Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth
- Downloads：5400
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-05 18:31:13
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Brian Stelter
- ISBN：1982142456
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
The instant New York Times bestseller that reveals the collusion between Fox News and Donald Trump—with explosive new reporting covering the election and the January 6 riot。
As the nation recovers from the Trump presidency， many questions remain: Why was the COVID-19 pandemic so grossly mishandled？ How did we get so politically polarized？ What caused white nationalist groups to come out of the shadows， and are they here to stay？
The answers lie the twisted story of the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News。 Through firsthand accounts from over 250 current and former Fox insiders， CNN anchor and chief media correspondent Brian Stelter unlocks the inner workings of Rupert Murdoch’s multibillion-dollar media empire。 The confessions are shocking: “We don’t really believe all this stuff，” a producer says。 “We just tell other people to believe it。”
Stelter completes the story of the Trump years and looks toward the future of the network that made him。 Hoax is a book for anyone who reads the news and wonders how we got here， and what happens next。
As the nation recovers from the Trump presidency， many questions remain: Why was the COVID-19 pandemic so grossly mishandled？ How did we get so politically polarized？ What caused white nationalist groups to come out of the shadows， and are they here to stay？
The answers lie the twisted story of the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News。 Through firsthand accounts from over 250 current and former Fox insiders， CNN anchor and chief media correspondent Brian Stelter unlocks the inner workings of Rupert Murdoch’s multibillion-dollar media empire。 The confessions are shocking: “We don’t really believe all this stuff，” a producer says。 “We just tell other people to believe it。”
Stelter completes the story of the Trump years and looks toward the future of the network that made him。 Hoax is a book for anyone who reads the news and wonders how we got here， and what happens next。
Reviews
Drew
，
I absolutely， 100% chose to check ‘Hoax’ out of the library because I was feeling petty， and I was conscious of this fact at the time。 However， this book filled in a critical gap in my understanding of the past 5+ years。 Though news moves fast and a book published almost a year ago can easily become outdated， Stelter’s analysis of the internal politics at Fox and their relationship with its audience （most importantly Donald Trump） remains extremely salient to this day， and will likely remain so I absolutely， 100% chose to check ‘Hoax’ out of the library because I was feeling petty， and I was conscious of this fact at the time。 However， this book filled in a critical gap in my understanding of the past 5+ years。 Though news moves fast and a book published almost a year ago can easily become outdated， Stelter’s analysis of the internal politics at Fox and their relationship with its audience （most importantly Donald Trump） remains extremely salient to this day， and will likely remain so going forward。 。。。more
Darcie
，
As someone who avoids Fox News like the plague， but has witnessed the corrosive effect it’s had on some of my loved ones， this was an interesting behind the scenes peek at the propaganda machine in motion。 My only regret is not having a substantial post script covering the 2020 election and aftermath - I’m sure Stelter has a lot to say about that！
Craig Hannington
，
Excellent read about the impact Fox News had on Trumps time as President， it’s a real eye opener
Mario the lone bookwolf
，
Fake newsing one´s way to the top。 A nice description of how demagogic politicians and conservative， right wing media outlets work together。 The cynicism and cold intelligence behind these networks are astonishing， it´s getting more and more movie like， a mixture of thriller， dark satire， and a mixture of Orwellian and Huxleyian visions。 One of the most important conclusions of this work is not to just criticize the obviously biased， far right and left wing media outlets， but the so called obj Fake newsing one´s way to the top。 A nice description of how demagogic politicians and conservative， right wing media outlets work together。 The cynicism and cold intelligence behind these networks are astonishing， it´s getting more and more movie like， a mixture of thriller， dark satire， and a mixture of Orwellian and Huxleyian visions。 One of the most important conclusions of this work is not to just criticize the obviously biased， far right and left wing media outlets， but the so called objective， free press too。 Because they are not producing easy to see propaganda， but subtle consent towards that the economic and democratic system is still working， which is totally wrong too。George Carlin said it besthttps://www。goodreads。com/quotes/9646。。。Of course， there are immense differences in quality and sophistication between Fox and CNN， but in general， each kind of medium has a more or less obvious and well or bad hidden mixture of https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Propaga。。。https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Media_m。。。https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Psychol。。。https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Psychol。。。I can´t overemphasize this enough， one of the reasons why I am often throwing around with these 4 links is that people tend to think of an end of history， of a kind of final democratic victory in states with a free press， but instead Chomsky， Crouch， etc。 are right when they are describing a corporatocracy completely out of control for decades that is disguised as ridiculous voting all 4 to 5 years with all media together creating the phantasmagoria of lived enlightened ideals， which is not the case。 Even the most social democratic， left， even green media and parties don´t say out loud that the whole press and governmental system is a satire， a bad joke， not even worth investing time and effort， because if there would be a good， fair， competent， not sold and completely lobby controlled sockpuppet parliament in close to every democratic Western country， the world wouldn´t be breaking to pieces， nature getting completely destroyed， millions unnecessarily dying each year， neofeudalism and neoliberalism devastating the once eco social Keyniasian European states while neocolonialism is overexploiting what is left of biodiversity in the Southern hemisphere， etc。。 It´s ridiculous， it´s as if close to all state and private media would be reporting out of an insane asylum for decades now and everybody is wasting her/his time by thinking and talking about this garbage， never getting informed about the fact that there are many better alternatives。Because of much talk and discussion about the replication crisis， I add these thoughts to nonfiction books dealing with humanities， so you might have already seen it。 One could call the replication crisis the viral fake news epidemic of many fields of science that was a hidden， chronic disease over decades and centuries and has become extremely widespread during the last years， since the first critics began vaccinating against it， provoking virulent counterarguments。 I don´t know how else this could end than with nothing else than paradigm shifts， discovering many anachronisms， and a better， fact- and number based research with many control instances before something of an impact on the social policy gets accepted。Some soft science books are nothing more than fairytales for adults who never had the chance to built a free opinion because most of the media they consume to stay informed and get educated avoids any criticism of the current economic system。Without having read or heard ideas by Chomsky， Monbiot， Klein， Ken Robinson， Monbiot， Peter Singer， William McDonough， Ziegler， Colin Crouch， Jeremy Rifkin， David Graeber， John Perkins， and others， humans will always react to people like me， condemning the manipulation practiced everywhere with terrifying success， with anger and refusal。These authors don´t hide aspects of the truth and describe the real state of the world， don´t predict the future and preach the one only， the true way， ignoring anything like black swans， coincidences， or the， for each small child logical， fact that nobody knows what will happen， and collect exactly the free available data people such indoctrinated people to ignore forever。A few points that led to the replication crisis:I had an intuitive feeling regarding this for years， but the replication crisis proofed that there are too many interconnections of not strictly scientific fields such as economics and politics with many humanities。 Look， already some of the titles are biased towards a more positive or negative attitude， but thinking too optimistic is the same mistake as being too pessimistic， it isn´t objective anymore and one can be instrumentalized without even recognizing it。In natural sciences， theoretical physicists， astrophysicists， physicians… that were friends of a certain idea will always say that there is the option of change， that a discovery may lead to a new revolution， and that their old work has to be reexamined。 So in science regarding the real world the specialists are much more open to change than in some humanities， isn´t that strange？It would be as if one would say that all humans are representative， similar， that there are no differences。 But it´s not， each time a study is made there are different people， opinions， so many coincidences， and unique happenings that it´s impossible to reproduce it。 Scandinavia vs the normal world。 The society people live in makes happiness， not theoretical， not definitive concepts。 One can manipulate so many parameters in those studies that the result can be extremely positive or negative， just depending on what who funds the study and does the study wants as results。 One could use the studies she/ he needs to create an optimistic or a pessimistic book and many studies about human nature are redundant， repetitive， or biased towards a certain result， often an optimistic outcome or spectacular， groundbreaking results。 Do you know who does that too？ Statistics， economics， politics， and faith。 I wish I could be a bit more optimistic than realistic， but not hard evidence based stuff is a bit of a no go if it involves practical applications， especially if there is the danger of not working against big problems by doing as if they weren´t there。A few points that lead away from it:1。tTech2。tNordic model3。tOpen data， open government， 4。tBlockchains， cryptocurrencies， quantum computing， to make each financial transaction transparent and traceable。5。tPoints mentioned in the Wiki article6。tIt must be horrible for the poor scientists who work in those fields and are now suffering because the founding fathers used theories and concepts that have nothing to do with real science。 They worked hard to build a career to just find out that the predecessors integrated methods that couldn´t work in other systems， let's say an evolving computer program or a machine or a human body or anywhere except in ones´ imagination。 They are truly courageous to risk criticism because of the humanities bashing wave that won´t end soon。 As in so many fields， it are a few black sheep who ruin everything for many others and the more progressive a young scientist is， the more he is in danger of getting smashed between a hyper sensible public awareness and the old anachronism shepherds， avoiding anything progressive with the danger of a paradigm shift or even a relativization of the field they dedicated their career to。 There has to be strict segregation between theories and ideas and applications in real life， so that anything can be researched， but not used to do crazy things。The worst bad science practice includes， from Wikipedia， taken from the article about the replication crisishttps://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Replica。。。1。tThe replication crisis （or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis） is， as of 2020， an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce。 The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely。[2。tThe inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work。 The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology and in medicine， where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results3。tA 2016 poll of 1，500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment （50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments）。[8] In 2009， 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did。4。t„Psychological research is， on average， afflicted with low statistical power。"5。tFirstly， questionable research practices （QRPs） have been identified as common in the field。[18] Such practices， while not intentionally fraudulent， involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection， analysis， and reporting， often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome。 Examples of QRPs include selective reporting or partial publication of data （reporting only some of the study conditions or collected dependent measures in a publication）， optional stopping （choosing when to stop data collection， often based on statistical significance of tests）， p-value rounding （rounding p-values down to 0。05 to suggest statistical significance）， file drawer effect （nonpublication of data）， post-hoc storytelling （framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory analyses）， and manipulation of outliers （either removing outliers or leaving outliers in a dataset to cause a statistical test to be significant）。[18][19][20][21] A survey of over 2，000 psychologists indicated that a majority of respondents admitted to using at least one QRP。[18] False positive conclusions， often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias， are an inherent hazard in the field， requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers。[26。tSecondly， psychology and social psychology in particular， has found itself at the center of several scandals involving outright fraudulent research，7。tThirdly， several effects in psychological science have been found to be difficult to replicate even before the current replication crisis。 Replications appear particularly difficult when research trials are pre-registered and conducted by research groups not highly invested in the theory under questioning。8。tScrutiny of many effects have shown that several core beliefs are hard to replicate。 A recent special edition of the journal Social Psychology focused on replication studies and a number of previously held beliefs were found to be difficult to replicate。[25] A 2012 special edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science also focused on issues ranging from publication bias to null-aversion that contribute to the replication crises in psychology。[26] In 2015， the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published， called the Reproducibility Project。 Researchers from around the world collaborated to replicate 100 empirical studies from three top psychology journals。 Fewer than half of the attempted replications were successful at producing statistically significant results in the expected directions， though most of the attempted replications did produce trends in the expected directions。9。tMany research trials and meta-analyses are compromised by poor quality and conflicts of interest that involve both authors and professional advocacy organizations， resulting in many false positives regarding the effectiveness of certain types of psychotherapy10。tThe reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals。[44] Overall， 36% of the replications yielded significant findings （p value below 0。05） compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects。 The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies。11。tHighlighting the social structure that discourages replication in psychology， Brian D。 Earp and Jim A。 C。 Everett enumerated five points as to why replication attempts are uncommon:[50][51]1。t"Independent， direct replications of others' findings can be time-consuming for the replicating researcher"2。t"[Replications] are likely to take energy and resources directly away from other projects that reflect one's own original thinking"3。t"[Replications] are generally harder to publish （in large part because they are viewed as being unoriginal）"4。t"Even if [replications] are published， they are likely to be seen as 'bricklaying' exercises， rather than as major contributions to the field5。t"[Replications] bring less recognition and reward， and even basic career security， to their authors"[52]For these reasons the authors advocated that psychology is facing a disciplinary social dilemma， where the interests of the discipline are at odds with the interests of the individual researcher12。tMedicine。 Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003 with more than 1000 citations， 45 claimed that the studied therapy was effective。 Out of these studies， 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies， 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies， 44% were replicated， and 24% remained largely unchallenged。[58] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977–1990 found flaws in 10–20% of medical studies13。tMarketing is another discipline with a "desperate need" for replication。[64] Many famous marketing studies fail to be repeated upon replication， a notable example being the "too-many-choices" effect， in which a high number of choices of product makes a consumer less likely to purchase。[65] In addition to the previously mentioned arguments， replication studies in marketing are needed to examine the applicability of theories and models across countries and cultures， which is especially important because of possible influences of globalization。14。tA 2016 study in the journal Science found that one-third of 18 experimental studies from two top-tier economics journals （American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics） failed to successfully replicate。[67][68] A 2017 study in the Economic Journal suggested that "the majority of the average effects in the empirical economics literature are exaggerated by a factor of at least 2 and at least one-third are exaggerated by a factor of 4 or more。15。tIn the US， science's reproducibility crisis has become a topic of political contention， linked to the attempt to diminish regulations – e。g。 。。。more
Nicole S
，
between 3 and 4， being an optimistSo the big takeaway from Hoax for me is all that Fox news info that I was not aware of。 I do not watch Fox so I did not know Trump was calling in weekly before he was the presidential nominee， and was not aware of how much of Trump's cabinet came from Fox。If anyone is being critical of this book's "unnamed sources，" I get it but there are tons of verifiable facts in this book as well。 Stelter has been in the business so long it's moot to suggest he wouldn't have between 3 and 4， being an optimistSo the big takeaway from Hoax for me is all that Fox news info that I was not aware of。 I do not watch Fox so I did not know Trump was calling in weekly before he was the presidential nominee， and was not aware of how much of Trump's cabinet came from Fox。If anyone is being critical of this book's "unnamed sources，" I get it but there are tons of verifiable facts in this book as well。 Stelter has been in the business so long it's moot to suggest he wouldn't have such contacts。 If we are being honest with ourselves there are people for work for ANY company who are not happy working there， and secrets get spilled over drinks。Like I said it gave me all sorts of verifiable and true Fox info that I was not aware of。 。。。more
Chris Demer
，
A stunning review of the collusion between Fox "News" and Donald Trump。 Trump admits to watching Fox "News" for as much as six hours a day， marked on his calendar as "executive time"。 （What president could get anything done if he/she spent 6 hours a day in front of the TV？？？）But what he did get done was develop a relationship with the staff on Fox， to the extent that he used it as his propaganda machine。 It may have begun with playing down the new virus that was threatening the world， but moved A stunning review of the collusion between Fox "News" and Donald Trump。 Trump admits to watching Fox "News" for as much as six hours a day， marked on his calendar as "executive time"。 （What president could get anything done if he/she spent 6 hours a day in front of the TV？？？）But what he did get done was develop a relationship with the staff on Fox， to the extent that he used it as his propaganda machine。 It may have begun with playing down the new virus that was threatening the world， but moved on to a situation where the network propagandists spouted whatever Trump wanted to hear， despite the fact that most of them did not believe what they were telling the public。 They did it to keep their （very） high paying jobs。 A few left or were forced out。 A few， like Shepherd Smith left because they were so repelled by the continuous lying to the American public。But the damage was done， and continues to be done with Sean Hannity， a college drop-out， spouting lies and disinformation daily。 The sad thing is that so many listeners believe this tripe。He continues to support those who believe the election was "stolen" and there was massive election fraud， regardless of the fact the no major fraud issues were ever discovered。This book reveals some really disturbing truths about how money corrupts truth and undermines democracy on a large scale by feeding lies to an all too gullible public。 。。。more
Margaret Capozzolo
，
This book will have even more value to the reader of 2040 than it does today， people--we can only hope--who have not experience this attack on journalism first-hand。 Anyone reading this today has lived through the horrors perpetrated by the Trump-Fox propaganda alliance and is only inflicting self-punishment by reliving them with Stelter as guide。 My take-away from his analysis is that ultimately it is the conservative American viewer who is most to blame for what happened to our democracy。 They This book will have even more value to the reader of 2040 than it does today， people--we can only hope--who have not experience this attack on journalism first-hand。 Anyone reading this today has lived through the horrors perpetrated by the Trump-Fox propaganda alliance and is only inflicting self-punishment by reliving them with Stelter as guide。 My take-away from his analysis is that ultimately it is the conservative American viewer who is most to blame for what happened to our democracy。 They demanded it， approved of it， and clamored for more。 Fox was only too happy to accommodate while watch their ratings and their coffers swell。 Viewers rejected any attempt at honest journalism in the Fox universe， such as those made by Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto， in favor of the daily hate-filled diatribes of commentators like Hannity and Tucker Carlson。 I wish Stelter's writing style were a little more sophisticated， but he cannot be faulted for his research and exposition。 。。。more
Teri
，
Riveting read。 The rabbit hole is deeper than I ever imagined。
Diane
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 I could not finish this book。 I had difficulties with man as President and reading it only added to my angst。
Andy
，
What was interesting to me in this account from someone who talked to many insiders at Fox News was the struggle of the people there who thought of themselves as journalists。 They knew the prime time "talent" was telling harmful lies and breaching ethical standards all the time。 Some people did quit。 Others felt trapped because once you work at Fox News， you're "tainted" and not taken seriously elsewhere in journalism。 Shep Smith gets credit as the main person who at least tried a few times to s What was interesting to me in this account from someone who talked to many insiders at Fox News was the struggle of the people there who thought of themselves as journalists。 They knew the prime time "talent" was telling harmful lies and breaching ethical standards all the time。 Some people did quit。 Others felt trapped because once you work at Fox News， you're "tainted" and not taken seriously elsewhere in journalism。 Shep Smith gets credit as the main person who at least tried a few times to set the record straight on air during nap time when no one is watching; but then he gave up and left。 Mainly though， it seems that people sold their souls。 Sad。 And very dangerous。 。。。more
Linda Valine
，
Adds to the glut of Trump info; great for wannabe Trump expertsMuch of this has already been written， but many details in here flush out how Fox acted as a state propaganda channel。 It will frighten you。 It takes a village to raise a child， but only a few dozen evil men to corrupt this nation。
Gary
，
#2021 - 13。 Audiobook。 A detailed， well researched， behind the scenes account of Trump’s four years in office and his relationships with Fox News and its anchors。
Jane Lee
，
I would have rated it higher if the topic had not been so disgusting
Chris McGuffin
，
Obviously this book is anti-Donald Trump & Fox News， so expect some bias。 Keep that in mind and you'll probably enjoy it。 If you're pro-Trump or obsess over what the crazies on Fox tell you， you'll hate this book。 Oh， and the author narrates the audio version， so if you're a fan of his， check it out because he does a nice job with it。 Obviously this book is anti-Donald Trump & Fox News， so expect some bias。 Keep that in mind and you'll probably enjoy it。 If you're pro-Trump or obsess over what the crazies on Fox tell you， you'll hate this book。 Oh， and the author narrates the audio version， so if you're a fan of his， check it out because he does a nice job with it。 。。。more
Emerson
，
"Imagine if they were evil。" That's all I could think of at the end of the book。 The Murdochs and Fox talking heads are greedy; Trump is too busy loving himself and trying to make money to be truly evil but imagine if they have craved power， like world-domination， type of power。 What Fox and Trump achieved has exposed America's weakest spot， and unless we change direction， that spot soon will be targeted by someone with evil intelligence with an outcome I don't even want to consider imagining。 W "Imagine if they were evil。" That's all I could think of at the end of the book。 The Murdochs and Fox talking heads are greedy; Trump is too busy loving himself and trying to make money to be truly evil but imagine if they have craved power， like world-domination， type of power。 What Fox and Trump achieved has exposed America's weakest spot， and unless we change direction， that spot soon will be targeted by someone with evil intelligence with an outcome I don't even want to consider imagining。 Whether you agree with his opinions， side of the story， or writing style， you have to appreciate the extensive and lengthy investigative effort， cultivation of sources， and the professional trust gained over decades required to put this book together。 For me， as a history and politics geek， it was a compelling narrative of one of the most surreal， dark， and dangerous periods in American politics that pushed the entire country into a crisis near its breaking point。 As we all served as witnesses to history to all those events， it was weird being worried and heartbroken for what was happening while geeking out about the historical narrative of these events 25， 50， 150 years from now。 The book lies on the table facts， points， and evidence of how a media empire became an actual and factual propaganda machine that enabled Trump to achieve his personal goals while disregarding an entire country's safety and well-being。 To me， it felt more like an investigative report， newsy storytelling， and rough historical account sprinkled with Brian's opinions and points of view than a prosecution of Trump or Fox。 Still， given how polarized the country is， I'm going to guess that whether or not you feel brian was intentionally prosecutorial depends on which side of the aisle you sit。 I just happen to sit right in the middle of the aisles。All and all， it was a good read with a good pace。 The delivery felt pragmatic and purposeful。 It also managed to be engaging and entertaining， albeit， as disclosed before， I'm a bit of a news， history， and politics nerd， so that that opinion and this review with a grain of salt。 。。。more
Rick
，
Brian Stetler did a fantastic job。 He could have called this book Fraud and he would have been just as accurate。 His well investigated work details the evolution of Fox news into a full fledged part of the Trump presidency。 Stetler details how the news operation saw its authority being stripped away in favor of the opinion shows and their toxic， disdain for the facts operations。 Stetler provides multiple sources both on， and off， the record who describe how Fox news has fallen and may fail in th Brian Stetler did a fantastic job。 He could have called this book Fraud and he would have been just as accurate。 His well investigated work details the evolution of Fox news into a full fledged part of the Trump presidency。 Stetler details how the news operation saw its authority being stripped away in favor of the opinion shows and their toxic， disdain for the facts operations。 Stetler provides multiple sources both on， and off， the record who describe how Fox news has fallen and may fail in the future。 A great book， well written and worth your time！ 。。。more
James Kingman
，
This media critic interviewed hundreds of current and former employees at FOX News。 But for any careful observer of news media， the only novel argument or observation in this take down of the Fox News feedback circle is the counterintuitive claim that now that the Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilley era is over， the network has become more reckless。 Despite the truly atrocious private and public behavior of the pair， their dominance provided stability。 In the aftermath of their fall， the internecine This media critic interviewed hundreds of current and former employees at FOX News。 But for any careful observer of news media， the only novel argument or observation in this take down of the Fox News feedback circle is the counterintuitive claim that now that the Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilley era is over， the network has become more reckless。 Despite the truly atrocious private and public behavior of the pair， their dominance provided stability。 In the aftermath of their fall， the internecine battles have only given rise to more and more extreme content as people seek the Liar On Throne。 Nearly all of the sources are on deep background or are people that have left the network in a fight。 This gives an easy excuse by the devotees of the network that these people have an agenda or are liars。 This book will not likely persuade anyone。 The New Yorker piece about the cozy relationship between the White House and the Network， the Tucker Carlson piece， and the Sean Hannity profile are probably better and shorter primers for anyone who is hoping to have ammunition to deprogram loved ones who have fallen down the Fox News rabbit hole。 。。。more
Kato Justus
，
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️BOOK REVIEW: Bryan Stelter’s Book “Hoax” is a well written and research expose on the dangerous propaganda FoxNews broadcasts。 More frightening is how many of their viewers believe the lies。 Stelter couldn’t have known when he wrote this that FoxNews would， in the end， be a major contributor to fanning the flames that duped and led a significant number of their viewers to attack Congress on Capitol Hill in DC on January 6th。 Stelter couldn’t have know FoxNews Covid19 denialism would lead ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️BOOK REVIEW: Bryan Stelter’s Book “Hoax” is a well written and research expose on the dangerous propaganda FoxNews broadcasts。 More frightening is how many of their viewers believe the lies。 Stelter couldn’t have known when he wrote this that FoxNews would， in the end， be a major contributor to fanning the flames that duped and led a significant number of their viewers to attack Congress on Capitol Hill in DC on January 6th。 Stelter couldn’t have know FoxNews Covid19 denialism would lead many to illness and death。 Overall， it’s a chilling read that leaves you asking “how do we stop this？” without interfering with first amendment rights？ The future of the USA is doomed to become a fascist authoritarian government undergirded with a Christian theocracy if organizations like FoxNews， OAN， Newsmax， Twitter， Facebook， and YouTube are allowed to continue as they have。 It’s worth the investment。 Read it。 @KatoJustus4 。。。more
Anthony Kozlowski
，
Pure liberal junk food， but still a lot of fun。 3。8/5
sarah
，
more about the individual anchors than i cared to know。 jane mayer did the same thing better in the new yorker in fewer words。
David Sheets
，
CNN's Brian Stelter， host of "Reliable Sources，" walks readers through the devolution of Fox News during Donald Trump's presidency。 He shows how a network that had a shred of dignity remaining chose to lose it， as well as a third of its viewers， to become Trump's conscience。 Stelter relies heavily on unnamed sources within Fox News -- people who he says worked at the network but who did not buy into Fox's incessant propaganda and who left amid a flurry of exaggerations by the president that the CNN's Brian Stelter， host of "Reliable Sources，" walks readers through the devolution of Fox News during Donald Trump's presidency。 He shows how a network that had a shred of dignity remaining chose to lose it， as well as a third of its viewers， to become Trump's conscience。 Stelter relies heavily on unnamed sources within Fox News -- people who he says worked at the network but who did not buy into Fox's incessant propaganda and who left amid a flurry of exaggerations by the president that the network insisted on promoting。 Stelter details how Fox News's slavish devotion to Trump repulsed even loyal viewers and left the network aimless after Trump's election loss。 If Stelter's well-written assessment plays out as he anticipates， Fox News may soon realize all too late that the network's worst enemy was Fox News。 。。。more
Matt Schiavenza
，
A deeply-sourced look at how Donald Trump folded Fox News — and thus the Republican Party — into his personality cult， Hoax is an entertaining glimpse into one of America's most powerful and important media institutions。 For the first two decades of its existence， Stelter writes， Fox News offered a delicate balance between a legitimate and well-respected news gathering side and bombastic talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity。 During the Trump years， which followed the ouster of Fox N A deeply-sourced look at how Donald Trump folded Fox News — and thus the Republican Party — into his personality cult， Hoax is an entertaining glimpse into one of America's most powerful and important media institutions。 For the first two decades of its existence， Stelter writes， Fox News offered a delicate balance between a legitimate and well-respected news gathering side and bombastic talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity。 During the Trump years， which followed the ouster of Fox News founder Roger Ailes， this firewall largely collapsed。 Stelter shows how Hannity， Tucker Carlson， and other opinion hosts effectively became powerful advisors to the 45th president， who spent an inordinate amount of his presidency watching the network。 To a greater extent than ever before in American history， Fox News functioned as state television， a propaganda network not unlike CCTV in China。Hoax is full of remorseful quotes （off the record， of course） from staffers and insiders who bemoaned the direction Fox News was going in but were powerless to stop it。 Stelter's hero figure is Shepard Smith， a newscaster whose criticisms of Trump rankled the president and ultimately led to his departure from the network。 Smith is portrayed as a man of integrity， a pro's pro who wanted to stick to the facts but found that his services weren't valued any longer by the organization where he spent much of his career。Stelter's veneration of Smith， and to a lesser extent figures like Andrew Napolitano， Neil Cavuto， and Chris Wallace， is a weakness of Hoax。 The symbiotic relationship between Fox News and Trump might have been an extraordinary phenomenon in American broadcasting history， but it's worth remembering that Fox has been poisonous since long before Trump entered politics。 One wonders what the paragons of integrity at the network thought when Fox hosts entertained the dubious birther story in an attempt to smear President Obama。For a brief moment after Biden's inauguration， it looked like Fox would be undercut by upstars like OANN and Newsmax， networks willing to engage in the outrageous fiction that the 2020 election had been stolen。 But Fox's recent resurgence to the top of the ratings chart is a sign that the network is， alas， here to stay。 And for that reason， we can be grateful that Brian Stelter will be around to cover the network。 。。。more
Kathleen DeNooyer
，
Audiobook: Stelter is amazing！ I love his manner of writing， and having him read the book was of course awesome！ Journalism is important， his book demonstrates that fact quite clearly。 What we can see， through his good work， is the erosion of truth， the increase in crackpot and fringe "truths"， and the peril it puts our world in。 The things he describes， reminds me of the 1930s and the distortion of truth， bringing us to the biggest war this world has ever seen。 I am not sure what， if anything， Audiobook: Stelter is amazing！ I love his manner of writing， and having him read the book was of course awesome！ Journalism is important， his book demonstrates that fact quite clearly。 What we can see， through his good work， is the erosion of truth， the increase in crackpot and fringe "truths"， and the peril it puts our world in。 The things he describes， reminds me of the 1930s and the distortion of truth， bringing us to the biggest war this world has ever seen。 I am not sure what， if anything， those of us who seek out sources， truth， and knowledge can do， other than what we are doing。 I appreciate his insight， his view of history， and quite frankly learning how deep his importance has been in the world of DC journalism。 。。。more
Leslie A
，
Very informative about Fox News and all their main players and the Lies tbey told America！！！
Kmjahraus
，
I was not as interested in politics before， but it didn’t seem as important as it is now。 I read HOAX for an understanding of how the FOX cable network influence that got us to the place where we are now in American discourse and governance。 This book tells the story of the back room politics of FOX media， its journey from the advertised “fair and balanced news” of decades past， to today’s 24 hour opinion hours。I read that faithful Fox viewers truly are not tuning in for actual news （most of the I was not as interested in politics before， but it didn’t seem as important as it is now。 I read HOAX for an understanding of how the FOX cable network influence that got us to the place where we are now in American discourse and governance。 This book tells the story of the back room politics of FOX media， its journey from the advertised “fair and balanced news” of decades past， to today’s 24 hour opinion hours。I read that faithful Fox viewers truly are not tuning in for actual news （most of the actual news journalists have left） but rather confirmation of their beliefs， and for a sense of belonging to a group with a common bond of grievance， fear， worry， and anger。 Some have said a tribe or cult， with loyal and complete devotion to a perceived leader。 Most loyal FOX viewers look to no other source of background information or discussion。 Sobering was the analysis of the symbiotic feedback loop of information and support between FOX talent and the White House， a shadow government I think of as movie plots。 I found the immense $ paid to opinion “talent” to rev up fearful and angry viewers， and advertising support， appears to support the value of profit and power over ethical factual information and analysis。 It was a sobering read， the role of cable news networks in purposefully driving this deep divide among Americans。 。。。more
Scott
，
Brian Stelter， a self-confessed news junkie and host for years of CNN's media criticism show "Reliable Sources，" is in a perfect position to offer an informed indictment of the "drinking while doing drugs makes both worse" relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump。 If you've ever wondered， "Was Fox News always this crazy？" this is the book for you。With "Hoax，" Stelter proves that it wasn't just the Trump Administration that leaked like the Titanic after the iceberg。 While much of Stelter's Brian Stelter， a self-confessed news junkie and host for years of CNN's media criticism show "Reliable Sources，" is in a perfect position to offer an informed indictment of the "drinking while doing drugs makes both worse" relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump。 If you've ever wondered， "Was Fox News always this crazy？" this is the book for you。With "Hoax，" Stelter proves that it wasn't just the Trump Administration that leaked like the Titanic after the iceberg。 While much of Stelter's reporting is based on anonymous sources from inside Fox News， Stelter does such a magnificent job of connecting the dots and telling a coherent， riveting story that you can't really dispute his reporting。 The role of anonymous sources makes sense considering Stelter's careful documentation of how aggressively litigious Fox News is with its employees。It is all just so damn obvious。 Fox News was once the rival upstart in the news business， offering a fresh conservative voice in the dull world of U。S。 news coverage。 （This is a charitable pro-Fox interpretation。） But under the leadership of the Murdoch family， ratings ruled， and Fox News quickly learned that aggressive， "own the libs" opinion rated far better than objective news coverage， even 'objective' with a conservative spin。 Fox News coddled "talent" like Bill O'Reilly， Sean Hannity， and Tucker Carlson， and it quickly became apparent that as long as you got the ratings， all would be forgiven。 If you played by the rules， it was possible to go from flunky to talent， with a $10 million contract in hand。 Fox News had a pipeline of potential talent ready willing and able to do what it took to get a shot。Fact-free "strong conservative" opinions from entertainers masquerading as journalists was a toxic combination with the Trump Presidency， in which an entertainer masqueraded as President and lied as often as once per minute in his speeches and interviews。 Trump and Fox News created a shameless loop of Fox talking points driving administration policy which， in turn， drove the talking points。 And this was only made worse when the Trump Administration filled key positions with Fox News staffers， and vice versa。 And while Fox News had some legitimate journalists， they were horrified by the declining standards and rampant boosterism they saw infecting Fox News。 The Murdochs would simply not challenge talent unless and until it hit their bottom line - Bill O'Reilly was not fired because of his journalistic shortcomings， he was canned because the sexual harassment lawsuits were too expensive。 Stelter documents all of this with first-person eye-witness tales that are just depressing in their candor。 No matter how bad you think Fox News is in its selling out of whatever journalistic reputation it had earned， it's worse。 The governing standards are a toxic mix of， "We're getting good ratings，" "It could be worse，" and "X is better than Y。" Which would be fine if we were just talking about a politician's sexual escapades with consenting adults。 But as Stelter documents， the price of Fox News serving as an uncritical laundry for Trump lies became a national tragedy when COVID-19 arrived。 Trump and Fox News colluded on the Big Covid Lie， and America is still paying the price。And American journalism may be a casualty。 。。。more
Sherri Eley
，
Good read
Ian
，
I learned a lot about some truly awful people and I'm not sure how I feel about it。 I learned a lot about some truly awful people and I'm not sure how I feel about it。 。。。more
Greg Kopstein
，
I’m grateful this book is finished。 It was 1/2 investigative reporting and 1/2 spiteful rant。Let’s start with the positives。 This is my 17th Trump presidency book， most of them negative， but few cover the odd relationship between President and Fox。 This needed to be written about and Stelter did his homework。 However， most of his sources are anonymous， which I naturally do not trust。 But he did a faithful job recording historical events and the bizarre connection between Trump and Fox。 On the ot I’m grateful this book is finished。 It was 1/2 investigative reporting and 1/2 spiteful rant。Let’s start with the positives。 This is my 17th Trump presidency book， most of them negative， but few cover the odd relationship between President and Fox。 This needed to be written about and Stelter did his homework。 However， most of his sources are anonymous， which I naturally do not trust。 But he did a faithful job recording historical events and the bizarre connection between Trump and Fox。 On the other hand， a great deal - probably half - came off as a rant。 He claims not to be biased， but I can’t see how he can be objective， especially as he describes being harassed and bullied。 It reads， at times， like what a bullied kid who would write in a diary to vent feelings。 It’s healthy to do so， but also not entirely objective either。 Some of this book could also be categorized as opinion and conjecture。 It boils down to a mess of words I would， as a teacher， comment: “Descriptive， but please address organizational issues。”Look， this book needed to be written。 The connection needed to be documented， but this authors bias - which he has good reason to have - clouds his vision and pushes a pure Anti-Fox narrative， rather than a purely objective view。 There are many times he blames Fox or Trump， when there were more sides to it than what he wrote。 How do I know？ Because I - we - lived through it。 So， to wrap this up， read this book but take it with a grain of salt。 。。。more
Daniel Gaddy
，