With its wide scope, Benjamin Radford’s proposal Media mythmakers: how journalists, activists and advertisers deceive us explores the ways the media mislead the American public. It is a multifaceted study, drawing examples from advertising and activism, as well as from the activities of the mainstream media. The fascinating information in the book is buried in redundant text and a circular organization. Is Radford’s scope too broad? Is a book written in 2003 still relevant? These are just a couple of questions that arise from Media Myth Makers, and only the author can truly answer them. The information contained in the book may hint at the answers.
The first step in answering these questions is to determine what information is well presented. Radford manages to detail the exploitation of emotions by the mainstream media. He explains common logical fallacies committed by martyrs. With that, the examples of groups profiting from tragic events illustrate some of the more deplorable aspects of the media and ordinary people working together to manipulate public opinion. This book is one of the few cases where someone places the responsibility for the decline in media quality on the American public. Another concept that Radford examines with particular care is bias, either the inherently subjective nature of journalism or his own bias in writing the book. He also discusses the value of critical thinking in a variety of situations, from the causes of the moment to the effect of media-induced hype on the legislative process. At his best, myth makers discusses the consequences of emotionally clouded judgment and its effects on people being accurately informed about the most complex issues of the day.
While the book provides useful information, data organization and analysis feels hectic as information is lost in ill-formed transitions. Radford’s examples jump out, and he relies heavily on three news stories for examples of poor journalistic practices: the death of Princess Diana, the Columbine shootings, and 9/11. This repetition in the book becomes tiresome; perhaps Radford should have treated them as case studies so that errors in the media could be pointed out in one or two chapters instead of several. Also, the chapters on advertising are incongruous in tone and content compared to the rest of the book. As I read later chapters, I wondered if advertising would be addressed more. Given its brief appearance at the outset, advertising information can best be scrutinized as part of other media manipulation tactics. The general format of the book also feels cluttered. While some of it comes from the numerous sources cited, the layout is more akin to a series of extended essays combined into a hardcover book with no thoughtful transitions between them. Devoting individual chapters to the most prominent cases of media misconduct would have facilitated a fuller, easier-to-follow discussion of the exact tactics used to influence public opinion and information.
Media Myth Makers it also fails to properly identify its audience. The language used changes between formal and colloquial. This bipolarity suggests that Radford attempted to write this book to appeal to two very different groups: intellectually ambitious consumers and mainstream media consumers. Finding a middle ground for these groups is difficult at best, and such fluctuation in diction is not a constructive way to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, the intellectually ambitious crowd of this decade will consider much of the information presented as old news. White collar crime statistics are an excellent example of such information; this information is now taught in introductory social science courses at various institutions of higher learning. If this book is intended for a more intellectual audience, an expanded discussion of the less obvious issues (eg, activist manipulation of the media and the humanitarian aid paradox) would be a more sensitive approach. In the meantime, a more general audience may need to be alerted to the white collar crime statistics. Regardless of the audience, new information must be presented to reflect the changes in the media environment since 2003. The audience and its various subsections have changed significantly since then.
Radford’s book provides useful information on the state of contemporary media. Finding that information is a test of reading skill and perseverance. Valuable information is hidden in redundancy and outdated statistics. Media Myth Makers it covers a subject that deserves a more careful examination than is currently given. Radford should consider rewriting this book for the new decade, which not only has a new crop of media-spoiled stories, but also a transformed audience.
