Buy used:
$22.49
Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime
FREE delivery Sunday, May 19 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35
Or fastest delivery Wednesday, May 15. Order within 18 mins
Used: Good | Details
Sold by Djarieke
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Used-Good: This copy has been read, shows sign of wear but remains in clean condition, contains no writing, no underline or highlight.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out Hardcover – Illustrated, October 18, 2005

4.0 4.0 out of 5 stars 17 ratings

In Into the Buzzsaw, the award-winning expose of investigative journalism, Kristina Borgesson shattered the silence about efforts to quash the public's right to know the truth. In Feet to the Fire, she breaks new ground by offering candid, often alarming conversations with America's most distinguished journalists and news executives, revealing what they really think about the companies they work for and each other, the Bush administration, their pre-Iraq war and war coverage, and much more.Focusing on the post 9/11 crisis period, Borjesson has interviewed ABC's Ted Koppel, Hearst Newspaper's Helen Thomas, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, Associated Press President/CEO Tom Curley, Harpers publisher John MacArthur, and many others. This collection of masterful interviews unveils a journalistic environment that rivals any long-running soap opera on television. Filled with astonishing personal stories, conflict, and drama, Feet to the Fire gives readers the rare opportunity to walk a mile in the shoes of this nation's most powerful journalists and news executives and experience their highly stressful environments.With each new and revealing interview, Borjesson gathers devastating details from national security and intelligence reporters, White House journalists, Middle East experts, war correspondents, and others. Like pieces of a terrible puzzle, these conversations combine to provide a hair-raising view of the mechanisms by which the truth has been manufactured post 9/11.
Read more Read less

Amazon First Reads | Editors' picks at exclusive prices

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Borjesson, an award-winning investigative reporter turned media critic, gathers an impressive list of journalists in what purports to be "an oral account of the current era of crisis," but the author is less interested in her group's answers than whether they agree with her premises: the Bush administration is evil, the American media are largely complicit, and the American public is idiotic. Throughout, Borjesson focuses on botched coverage leading up to the war in Iraq. Her "questions," some amounting to an entire paragraph, others more statement than inquiry, rankle some subjects and motivate others. Ted Koppel bristles at Borjesson's sweeping judgments, while New York Times writer-economist Paul Krugman follows the author's lead almost to the edge of reason. Other times, Borjesson doesn't even listen to her subjects' answers; upon hearing Washington Post special projects reporter Barton Gellman give a thoughtful argument for reconstruction stories ("journalism after the fact") as a valuable way to explain how things happened, including the Bush administration's successful campaign for war, Borjesson smugly rejects the notion: "But you understand how presenting this evidence after the war instead of while the case for war is being made is totally moot." Flawed, yes. Totally moot, no. And Gellman, for anyone who cares to pay attention, impressively explains the difference. In fact, this book is full of such insightful commentary. Just skip the questions.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

American media has garnered severe criticism, particularly abroad, for failing to more vigorously question the Bush administration's insistence on going to war against Iraq. In this collection of interviews with 21 journalists, Borjesson offers a penetrating look at how top reporters regard the efforts by themselves and their colleagues to cover the war and the efforts of the administration to conceal or obfuscate their policy on Iraq. Ted Koppel, anchor of Nightline, known for asking tough questions, asserts that he has never been censored, while White House correspondent Helen Thomas laments the pressure on reporters not to appear unpatriotic by questioning the motives for the war and how she has become persona non grata with the administration. Among others interviewed are author Ron Suskind, Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid, historian-blogger Juan Cole, former New York Times correspondent Christopher Hedges, NPR's Deborah Amos, and Knight Ridder correspondent Hannah Allam. Editor of the highly acclaimedInto the Buzzsaw (2002), Borjesson once again shines a penetrating light on the failures and virtues of American journalists at this crucial time. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Prometheus (October 18, 2005)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 575 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1591023432
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1591023432
  • Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.11 pounds
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.0 4.0 out of 5 stars 17 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Kristina Borjesson
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

A veteran investigative reporter, media critic and whistleblower, Kristina Borjesson grew up in Port-au-Prince Haiti. Her landmark book, INTO THE BUZZSAW: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press is an anthology of personal essays by distinguished reporters detailing their encounters with censorship. BUZZSAW won the National Press Club's Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism and the Independent Publishers Award and is a New York Public Library "Books to Remember" selection. Borjesson's second book, "FEET TO THE FIRE: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out" also won the Independent Publishers Award. Her third book, "The Reptile Club Librarian" is her first work of fiction.

Customer reviews

4 out of 5 stars
4 out of 5
17 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on November 30, 2005
Whatever your political views, if you ever wonder why what is reported in the news media doesn't seem to track with reality, this is an interesting book on the subject. As one reviewer noted, the questions are pretty leading (even obnoxious) at times, and the editor's biases are unquestionable. However, in fairness some of the "answers" dodge fairly straightforward and important questions. The insights as to how journalists cover major events are worth these minor complaints. How information is gathered and presented is a vital element of our society, and this book is an important contribution to understanding what is flawed in that process.
18 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on April 16, 2016
This is a fascinating look at the state of the corporate media in the mid-2000s. An interview with the much-respected Ted Koppel from 2004 really reveals what a part of the problem he is. Practically every statement is a milder version of what the Bush administration was saying around that time. He was convinced there were WMD in Iraq - "absolutely, I believed it." He felt that Bush wanted the media to be in Iraq so they could show them the WMD when they found them; and if only Saddam had cooperated with UN inspectors, Bush would have lost his excuse to invade: "And if after all Saddam wanted to avoid an invasion, the easiest way of doing that would be to say, 'Yes, we have a few tons of weapons of mass destruction. Here, take them out. Look anywhere you want to look.'...I don't think that the United States could have gone ahead with it [the war] then. I really don't....Would have been very, very difficult. But as I say, the problem that I see is those who say, 'We should have given it another six months so that the inspectors could do their work.' At the end of six months, the administration would have said, 'We haven't proved anything yet, all we've proved is that they're well hidden.'"

Which is exactly what happened, of course. He seems to have forgotten, as Bush later did, that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq for months before Bush kicked them out. Koppel also repeats the Bush claim that every other intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD.

Reading the interviews with Ron Suskind, Tom Yellin and Thomas Curley, I'm struck by how many people in the corporate media identify with the US power structure. Though highly critical of Bush/Cheney, they also apparently believe that the government is normally run (or was once run) as depicted in our high school civics texts, that voters elect their officials and the elected officials are actually running everything in a straightforward manner.

Suskind actually says, "Look, it is a sacred, solemn duty of the leaders of a nation to explain to the true sovereigns - the voters, the citizens - why we should go to war against another nation. There is a long history of this being a solemn and sober obligation." You have to wonder if Suskind is selling a line of bull, or just terribly naive.

Barton Gellman of the Washington Post claims that his paper did a great job in the buildup to the war, and spouts quite a bit of nonsense: “I’m not that sympathetic to arguments that intelligence should have known exactly what was coming [before 9/11]…I want to emphasize: the public record, and our best efforts to penetrate further, didn’t show that the President was wrong [about WMD], either. The pundits who claim now that they ‘knew’ all along are full of cr*p. They didn’t know.”

In these interviews from 2004-2005, it's fascinating how no one can quite put their finger on why Bush invaded Iraq. Suskind thinks it was because Saddam was an easy target to make an example of. Helen Thomas just says, "I don't know...Someday we'll find out why we went to war." Tom Yellin blames the Clinton administration for not supporting a coup in the 1990s by Ahmed Chalabi (!) Walter Pincus thinks it involved wanting to make Iraq a pro-Israeli democracy. Pincus actually says that this could not be sold to the American people from the beginning because: “You could not and probably should not send American soldiers into another country to establish democracy if US security is not threatened immediately and directly.” Really, Walter? Has he forgotten Panama in 1989?

Pincus, with more perception, says: “When it comes to government, we moved into a PR society a long time ago. Now, it’s the PR that counts, not the policy.” He criticizes the Post for rotating personnel around too much, so that no one develops too much expertise. He also points out how eager the media was to get the war going because a lot of money had been spent getting reporters over to the Middle East and embedded in military units. However, Pincus falls into the same conventional Establishment idiocy at times - the CIA does only what the President tells them: “The lesson is: presidents run everything, and people do what presidents want done.” Of course, Pincus has helped prop up the official story of the JFK assassination, and led the attack on Gary Webb in the 1990s.

David Martin with CBS News actually has his office inside the Pentagon. He’s been there for so many decades, he completely identifies with the US national security apparatus. In his interview, he has never heard of the “Clean Break” document put out by PNAC before 9/11. “The government wasn’t lying to us” about WMDs, he insists. He feels very good about the then-current elections in Iraq, doesn’t think the US wants a long-term military presence there, doesn’t think that Halliburton got its contracts because of Dick Cheney. Martin actually says he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US.

If these people aren't professional shills, then they are in denial because they're too close to the power structure. They are unable to be detached and see things as they really are. They have too much invested in the system, and can't admit that American foreign policy is not about democracy, human rights or “protecting our national security.” Walter Pincus admits that Richard Perle is “a friend of mine” and “I actually like John [Negroponte, director of national intelligence], I’ve known him for a long time.” So they need to perform all of these mental contortions ("Maybe Bush invaded Iraq to prove his manhood or get revenge for his dad") to keep the cognitive dissonance under control. If they can't handle exploring the truth about the Iraq war, it's no wonder they can't even look at 9/11.

John MacArthur and Paul Krugman are much more perceptive. James Bamford is even sharper, understanding the influence of Israel and the Zionists on US foreign policy. Knight-Ridder did stellar work on the Iraq war and get a lot of well-deserved attention here. Juan Cole and Chris Hedges are terrific, and I used to read them all the time back in the day. But no one here fundamentally questions the events of 9/11.
3 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on February 24, 2006
These interviews with top journalists about the conditions they work(ed) under in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are enlightening. It becomes clear that corporate concerns do bias the news we are allowed to see. That is why a variety of viewpoints is essential. A good introduction to the practice of journalism when the country is at war.
10 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2008
This is quite an interesting book, comprised of in depth interviews with many of the leading reporters who have covered Iraq and other wars over the years. The focus is on the following: Why did nearly all the US media roll over liked whipped puppies and regurgitate the Bush administration's bulls**t in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq war? Not only that, why did so many of them behave like cheerleaders for the effort, going so far as to report the opening days of the war as if they were at a spectacular fireworks extravaganza? The 'answers' are few but the indications are many - commercial considerations, laziness, a pathological fear of being painted as 'liberal' or 'unpatriotic' - all of these things played a role.

Having been played like a fiddle by the Bushies, the media predictably began to get its revenge in Bush's second term. And while Bush and the gang are unlikely to ever be able to manipulate the media at such a scale again, what's to prevent it from happening with future administrations? Unfortunately, this book does not have those answers.