A gossipy, ad rem diagnosis of what ails US newspapers. Washington Post Media-reporter Kurtz concludes that broadsheets as well as tabloids have been losing credibility because they tend to focus on scandalous sleaze (Gennifer Flowers; William Kennedy Smith's rape trial; the more sensational aspects of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings) or marginal manipulators (Al Sharpton; Donald Trump) while—until overtaken by events—they all but ignore important stories like the collapse of thrift institutions and the root causes of the L.A. riots. At the same time, dailies have been squandering their natural advantages- -notably, an unrivaled ability to provide the public with in-depth context on TV's blur of sound bites. In-house woes ranging from ethical lapses (e.g., plagiarism) through noisy allegations of racial bias and sexism have further undermined an already shaky industry. Kurtz examines how labor strife as well as economic problems have expanded the number of single-paper towns, inducing many survivors to ape USA Today—which, he says, has been moving up-market with a less flashy format and more substantive content. Covered as well are the improved (i.e., more analytic) performances of print journalists during the 1992 presidential campaign (thanks in part to the candidates' communicating directly with the electorate via TV talk-shows); the Pentagon's humiliating defeat of the press corps during the Gulf War; the many ways in which government officials can seduce correspondents supposed to probe them; and the capacity of newspapers to compete for attention in a high-tech era arguably dominated by CNN, C-SPAN, MTV, or allied sources of instant gratification. A cautionary, wide-ranging critique that's both entertaining and informative. (For another inside-look at the decline of the American newspaper, see James D. Squires's Read All About It!, published in February)
Pub Date: April 1, 1993
ISBN: 0-8129-2022-8
Page Count: 464
Publisher: Times/Henry Holt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: March 1, 1993
BOOK REVIEW
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2026 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
