls to explore the root causes for the mounting hostility toward the media. He explains how our anger with the press has deepened during the 1990s and how we -- as well as the media -- contribute to the problem. Drawing on interviews with more than four hundred people -- from former Vice President Dan Quayle and scandal-scarred Donna Rice to such respected icons as David Broder and Eugene Roberts -- Sanford describes a dangerous dialectic: the media falsely stereotypes public figures, while the public encourages the caricatures. As consumers we drive up the salaries of star journalists, yet we despise their culture of celebrity. We crave media saturation, yet we are so unsatisfied with the result that we are willing to look the other way when the truth is silenced.

Bruce Sanford is no apologist for sloppy reporting or the vanities of the media. Yet there is something more important at stake. We are killing one of our most treasured national resources -- journalists with the courage to take on corruption or abuse of power wherever they flourish.

Customer Reviews:

Well written, but it misses at every point.......2005-11-21

In this book, "an accomplished press lawyer" sets out to describe what is happening to the press today. Chapter 1 discusses the declining respect for the press that polls show in the 1990s. Chapters 2 through 5 discuss some of the causes for the problem. Chapters 6 though 8 describe the consequences of this dislike of the press. And finally, chapter 9 explains that the press does understand the problem.

First, let me say that the book is well written and interesting to read. My problem with this book is that Mr. Sanford either does not grasp the depth of the press's problems or is seeking to help his clients. I was amazed to read that the author completely dismisses the idea that bias is part of the problem, "There is no more 'sensationalism' or 'bias' in the media today than there ever was..." And this is his whole treatment of the subject.

A second problem that the author skates around is outright fraud perpetrated by the press. He barely mentions the whole NBC/exploding pickup trucks fiasco, and completely ignores its role in several court cases. That the author does not perceive that this could be injurious to the people's trust in the press is mind-boggling. (This book was published in 1999, and as such predates the recent NBC/forged documents scandal.)

Finally, I would like to criticize the author's view of the history of the press. He repeatedly compares the modern press with its 19th century incarnation, the yellow-journalists. However, what he seems completely unaware of is the generation of journalists, such as Edward R. Murrow, who built the modern press's reputation.

Therefore, this book does not present a full picture of the press's problems, their history and traditions, or even a blueprint for where we go from here.

sloppy reasoning by a lawyer.......2000-04-22

I was quite shocked at the amount of sloppy reasoning contained in Don't Shoot the Messenger, given that it comes from supposedly one of the best lawyers in Washington. The author makes the mistake (that lawyers are supposed to avoid) of accepting his client's position uncritically, in this case that "obviously" the press's right to cover news transcends anybody's right to privacy. He conveniently ignores instances of the press's greatest and most inexcusable excesses, and ignores the dubious implications that many decisions made by newspapers are not made by journalists based on ethics but by businessmen based on the bottom line. In most cases the media paid out on legal claims against them rather than fight them in court, yet the author bemoans the fact that the media never seem to win any cases. How can they when the bean counters always settle? I was looking for a reasoned defense of the media; this book is the whining of a litigator about why his clients always seem to lose and why it's not their lawyer's fault.

why would I want to bother shooting him?.......1999-12-16

Let me perform a public service and advise any would be buyers of this book to save their money. Ignore the teaser of "How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us," and send your money to the ACLU or JPFO instead. You'll be doing more for the cause of liberty, and you won't end up wasting your weekend reading this book. Mr. Sanford is obviously intelligent, and can spin a good yarn. But he just doesn't seem to get it. I was about halfway through the book when I finally figured it out. You see, I hadn't bothered to read the author's bio. All you really need to know about this book is contained in that bio. Mr. Sanford is an attorney who defends traditional media conglomerates on Planet Beltway. Naturally he sees the world in light of his day-to-day experiences in defending said media conglomerates. And that's basically what this book is; a 255 page defense of the traditional media. What Mr. Sanford either fails to recognize or chooses to ignore is the fact that the traditional media is already largely irrelevant. The "leader class" (to use a term from the book) has already migrated to the internet. Which is not to say that the traditional media is bad, it's just obsolete. And as with any major change, there is going to be some dislocation and a time lag before the new paradigm is accepted. The traditional media is struggling with obsolescence. Personally, I'm glad for change and the improvements that will likely come along with it. Mr. Sanford seems to be having a harder time. I guess we all wax nostalgic at times, but in the long run, few of us really mourn the loss of the horse as a means of transportation when we have the option of driving a car. Mr. Sanford's analysis would have been improved if he had explored how the new media and the new technology is dealing with First Amendment issues. What of the libel suits filed against Matt Drudge? Are free speech restrictions even relevant when a fictitious Libelous News Network (LNN) can be organized as a Limited Liability Company in Antigua and maintain mirror sites in the U.S., Netherlands, and Republic of Tonga? Unfortunately Mr. Sanford's treatment of the internet was scant, and almost completely dismissive. Although I didn't think much of this book, I do have to admit that Mr. Sanford (I think inadvertently) answers the question of how a large industry copes with being rendered irrelevant by technical and social change. The answer is: not very well. Credibility Breakfasts. Committees of Concerned Journalists. Studies. Foundation grants. Perhaps a better title for this book would have been "The Traditional Media; an Industry in Complete Denial." The problem then is not the public's lack of affection for the traditional media, but the traditional media's inability to accept change. All in all, a one star book. Save your money.

Well written, but it misses at every point........1999-11-16

First, let me say the book is well written and interesting to read. My problem with this book is that Mr. Sanford either does not grasp the depth of the press' problems or is seeking to help his clients. I was amazed to read that the author completely dismisses the idea that bias is part of the problem, "There is no more `sensationalism' or `bias' in the media today than there ever was..." And this is his whole treatment of the subject.

A second problem that the author skates around is outright fraud perpetrated by the press. He barely mentions the whole NBC/exploding pickup trucks fiasco, and completely ignores its role in several court cases. That the author does not perceive that this could be injurious to the people's trust in the press is mind-boggling.

Finally, I would like to criticize the author's view of the history of the press. He repeatedly compares the modern press with its 19th century incarnation, the yellow-journalists. However, what he seems completely unaware of is the generation of journalists, such as Edward R. Murrow, who built the modern press' reputation.

Therefore, this book does not present a full picture of the press' problems, their history and traditions, or even a blueprint for where we go from here.

A riveting, must-read for anyone who cares about freedom........1999-08-02

"Don't Shoot the Messenger" is a triumph in every way. The writing is clear, strong and engaging. The message it carries should be required reading for every thinking American. With wit and passion, Bruce Sanford issues a sorely needed wakeup call to the press, the courts and we, the people. The devil of any book is in the details. Sanford names names and lays out his case -- our case, really -- with a clarity that makes plain the torturous complexities of cause and effect creating the growing gulf between us and our increasingly unfree press. Few messages could be as important in a democracy, where the truth is vital if the public is to choose wisely. Sanford unflinchingly outlines the weaknesses of the press that have led us to mistrust and even despise them. He points out how we, as consumers, tacitly contribute to the excesses we disparage, and how our increasingly negative attitude spills over into the courtroom for both juries and judges, resulting in verdicts that may feel right even as they eat away at our freedom and well-being. He shows the chilling effects of a number of recent lawsuits by the rich and powerful against the press and gives us a scary look at the road ahead if this trend continues. "Don't Shoot the Messenger" is riveting reading, but more than that, it is a passionate argument in defense of us all by what must surely be one of the nation's best and brightest lawyers.

Average customer rating:

Objectivity in Law
Nicos Stavropoulos
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Jurisprudence | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Philosophy | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Book Description

the question of objectivity in legal interpretation has emerged in recent years as an imprtant topic in contemporary jurisprudence. This book addresses the issue of how and in what sense legal interpretation can be objective. The author supports the possibility of objectivity in law and spells out the content of objectivity involved. He then provides a defence against the classical, as well as less well-known, objections to the possibility of objectivity in legal interpretation. The discussion is thoroughly grounded in metaphysics, which sets the book apart from other similar discussions in jurisprudence. Stavropoulos identifies an important source of resistance to the acceptance of the possibility of objectivity in legal interpretation; a widely held but faulty semantic. He then develops an alternative semantic framework, drawing on influential theories in contemporary philosophy. The book shows that objectivism is a natural, common sensical position, and rejects the currently popular notion that objectivism requires extravagant or bizarre metaphysics. Furthermore, the discussion presents the opportunity to re-interpret major debates in jurisprudence and to show how influential theories, notably H.L.A. Hart's and Ronald Dworkin's, bear on that issue.

Crime at El Escorial: The 1892 Child Murder, the Press and the Jury (Iberian Studies in History, Literature, and Civilization)

Average customer rating:

Crime at El Escorial: The 1892 Child Murder, the Press and the Jury (Iberian Studies in History, Literature, and Civilization)
D.J. O'Connor
Manufacturer: University Press of America
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Europe | History | Subjects | Books

Social History | Historical Study | History | Subjects | Books

General | Criminal Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Criminology | Crime & Criminals | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Murder & Mayhem | True Accounts | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Reference | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1883255880

Book Description

(Iberian Studies in History, Literature, and Civilization)

The Indian Press Role and Responsibility

Average customer rating:

The Indian Press Role and Responsibility
K. S. Padhy
Manufacturer: South Asia Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Newspapers & Magazines | Writing | Reference | Subjects | Books

General | Foreign Languages | Reference | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 8170246369

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books