This presents a compelling thesis worth everyone's consideration. Felsher believes that we need legal restraints similar to those the British have to enjoin the press from influencing juries and trammeling the rights of accused citizens. In Britain the press is not allowed to have its field day until after the trial. The slightest pre-trial emotionalism in the press is dealt with severely, as is the release of any information other than the bald facts of ""the name of the accused, the charge against him, and the court's decision to dismiss or to hold the defendant for trial. That is regard for justice."" Felsher and Rosen have amassed an impressively persuasive list of depredations by the American press to reinforce the contention that our press is almost consistently biassed. An inflammatory press inevitably affects a jury decision and classic cases seen here are the Sam Sheppard trial, George Whitmore's ""confessions,"" Erroll Flynn and Charlie Chaplin's paternity suits, Bobby Baker's investigation (contrary to popular opinion, Baker has never been proven guilty of anything). One staggering instance of editorial prejudice is that of the Florida editor who ran an untitled cartoon of four electric chairs. They were intended for four Negro ""rapists"" and the grand jury had not even met! Well recommended.