The fundamental reason for the public distrust and contempt for the news media is amply evident in this 96-page book analyzing coverage of the Lewinsky-Clinton affair -- Americans have never tolerated a "holier than thou" attitude from anyone.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a great book. It covers a recent major story and all of the hazards of reporting; in fact, it is what the print media does best when it investigates and reports controversey with depth, detail, discernment and presumed accuracy. But, after reading it, you'll understand why President Clinton continues to be popular and why the media is so reviled.

Clinton regularly apologizes for his mistakes. The media, even when egregiously wrong, never apologizes. It brings to mind a McNaught Syndicate "Grafitti" cartoon from the 1960's, "An editor isn't always right but he's never wrong." In other words, never accuse an editor of a mistake; instead, explain "Here's some added details that would have led you to a different conclusion had you had it beforehand."

'Warp Speed' piously quotes Walter Lippman's observation that a journalist's role ". . . is to sift out rumor and innuendo from fact and publish what one believes are facts." It ignores the common newsroom view that ". . . an editor's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff, then print the chaff." It may be somewhat cynical, but if the media were as cynical about their own performance as they are about the performance of everyone else they would be held in much higher regard.

It reminds me of news coverage about the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbour. The media got the basic story right; but, most details in early stories were muddled, incomplete, inaccurate or even fanciful. That's expected in the fog and confusion of war. The Lewinsky-Clinton coverage was equally muddled, incomplete, inaccuratre and fanciful. That's to be expected in the fog and confusion of politics and instant news coverage.

The difference in today's world is the willingness of the media to rigorously investigate itself, which is about as objective as a church investigating the sins of its priests. Yet, a flawed watch dog is better than no dog at all. In this case, the investigating "dogs" are from Harvard and Columbia universities -- which style themselves as the College of Cardinals of journalism. It's like asking the Attorney General to investigate the President. Okay, "Who watches the flawed dogs?"

Two hundred and some years ago, the founders established a House and a Senate to provide "sober second judgment." It's part of the checks-and-balances of our society. Today, the House and Senate are run by political parties -- and the media provides the "sober second judgment" from city hall to the presidency. If it's "political," most people know it has little merit; if it's policy, the media highlights the issues. Who do you think has uncovered every major scandal of the past 25 years?

Barry Goldwater once called Richard Nixon the most dishonest man he ever met. The salacious details of the Lewinsky-Clinton affair were backdrop for whether or not "Bunco Billy" is now trying for the title. A politician accusing someone of lying is "politics." When the reputable media raises the same issue, it's good investigative journalism. Remember, Goldwater didn't comment until the media proved it to be true.

It's a welcome trend. Had the media investigated the Bay of Pigs or Tonkin Gulf resolution, we would have been spared much grief. This book is a great start in self-criticism. The media investigating the media? Sure. First question: "How many professions can be trusted to investigate themselves?" Second question: "How many will investigate themselves?"

Okay, who better to investigate the media? If the media can't investigate itself, then what can we trust it to investigate? By the end of this book, the media looks pretty good. Not because of the Lewinsky-Clinton reporting, but for this investigation. It's a fascinating inside look at "news values." They can be improved, but still, the media is refreshingly open to outside scrutiny.

So, who really investigates the media? The type of people who read books of this nature.

I am just a young college student, but I think this is a groundbreaking book. Not many books have been written since the media explosion of 1996 that saw Fox News Channel and MSNBC sign on the air. The effect of this information explosion is profound and you see it nearly every time you turn on the news. Rosenstiel and Kovach focus on how journalism has changed from the era where verification of facts was the focus of a reporter, to this new type of journalism where the focus is on speculation, analysis, and commentary.

It is a really easy and interesting read, set to the story of Monicagate. I have walked away with a much better knowledge of the characteristics of this twenty-four hour news cycle. Enjoy!

This is a first-rate analysis and explanation of the state of the news business. Looking with special care at the coverage of the Lewinsky story, the authors describe and demonstrate the ways in which the news business has gone awry. and in the final pages, they provide useful suggestions about how coverage of the news could improve. Readers will enjoy the description of the problems, will be interested to relive parts of the Lweinsky story, and will find the recommendations provocative. An excellent read for anyone interested in the press.

The project of Kovach and Rosenstiel (indeed, the project of the entire Committee of Concerned Journalists) was to distill and publish the basic building blocks of what we understand as journalism. In this, they do an admirable job. Stressing qualities such as fairness to the facts and activities such as verification, they make a strong case that while the journalist may not be impartial his/her method should be.

Useful for both public and professionals, the book is well-structured with notes at the end of each chapter with pointers to further reading.

Although this book always recurs to the purpose of journalism: i.e. to inform the public, it always does it narrowly, in the light of the need for an informed public to support the democratic form of government. I couldn't agree more that the recent course of history suggests that mankind is tending toward recognition of the fact that the only legitimate form of government is based on the consent of the governed.

But there is a higher object of information: Survival of the Race. It is obvious that if we survive by adaptation (natural selection resulting in survival of the fittest) that accurate information is indispensable. It was my feeling for many years that communism in the USSR was doomed since every child, biologically programmed to use information to survive, was born an enemy of the state. Furthermore, the USSR always thought it was perfect, so why evolve when we are already perfect?

One can see where that took them.

In view of this I sense that our two authors of this book would greatly profit by reading and heeding THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE and GLOBAL BRAIN, both by Howard Bloom before revising their book if they ever do. Both books make the real challenge obvious. Survival of the race.

I applaud the recognition of the authors of the fact that persons of less than desirable integrity give the press its current bad name. I've encountered enough of them myself, having had moles sicced on me by what amount to impostors, both so-called journalists, but in view of the fact that the result was my photo occupying the entire front page of a wide circulation "rag" in full color, I had no objections. As John Barrymore said to the Press, "Just spell my name right, boys."

I write books. Name identification sells them and it hardly matters what we are identified for.

I highly recommend this book to anyone with an ounce of public spirit. It is long overdue for the pracitioners of the trade to start policing their business better.

After occupying the moral high ground with this pair of authors, however, for the jaded reader who is exhausted with the prospect of the monumental task, I recommend the work of another journalist: Ben Hecht. His CHILD OF THE CENTURY may not recount the highest form of journalistic integrity, just the opposite occasionally, but who can help but roar over a headline of his spicy journal covering the rape of a patient by a dentist?: "DENTIST FILLS WRONG CAVITY!"

Go it, boys!

Did you ever give much thought to the "unbiased" nature of journalism? Or about "balanced coverage" in articles and newscasts? Well, Kovach and Rosenstiel certainly have -- and their thoughts on these concepts are nothing short of revolutionary.

1. The authors argue that by nature, journalists are biased -- and that this is ok.

2. They also claim that "balanced coverage" is unfair, and should not be a goal of journalism.

Sounds crazy, right? At first blush, yes; but by clearly delineating what journalists SHOULD do, the authors make a strong argument that "bias" and "balance" are misused terms that ought to be discarded.

For example, they say that requiring journalists to be unbiased is unnatural, for bias is part of human nature -- and professional journalists should not be required to forget who they are. Instead, journalists should maintain an *independence* from those they cover, so that they are not unduly influenced by people they interview -- even if they do agree with them.

Likewise, they argue that "balance" should not be a tenet of journalism, because not all voices deserve equal time. The authors instead suggest keeping the news "comprehensive and proportional," so that the time allotted to various parties in an issue is proportional to their role or importance in that issue.

And so, perhaps Kovach and Rosenstiel aren't so crazy, after all. In fact, the book is full of sensible arguments like these, making it a fascinating read; what I've discussed here is only the tip of the iceberg.

I highly recommend it!