I’ve read enough history to know that there are two-sides to every story…so I am open to reading (and looking forward to) the “counter-argument” to this book. And I’m not talking about a passing two-line synopsis in certain person’s autobiographies – I want nitty-gritty facts.

The thing that was interesting to me about this book was all the politics that surrounded journalism. I mean I knew it was there, but it’s borderline outraging the barriers put up between people and the facts we should be privy to. Even more so when the barriers are put up by people who’s JOB it is to bring us the facts.

Where the writers went a little astray is when they started adding a little too much emotion when presenting what they knew as fact.