Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth
- Downloads：3294
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-16 18:16:02
- Update Date：2025-09-23
- 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
Jacob Anderson
，
Well researched， with cogently presented and defended arguments。 The attempt at a thematically-cohesive narrative trajectory/point gets a bit lost amongst all the details and stories of the Fox News saga's primary players， though the abundance of cathartically straightforward truth-bombs is certainly compelling。 Serves as an important record of bizarre times， even if it's a record too fresh and dreadful in the public's minds to stir up much freshly excited interest for a while， at this point。 I Well researched， with cogently presented and defended arguments。 The attempt at a thematically-cohesive narrative trajectory/point gets a bit lost amongst all the details and stories of the Fox News saga's primary players， though the abundance of cathartically straightforward truth-bombs is certainly compelling。 Serves as an important record of bizarre times， even if it's a record too fresh and dreadful in the public's minds to stir up much freshly excited interest for a while， at this point。 I do wish there were a bit more ~specific~ coverage of other networks' usual values and practices， as starkly contrasted with Fox's， to bolster a tone of alarmed objectivity。 'Twould make the book easier to recommend to conservatives。 。。。more
Rita
，
Nothing truly new。
Marie
，
An excellent look at how Fox News became… whatever it is today。
Debbie
，
Must read to fully understand how Fox News got to the place they are today。 Whether you like them or hate them， understanding how this evolution occurred from humble beginnings to the network it has become。 It lays out how many of the early news anchors worked， what they wanted to contribute， and why many of them have left， being replaced by people who are not true journalists （classic definition of the word）。 Enlightening to see the priorities and influence of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch， an Must read to fully understand how Fox News got to the place they are today。 Whether you like them or hate them， understanding how this evolution occurred from humble beginnings to the network it has become。 It lays out how many of the early news anchors worked， what they wanted to contribute， and why many of them have left， being replaced by people who are not true journalists （classic definition of the word）。 Enlightening to see the priorities and influence of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch， and how the network was driven almost entirely by greed and money。 Highly educational and informative。 。。。more
Perry Mitchell
，
If you think you know how deep Trump's administration went with Fox News， you have no idea。 Read。 This。 Book。 If you think you know how deep Trump's administration went with Fox News， you have no idea。 Read。 This。 Book。 。。。more
H。W。 Bernard
，
A well written， well researched， and well documented book on the Fox （Fantasy） News Channel and the disservice it has done to America by becoming the Voice of Trumpism。 Yes， there are honest journalists with integrity at Fox， but they've been shouted down by the opinionists in the organization。 The motivator: ratings （provided by hard right-wing viewers looking for what they want to hear， not what they need to hear--the truth） and thus， the almighty dollar。 A truly fascinating read。 A well written， well researched， and well documented book on the Fox （Fantasy） News Channel and the disservice it has done to America by becoming the Voice of Trumpism。 Yes， there are honest journalists with integrity at Fox， but they've been shouted down by the opinionists in the organization。 The motivator: ratings （provided by hard right-wing viewers looking for what they want to hear， not what they need to hear--the truth） and thus， the almighty dollar。 A truly fascinating read。 。。。more
SheepleHunter
，
As the master of revisionist history Brian is always topping himself with his innate ability to grift and deceive， and his latest piece of historical fiction is no different。 Nobody is better at blurring the line between mental illness and malicious opponent of the constitution as his narcissism and histrionics are on full display。 Brian， or better known as Humpty Dumpty around literary circles， has his clumsiness on full display as he repeatedly trips and lands on one bad take after another whi As the master of revisionist history Brian is always topping himself with his innate ability to grift and deceive， and his latest piece of historical fiction is no different。 Nobody is better at blurring the line between mental illness and malicious opponent of the constitution as his narcissism and histrionics are on full display。 Brian， or better known as Humpty Dumpty around literary circles， has his clumsiness on full display as he repeatedly trips and lands on one bad take after another while somehow managing to avoid stepping into any facts or good faith arguments。。。Perhaps Humpty isn't so clumsy after all。 For anyone those familiar with Hanlon’s razor， which suggests “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity，" please be aware that you can leave this wisdom at the door because in this case not only is Brian stupid， but he is extremely malicious in his attempts to suppress any ideas or opinions other than his own， all while insulting his reader with his frequent yet disproven claims that he is a journalist。 Don't worry Brian， many of us are awake to the fact that that you are a spineless propagandist。 。。。more
Daniel
，
Why do large numbers of people believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats "stole" the election， that the Mueller investigation was a "hoax，" and Trump deserves great credit for the way he handled the pandemic？ Because a propaganda channel called "FOX News" told them so。。。 repeatedly。 This a step through the looking glass， to a supposed news channel where actual journalists are marginalized and rightwing opinion -- the more extreme the better -- is king。 If you want to know why America is so deeply Why do large numbers of people believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats "stole" the election， that the Mueller investigation was a "hoax，" and Trump deserves great credit for the way he handled the pandemic？ Because a propaganda channel called "FOX News" told them so。。。 repeatedly。 This a step through the looking glass， to a supposed news channel where actual journalists are marginalized and rightwing opinion -- the more extreme the better -- is king。 If you want to know why America is so deeply divided， this is essential reading。 。。。more
Cara Deane
，
#5 for your girl。 We’re over it right？ But this is less about Trump and more about Jan 6th。 Bryan Stelter does a Rachel Maddow-esque deep dive into Fox News。 The news outlet that devolved into the largest propaganda machine we’ve ever seen used in this country in our lifetimes。 Citing 300 sources， 150 no longer working at Fox News， about 180 still working at Fox News— Stelter breaks down the culture from Ailes to Murdock to Hannity to Tucker。 The bazillions they’re paid， the harassment of women， #5 for your girl。 We’re over it right？ But this is less about Trump and more about Jan 6th。 Bryan Stelter does a Rachel Maddow-esque deep dive into Fox News。 The news outlet that devolved into the largest propaganda machine we’ve ever seen used in this country in our lifetimes。 Citing 300 sources， 150 no longer working at Fox News， about 180 still working at Fox News— Stelter breaks down the culture from Ailes to Murdock to Hannity to Tucker。 The bazillions they’re paid， the harassment of women， the absence of any moral compass。 The idiocy。 And he weaves in Trump’s allure— the fascinating relationship that became what it is。 （Like when Trump called Tucker Carlson to get his actual opinion on if he should bomb Iran while planes were in the air。。。） And the journalists who just couldn’t stomach it— like Shep Smith。 Stelter takes you on an impeccably documented journey but misses the mark of what such a perfect storm can do。 He stops just shy of the real conversation— which is the radicalization of a frightening many。 Namely， because when he wrote this book— Jan 6th hadn’t yet occurred。 A fascinating peek under the blanket， but I bet Stelter’s kicking himself that he didn’t wait six more months whereby he could’ve written one more chapter—since January 2021 truly showed us the power of lies。 #iread #chasingcarabooks #chasingcarabooks2021 。。。more
vaderbird
，
5 Pinocchio。Seriously I tried， it is like Cuomo and his book American Crisis。。。
Donna Campanile meehan
，
Be afraid but be forewarnedA page turner that left me fearful of what was coming next。 Breaks open the shell game that was played on this country by Fox and he who shall not be named。
David Dube
，
A little late to the party compared to the other "Trump" books but it was very interesting。Was Trump the worst president ever？ Maybe notMost hated man in America？ ask Harvey Weinstein's victimsWorst person ever in the Oval？ Hands downIt's nice to have Sean Hannity as your lap dog， I guess。 A little late to the party compared to the other "Trump" books but it was very interesting。Was Trump the worst president ever？ Maybe notMost hated man in America？ ask Harvey Weinstein's victimsWorst person ever in the Oval？ Hands downIt's nice to have Sean Hannity as your lap dog， I guess。 。。。more
Mary Beth
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 At first I was thinking this was going to be a repeat of the information about DT （good info， but lots of books already）， but the author has certain insights that actually made this a deeper book than I expected。 The author has insights and connections into the Fox newsroom that need to be listened to， and the background and knowledge that could lead to suggestions and improvements in media in general， not just Fox。
Denise
，
Interesting look at the Trump/Fox News propaganda echo chamber that traces that particular trainwreck once masquerading as journalism from the campaign until the first half of 2020。 Not all that much that's actually new to anyone who's had half an eye on following that shitshow， but an account worth reading。 Interesting look at the Trump/Fox News propaganda echo chamber that traces that particular trainwreck once masquerading as journalism from the campaign until the first half of 2020。 Not all that much that's actually new to anyone who's had half an eye on following that shitshow， but an account worth reading。 。。。more
Ritarose
，
Closer to a 3。5 rating。 This is worth reading just to understand the relationship between journalists and politicians; and particularly with the Trump presidency， how many Fox employees joined the White House staff。 It is amazing how short our memories are， all the “big” scandals that unfolded between 2016-2020。 At times， the story was a bit repetitive on how Fox did nothing to shed light on truth vs。 falsehoods; and it is not clear that those who left or were pushed out really disowned anything Closer to a 3。5 rating。 This is worth reading just to understand the relationship between journalists and politicians; and particularly with the Trump presidency， how many Fox employees joined the White House staff。 It is amazing how short our memories are， all the “big” scandals that unfolded between 2016-2020。 At times， the story was a bit repetitive on how Fox did nothing to shed light on truth vs。 falsehoods; and it is not clear that those who left or were pushed out really disowned anything they had done to promote conspiracy theories and falsehoods; it seemed more likely that a loss of income and/or prestige was the reason for some angst。 A good educational piece of recent political history， so worth it to read for that reason。 。。。more
Tim Ozinga
，
Enlightening book by someone in the know， I learned quite a bit about Donald Trump and Fox News， most of it not good
Lefthat
，
Just what the title says。 And it is plenty of it in this book。
Megan
，
Audio。 In some ways there’s nothing to read here if you’ve been paying attention。 And of course I’m the choir and the author is the preacher。 It’s amazing that a con man like Trump can hold sway over so much of our country。
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
，