No comments about Somebody's Gotta Tell It: A Journalist's Life on the Lines.

No comments about Black Writers/Black Baseball: An Anthology of Articles from Black Sportswriters Who Covered the Negro Leagues.

2 comments about Restless Wave: My Life in Two Worlds.

1. Ayako Ishigaki's wonderful fictionalized memoir is revealing for it's sometimes subtle, sometimes angry, and sometimes tender treatment of the both the culture she was born into and the culture she experienced in the U.S. It's also a remarkable historical document that presents views of Japanese women that may startle the reader. The writing is fluid and engaging. You can read it easily in a day or two.



2. I picked this book up on a recommendation from a friend interested in anything Japanese and I'm quite happy I did. If you're sick and tired of reading about geisha, or if you like geisha but are interested in expanding your horizons and reading about the lives and struggles of other Japanese women who haven't been given a story, you owe it to yourself to read this book.
   
   Ayako Ishigaki gives voice in her memoir to post war Japanese women, fighting against the stereotypes and mixed messages sent to them via eastern vs western ideals. What's most intriguing about this is that I can still see this struggle played out today in the way female characters are portrayed in certain manga and anime; it gives a lot of context to modern day stories, and shows just how far Japanese women still have to go to be portrayed as humans and not mere objects of desire/ fetish.
   
   Lest you think this story sounds too high brow, never fear: its easy to understand and read on the subway or after a hard day of work. The writing is simple, clean, and flows well. If nothing else, the tidbits of Japanese culture and traditions (post and pre war) and the personal ancedotes of the author interjected in the story will stay with you long after the last page.
   
   Enjoy *(^_^)*

5 comments about When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963.

1. There are so very few books that convey a sense of "being there" when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. This outstanding book takes the reader back to that fateful weekend of November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas and does so in an open, honest and compelling manner.
   
   "When the News Went Live" is written by four journalists who were in Dallas on that day covering the presidential visit. Bob Huffaker and the other three newsmen share many interesting stories that you will not find elsewhere and that have been untold for many years no doubt to all but their personal friends. This is why the book is such a valuable contribution to the historical record. Such first hand observation regarding not just those few seconds in Dealey Plaza, the murder of Officer Tippet and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, but how in fact the entire story unfolded, makes fascinating reading.
   
   As an aid to anyone interested in the assassination, this book is a must have. I would emphasize - rarely do you find first hand knowledge like this - much of what is written on this subject is written by people many steps removed from the event where fact and fiction merge into one. Not so here. A fabulous book which is refreshingly free of the conjecture and myth that is so common in the Himalayan pile of work on the Kennedy assassination and is highly recommended.



2. "With three shots from a mail-order rifle, Lee Oswald set off a worldwide tragedy that developed too fast to print. .... Broadcast journalism came of age in that crisis of grief and uncertainty, and as it drew its mourning audience, it helped to hold the nation together." -- Bob Huffaker; From the Preface of "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963"
   
   ----------------------
   
   "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963", published in 2004, paints a vivid word picture of many of the incredible events that surrounded President John F. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, as seen through the eyes of four journalists -- Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, and Wes Wise -- who covered those events as they happened for CBS affiliate KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas.
   
   President Kennedy's shocking and appalling assassination on November 22, 1963, was the very first really big "Watch It Unfold Live On TV" news event of the television era, with four full commercial-free days being devoted to nothing but exclusive assassination-related coverage by all three major TV networks (with KRLD's on-the-scene Dallas reporters frequently feeding CBS-TV headquarters in New York).
   
   And the four reporters whose intriguing stories unfold within this 224-page hardcover volume were right smack in the thick of things during the rapidly-developing events -- from the initial sketchy bulletins that told of the President being shot in Dealey Plaza during a motorcade drive through the city of Dallas -- to the announcement of JFK's death at Parkland Hospital -- to the capture of the accused assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a nearby movie theater -- to Oswald's very own murder on live TV (with Bob Huffaker reporting live from the basement of the Dallas Police Department, where the single gunshot from Jack Ruby's pistol added yet another hard-to-believe chapter to the weekend's nightmarish story).
   
   It was a mesmerizing weekend in American (and television) history, to say the least. And those days are re-lived with clarity in this engaging book by way of the recollections of four men who lived through and reported on those events when they were occurring.
   
   "When The News Went Live" contains several excellent black-and-white photographs, too (some of them I haven't seen published elsewhere).
   
   On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of communicating (via e-mail) with Bob Huffaker several times. He has been very cordial and gracious whenever answering the questions that I had for him. His personal insights into the events revolving around JFK's death are fascinating glimpses into the past, and are insights that I have enjoyed reading immensely.
   
   A sample e-mail excerpt from Mr. Huffaker:
   
   ----------------------
   
   "David, you're right about the presidential visit and motorcade being the main attraction that all Dallas media were covering, of course. But all our stations had limited capabilities for doing mobile TV, which then demanded either cables or microwave dishes--as well as a receiving dish within line-of-sight beaming or bouncing.
   
   Hence the pool TV arrangements, limited to three planned locations. The local TV stations did live TV from the FTW {Fort Worth} breakfast, Love Field, and the Trade Mart. But this was, indeed, the day the news went live on television, unplanned.
   
   WBAP-TV in Fort Worth had a non-running TV van, which they had towed all the way from Cowtown to Dallas Police headquarters, and we sent both of our KRLD-TV vans into duty--the Bread Truck at DPD and the Blue Goose on the 24th to the county jail, etc.
   
   This was the first time in TV history when on-the-spot news suddenly demanded to go live from the scene. Before that, radio news on-the-spot descriptions such as ours that day were common (like the Hindenburg broadcast--radio only), and live TV was usually reserved for major speeches, sports, etc.
   
   Bob" -- E-mail to this writer; May 30, 2006
   
   ----------------------
   
   Relating to the subject of "WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE", I'd like to offer up the following observations as an extension of this book review.....
   
   To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 10 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history.
   
   After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK".
   
   Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well).
   
   Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:
   
   "Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!"
   
   What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.
   
   Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed "8-to-10-shot" shooting scenario, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.*
   
   * = And Mr. Groden's theory (that sports from 8 to 10 gunshots) also features an additional hunk of lunacy, in that Groden thinks it's very likely that NONE of these eight to ten shots came from the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository! (I'm not making this crazy stuff up here. I promise. Anyone who owns a copy of Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" can check out Groden's preposterous theory for themselves, on pages 20-40.)
   
   The bottom line is -- Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information being broadcast that would support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever; and certainly no "conspiratorial" evidence that has ever panned out and "proved" that a multi-gun plot ended JFK's life in Dallas.
   
   This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.
   
   And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country (including Messrs. Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix, and Wise) would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-proving angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later.
   
   To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".
   
   For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting.
   
   For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22nd saying he heard "3 shots" fired.
   
   Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.
   
   Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard, Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President Kennedy.
   
   In addition, Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, who were both riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind JFK's limousine, can also be added to the lengthy list of witnesses who heard precisely three gunshots.
   
   And then there's also amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder, who took the most famous 26-second home movie in history when he captured the entire assassination with his 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera -- Zapruder showed up on live TV about 90 minutes after the President's murder took place and gave a graphic account of the horrifying event that had taken place in front of his very eyes.
   
   Mr. Zapruder told the WFAA-TV viewing audience that he had heard two or three shots (but definitely no more than three), and he also demonstrated on live television where on the President's head he had seen the effects of the fatal gunshot. Zapruder puts his hand over the right-frontal portion of his own head to demonstrate where he saw the blood coming from JFK's head.
   
   That's pretty amazing "LIVE" stuff from Mr. Zapruder's own lips (within approx. an hour-and-a-half of the assassination). And it's especially incredible and amazing if there had actually been many more than just two or three shots fired at the President, and if the fatal shot had actually (as many CTers believe) caused a huge hole in the BACK of John Kennedy's head, instead of the location where Zapruder placed it on live television -- i.e., the RIGHT SIDE AND FRONT portion of the head.
   
   How could the so-called "conspirators" have possibly gotten THAT lucky with respect to Abraham Zapruder's live "on-the-air" WFAA-TV statements and head-wound "demonstration"? How?
   
   And -- Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing only TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")?
   
   Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY (again) when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository.
   
   Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots.
   
   And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you.
   
   Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least.
   
   Again -- I'd advise all conspiracy theorists to sit down and watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a "Multi-Gunmen Conspiracy" lurking within ANY of those original broadcasts. If anybody finds proof of a conspiracy via those means, please let me know. And let the world know too.
   
   David Von Pein
   December 2006
   January 2007



3. We have become accustomed (yea, verily, some would say desensitized)to horror unfolding before our eyes in our very own living rooms. Bob Huffaker's book brings us back to a time before the desensitization, when we could scarcely believe what our eyes were telling us. I recommend this book highly to those who were there, watching as I was, and even more so to those who were not there. The young, raised in an era of suicide bombers, need to understand that it was not always thus.



4. 1963 nov 22 brought to life again but with more professionalism.some very interesting facts that confirmed my own thoughts .



5. I stayed up all night reading when my copy of When The News Went Live, Dallas 1963 arrived. This book is a classic and should be included in the curriculum of every journalism and political science classroom in America.
   
   Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix and Wise have written the Texas story of the Kennedy assassination, the inside scoop on Oswald's murder and the history of the evolution of modern journalism. These four men were Dallas television reporters, on the scene and on their own, in the middle of the news story of the century.
   
   It is a salute to their training and their integrity as newsmen that their coverage under duress stands today as a compelling rendering of those fateful moments. I am glad they were the early ones on the scene, for they were the ones who broke the news to me in my elementary classroom. The story gives their perspectives more fully; all these years later, this book helps me understand the events and how they affected Texas and the nation.
   
   Bob, Bill, George and Wes were there in Dallas with their Southern sensibilities. They weren't easily pushed around or manipulated that dark day and still aren't. They were taught to tell the truth as objectively as possible, and they reverted to that training and their good common sense when placed in positions lesser men might have blown or exploited. These four men cared about truth and justice and fairness and still do. I hope all young journalists will read this and learn about balanced reporting.

No comments about The Life and Adventures of Morrison of China.

No comments about Frolicking Bears, Wet Vultures, and Other Oddities: A New York City Journalist in Nineteenth-Century Florida (Florida History and Culture).

5 comments about Call The Briefing.

1. Marlin Fitzwater is still, in my mind, the supreme model of a press secretary. He was sharp, quick witted, capable of being funny, and honest. This is a terrific book that not only lets us in on what a press secretary's job is really like, he gives us the inside story on many important events in the second Reagan and Bush administrations. He also tells delicious stories about the Whitehouse press corps that are entertaining and informative.
   
   The author provides enough of his own biography, about fifty pages, to give us a better idea how he became who he is and how he came to Washington and ended up working for Larry Speakes, Reagan's press secretary at the time. He grew up on a Kansas wheat farm, ended up working at some small newspapers and working his way through college like many of us less well to do children of the middle and working classes did and do.
   
   He provides some key insights into the Reagan administration and is not afraid to say when he thinks Reagan was less than successful or what his weaknesses were, in his view. However, he is also extremely positive and explains where he thinks Reagan received bad advice and was less than well served by certain advisors.
   
   The accounts of the Bush administration are also excellent. Each anecdote is not only interesting but is used to illustrate some principle of the media in Washington and how the feebback between the press and politics works. The campaign between Bush and Clinton, whom the press adored, is especially illustrative.
   
   Each press secretary nowadays writes a book about their time in the hot seat, and they are usually good. After all, they are in that job because they know how to tell a story and communicate with the media and through them with us. But Fitzwater's book is a special example that sets the standard for all the rest.



2. I have read my fair share of political memoirs and to me they always seem to all into one of two categories. It is either the disgruntled guy that maybe did not leave on such good terms who is going to put as much venom as possible into anyone that slightly crossed him during his time in the administration, or it is the guy that thinks the President he served walked on water and is wondering why the American population did not create a monarchy with his President as the King. This book falls into the later category. I am not apposed to these types of books, I tend to like them if I liked the President so I was ok with the authors glowing review of Reagan and Bush. I just wished the author had given us little more meat with his comments. Most of the book reminded me of a rambling conversation you might have with a friend where, at the end, you really do not know what was talked about. One thing did come out very clearly, the author loved working for these two Presidents and there is absolutely no criticism, fair or unfair, within these pages.

   The one thing that I did get a little annoyed at was the author's attacks on the Clinton administration. I could understand the comments about the 1992 election and those comments were fair, but what was with the comments of what the Clinton team was doing in 95? These looked to me as nothing else but simple-minded attacks to help a bruised ego. As the book went on into the Bush administration this author started to really tear into the press. On and on he would spout off about the liberal press that was just out to get good old George when maybe the author should have realized that it was the Bush team that was losing focus and was losing the election one day at a time. The author hardly ever admitted that the Bush administration made mistakes; the No New Taxes issue was not even discussed. And as other reviewers here have mentioned, the author did not touch on the two military actions undertaken during the Bush administration. Overall the book was light on new facts, but had some interesting parts about the press and some internal meetings and issues. I could not get past the petty attacks on the Clinton administration and the obsessive mantra about the negative, unfair liberal press.




3. Fitzwater's book is perhaps one of the finest insiders views of the White House and the White House press corps to ever be published.
   Fitzwater details the inner workings of the Reagan White House like none other, including the scandals and how they did not affect the inside of the White House regardless of the pressure from the media. His admiration for Ronald Reagan is palpable in this book, however he's not as favorable to George Bush. While it's clear he personally likes Bush, it's also clear that he did not agree with Bush's policies and the rest of the Bush White House team as much as he seemed to agree with much of the Reagan White House. However, overall the only person to come out of Fitzwater's book looking bad is John Sununu the former Chief of Staff. He comes off as paranoid and really a generally nasty guy.
   Fitzwater also writes probably the finest view of why Bush lost the 1992 Presidental race and the bungling inside of the White House that caused it. Unfortunately he avoids writing much about the invasion of Panama and Desert Storm, two of the biggest events of the Bush Presidency. Fitzwater rationalizes this by stating many other books will be written on those two events, however I would liked to have known how he handled it in terms of the briefings and the announcement of the invasion of Panama and the beginning of Desert Storm.
   Overall, this is a fine book and should be read by anyone who wants an insider's view of what the Washington Press Corps and their relationship with the White House is really like as well as anyone interested in how Bush managed to turn huge popularity raitings during and after Desert Storm into a political defeat in 1992.



4. "Call the Briefing" by Marlin Fitzwater puts you inside the White House. The reader is brought right to the Podium, fielding questions from a voracious Press Corps ready to do almost anything for a story. And you are there with the President and the Cabinet, discussing strategy and estimating every action's media reaction.It was hard to put this book down. You meet the very idealistic Ronald Reagan and the very professional George H. W. Bush through the eyes of the man who served a Press Secretary in both Administrations. Mr. Fitzwater's longevity in that position attests to his skill at working with the White House insiders and the news media.

   Many of the events covered are specific to the Reagan and Bush days, but you also experience the many duties of the White House Press Secretary in any Administration, a role that could give ulcers to almost anyone. This gave me a real appreciation of the "24/7" crises White House Staff in any Administration, must battle every day.I especially liked Mr. Fitzwater's writing, honed through years of experience. I liked his ability to paint events in a terse yet rich way. All the journeys of Marlin Fitzwater come alive, starting as a farm boy in Abeliene, Kansas and a reporter and editor in small-town Kansas newspapers.

   Although he had originally wanted a career as a journalist, his opportunity came on the other side of the podium, handling public relations at Government agencies. Mr. Fitzwater got his baptism by fire at the Environmental Protection Agency, handling the hot potato of the Three Mile Island Nuclear leak. For better or worse, it is the news media which ultimately decides what is news and how that news is presented to the public. But their power is even greater than we perceive. They can choose to make any particular event, such as a Presidential Speech, front-page headline news or bury it on the Obituary page.

   Mr. Fitzwater handled his dual challenge very well: to communicate the Administration's activities in the most favorable light, and at the same time building trust among the White House Press Corps by being fair and honest. One sees the successes, such as the Summit Meetings held by both Presidents Reagan and Bush with Premiere Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. And you see the bad times, such as the unfortunate illnesses suffered by Mr. Bush at Camp David and again in Japan, which caused many people to question his ability to finish his term. The reader also learns about the successes and failures of the Movers and Shakers in the White House, from Caspar Weiberger and Iran-Contra to the rise and fall of the autocratic Chief of Staff John Sununu. And of course the Media are happy to make a story at anyone's expense.

   Definitely five stars, and recommended for anyone who wants to know more about what happens in White House and how it affects the Nation.




5. "Call the Briefing" by Marlin Fitzwater puts you inside the White House. The reader is brought right to the Podium, fielding questions from a voracious Press Corps ready to do almost anything for a story. And you are there with the President and the Cabinet, discussing strategy and estimating every action's media reaction.It was hard to put this book down. You meet the very idealistic Ronald Reagan and the very professional George H. W. Bush through the eyes of the man who served a Press Secretary in both Administrations. Mr. Fitzwater's longevity in that position attests to his skill at working with the White House insiders and the news media.

   Many of the events covered are specific to the Reagan and Bush days, but you also experience the many duties of the White House Press Secretary in any Administration, a role that could give ulcers to almost anyone. This gave me a real appreciation of the "24/7" crises White House Staff in any Administration, must battle every day.I especially liked Mr. Fitzwater's writing, honed through years of experience. I liked his ability to paint events in a terse yet rich way. All the journeys of Marlin Fitzwater come alive, starting as a farm boy in Abeliene, Kansas and a reporter and editor in small-town Kansas newspapers.

   Although he had originally wanted a career as a journalist, his opportunity came on the other side of the podium, handling public relations at Government agencies. Mr. Fitzwater got his baptism by fire at the Environmental Protection Agency, handling the hot potato of the Three Mile Island Nuclear leak. For better or worse, it is the news media which ultimately decides what is news and how that news is presented to the public. But their power is even greater than we perceive. They can choose to make any particular event, such as a Presidential Speech, front-page headline news or bury it on the Obituary page.

   Mr. Fitzwater handled his dual challenge very well: to communicate the Administration's activities in the most favorable light, and at the same time building trust among the White House Press Corps by being fair and honest. One sees the successes, such as the Summit Meetings held by both Presidents Reagan and Bush with Premiere Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. And you see the bad times, such as the unfortunate illnesses suffered by Mr. Bush at Camp David and again in Japan, which caused many people to question his ability to finish his term. The reader also learns about the successes and failures of the Movers and Shakers in the White House, from Caspar Weiberger and Iran-Contra to the rise and fall of the autocratic Chief of Staff John Sununu. And of course the Media are happy to make a story at anyone's expense.

   Definitely five stars, and recommended for anyone who wants to know more about what happens in White House and how it affects the Nation.

5 comments about Lads: A Memoir.

1. I got this book because it was $4.99 and I needed to spend $4 more dollars to qualify for free shipping on another purchase. It was either pay $8 for shipping, or add this book for $4.99.
   
   I now wish I'd paid the extra $3.01 so that I might not have this bad taste in my mind... that "bad read" taste that just lingers psychically. Ick. You see, I am the type of reader who will see a book through to the end no matter how awful. And therein lies the problem.
   
   This book is of a particular genre, the "glamour job tell-all", sort of a Devil Wears Prada (but not even as good as that, and that wasn't all that good a book -- despite the way Merrill Streep single handedly saved the movie.)
   
   Anyhow, the problem with this book is that for a tell all to "work" the reader sort of has to be sympathetic to the writer/protagonist. And with Lads, that just isn't possible because Dave Itzkoff is the kind of guy you'd go out of your way to avoid in life if you could.
   
   While he skewers all the people he once worked with, from famed editor Mark Golin to loosely disguised Maxim editors, one sort of has to wonder if his coworkers even remember the guy -- he's that much of a wash out. He's such a weasel that self-admittedly only a handful of people show up for his goodbye party and of those most are there for the free drinks and of those there for the drinks most get their fill before making their escape by 7:00pm. Too bad the reader can't get out as easily.
   
   Don't get trapped into spending hours with Dave Itzkoff via the pages of this book.
   
   Gentle Reader, avoid my pain. Even if the book is free; don't do it!



2. Full disclosure: I was once a freelancer in the New York magazine business, and at Maxim on and off for a few years. (Now on with the review.) I really enjoyed this speedy read, but this may be out of sheer self-centeredness: I like stories that accurately give the reader a tour of a part of the world at a particular era, and this made for amusing reading because I floated in and out of that specific moment and place, at an Important Time In My Life, In the Big City. (I read part of the book in a nearby dive bar, and nearly spit out my beer a few times, certain scenes were so hilariously familiar.)
   
   The average non-Maxim-affiliated reader can find plenty of laugh-out-loud moments in Itzkoff's memoir, but New York magazine-biz types have probably just rolled their eyes in disgust at the lad-mag employees who've "sold their souls." (Or rolled their eyes at Itzkoff, Toby Young, or others who unflinchingly hold up the mirror.) The book's definitely funny, but it's a wry, dark humor, given more to acknowledging smiles and nods than knee-slapping guffaws.
   
   Would a comparison to Toby Young's (almost) tell-all be insulting to Itzkoff? Maybe. Young's pratfalls were retarded, cartoonish. Itzkoff's screw-ups (too numerous to call out here) were undoubtedly cringe-inducing, but funny and familiar and heartbreaking, too.
   
   SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! The end is way too pat. I don't mind that Itzkoff and his dad end up on the shrink's couch, but it seemed like that resolution was just stuck on. The scene is well-rendered, but a longer road to the psychiatrist may have been in order.



3. Lads gets you both laughing and, with what the writer endures, cringing. Itzkoff is, simply, funny, and his book is smart and well-written, and thankfully much more than a rah-rah recounting of life inside Maxim. To be open, I know the author, but knowing him had no impact on the fact that at many times while reading I actually laughed out loud as Itzkoff described his jobs, his life in the NYC publishing world, his family, the painful dating world and those he worked with or for. But for all the criticism he lays on others, Itzkoff saves his harshest comments for himself; it's not self criticism, it's self flagellation. It's also exceedingly honest, and his examination of being a man in this Maximish world is thoughtful and thought-provoking.



4. A hilariously poignant - and pleasantly pessimistic - tale of one man's rise through New York's publishing industry circuit. Touching at times, yet always temperamental, Izkoff's skewed view on life, liberty and the pursuit of getting laid gracefully skirts the fine line between raunch and redemption, providing a captivating read in the process. An insightful peek behind the headlines and hijinks at Dennis Publishing, it comes highly recommended.



5. I love this book. It's devastatingly witty, heartbreaking at moments, and yes, heartwarming. A fun, wicked portrait of glossy twenty-something Manhattan life.

2 comments about Kate Field: The Many Lives of a Nineteenth-Century American Journalist (Writing American Women).

1. 
   Kate Field didn't rebel against the narrow boundaries for women of her day, she just didn't recognize them. She lived her life on her terms. Her artistic family gave her travel, a circle of creative friends and literary contacts. From this fortunate start she built her career.
   
   It was a career in journalistic multimedia. She lectured, she wrote, she acted in traditional drama and performance art, she sang, and even had a clothing line. She was the spokeswoman for the telephone and for California wines. While she had many colleagues, she had no peers.
   
   It could be for not having been associated with any one achievement, her name got lost somewhere in the clutter of history. What may be her most interesting studies, the Mormon Church and the "state" of the Alaska Territory were never published.
   
   She rejected her Copperhead roots, but her political views were a mixed bag of progressivism and nativism. She was for limited sufferage for both men and women and an advocate for better access to the Chicago World's Fair for working people. She goes to Hawaii, touting her presumably open mind on whether it will be a territory or a kingdom
   
   Author, Gary Scharnhorst thoroughly documents her story in this short book. The reference sources make the writing tend towards a reportorial style.



2. She was a trailblazer in more than one way. "Kate Field: The Many Lives of a Nineteenth-Century American Journalist" describes the life of one of the first journalists to gain celebrity status in her own right, in addition to being a pioneer female journalist and an advocate for black rights. She was friends with authors such as Charles Dickens and Mark Twain, and even became the inspiration for certain classic fictional characters. The extraordinary life of an extraordinary woman, "Kate Field" is a must-read for biography lovers.

No comments about No Pants Required: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Television Sports Broadcasting.