This is a classic account of the intersection between media and legislating. Tim Cook takes both a broad look at legislators' media strategies and more closely at some specific cases. This is political science, not political drama, so it will be especially helpful for academic purposes. However it is also highly interesting and not as dry as some political science. The book's one flaw is that it is aging. Cook's observations were made prior to the rise of Newt Gingrich and his media-intensive style of governance. There is still a big distinction between a "work horse" and a "show horse" in "Making Laws and Making News." Now that Newt's gone, perhaps equilibrium has been restored and the norms described in this book are coming back into vogue. If not, it is still an invaluable comparative resource - I'm certainly not aware of any other source that looks at this particular subject. After all this time "Making Laws and Making News" is still a headliner.

There are plenty of books about political coverage, and how it's too focused on personalities and sound bites and winners and losers. This book takes the next step: how politics and government are affected by the way news is reported today. One of his main points is that the media has become an influential political institution in its own right, not just an observer but a fourth branch of government. Also, politics and policy are run in part as publicity campaigns, which affects how the country is run.
It's somewhat academic reading, with lots of footnotes on studies cited... but at least you feel he has done his homework. I found most interesting the less-academic aspects, like the inside baseball of the cat-and-mouse between the press and politicians: the techniques politicians use to get better coverage, to spin, to set the agenda and frame the debate, and to advance their policies... and the bargaining, the tricks, and the compromises journalists use to get the inside dope.

Sheds light on the news media as a political institution. Cook's wisdom helps us make sense of the role media plays in governing our nation.

"Crosstalk" is a useful compilation of academic papers on communications during the presidential campaign of 1992. The foci are on campaign discourse, public, candidate and media agendas, and voting. I characterize this book as "useful," not "compelling," "engaging," or "stimulating" because it is none of those things. It is not a non-fiction version of "Primary Colors," nor is it a campaign journal like "The Making of the President," or any sort of linear story at all. If you are reading this book, there's a good chance it has been assigned in a class, you are doing research or you are a political scientist yourself. If this is the case, "Crosstalk" is certainly the best academic treatment of its subjects that I have come across thus far.

"Crosstalk" is packed with facts, charts, interviews, endnotes and references. It is meticulous in its methodology. Many of the observations about the 1992 election are useful in observing the current (2000) race.

"Crosstalk's" major shortcoming is that it is unnecessarily dry. A campaign is full of anecdotes, has a natural story line, and many dramatic moments. There's no reason, except possible maintaining academic propriety, that the book needs to read like a biological journal. The human element is injected through interviews with voters, but the effect comes across like the voters are specimens. They come off as amusingly ignorant.

But "Crosstalk" is not about narrative. It's about political science. And it serves its purpose well. While "Crosstalk" may not make the short list of political pleasure readings, it should be right up there as a source for academic purposes.