A school teacher received a summons to jury service. Did CBS' "Sixty Minutes" libel General Westmoreland by saying he altered reports to present a more favorable political picture? The author tells of her experience as a juror, from initial summons to final verdict. The book has no index.

The "Introduction" (pp. 11-12) concisely tells the simple facts behind the case. It does NOT tell who was behind the "Capital Legal Foundation" and put up the millions of dollars for this unnecessary trial.

Page 131 gives an example of the problem. The defense lawyer would ask General Westmoreland if he made certain statements. The General would vehemently deny doing so. Then the lawyer would bring up several documents proving that the General had indeed said so.

Page 191 has a deposition: they "deliberately manipulated the figures of enemy strength to misguide the public, the press, and Congress. The documents they supplied were irrefutable proof that there was a conspiracy ... no one knew how high the conspiracy went."

Page 195 tells of Richard McArthur: when he complained about the changes to his figures he was transferred out to the field!

A number of witnesses said Westmoreland had a ceiling on enemy figures, no matter what the facts were ("One Little Lie"). The trial ended when Westmoreland dropped his charges.

Page 153 tells how the documentaries are staged. They record the subject with all questions and answers. Then they record the interviewer asking questions that have been answered previously. The questioner can change the tone and questions for the desired effect.

I think it was a fair and accurate account considering what I have read to compare it with (quite alot actually). The other theories generally in opposition to it, falter significantly at some point when contrasted to it. He was without a doubt a brilliant and competant strategist and tactician, and is unfortunately underrated. He should have walked on Johnson like McArthur did on Truman. Loyalty to the Constitution was the priority over the loyalty to the adminisration.

Adler says CBS threatened to sue her for libel for writing this book. Isn't it ironic that the defenders of First Amendment protection threatened to go against the very argument they're defending in the subject of this book? This book is replete with such media hypocricies. This book could be used as a textbook for either media ethics or legal studies ethics. It is full of examples of the absence of both. Indeed seeing is not believing as she gives blatant illustrations where answers to questions were taken out of context and edited to make it appear they were the responses to particular questions. Interviewees' titles were inflated and the finished product was presented as a defense of the producer's thesis, not an objective journalistic inquiry. All of that in the CBS-Westmoreland case. In Sharon v. Time, the credibility of their writers, editors, and attorneys is laughable if this account is what really took place and she says it is. I don't understand why several people weren't in jail for perjury following these two trials. In the coda she claims CBS threatened her and her publisher and encouraged them not to print the book, but in their threat couldn't find a single factual error in its content. Even though these trials took place decades ago, they're still relevant as they describe the inner workings of two major institions, the legal system and mass media.