Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror [ハードカバー]

This is a great but not not excellent that is definitely worth reading by everyone regardless of their position on the left-right ideological spectrum.

Among other things, he puts to rest persistant myths such as the widely touted belief (even by the BBC, of all people) that Osama bin Laden suffers from a kidney disorder that may or may not require dialysis, and also takes aim at the the post-cold war Soviet suitcase-nukes myth that I first learned about from my father while I was growing up, and is has since undergone a revival since the 9/11 terror strikes.

There is one particular problem with this book, however, that is sufficiently bad enough to force me to give it only three stars, so listen closely.

At several points in the book, Richard Miniter makes extremely blatant factual errors that seem to throw a light on his professionalism (even though this isn't Miniter's first book, this is the only one of his I've actually read), and also gives me the impression that this was either rushed out to meet a publishing deadline, or that he couldn't afford to have it edited properly.

Here are a few:

--Several times (most notably during the chapter on Bin Ladens perceived health issues), Miniter incorrectly refers to General Pervez Musharraf as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This is way wrong. Musharraf's proper title as leader of Pakistan is President, not Prime Minister. From his seizure of power in 1999 until November of 2002, Pakistan had neither a Parliament nor a Prime Minister to lead it. The current Prime Minister is a man named Shaukat Aziz.

--During one of the later chapters of the book (I'm not entirely sure which one, but I strongly believe it's the one concerning the numerous links between Sadaam's Government and Al-Qeada), during a single sentence Miniter makes a major factual blunder concerning the territorial and ideological affiliations of several terrorist/armed-resistance groups. He misleadingly refers to the PKK as a "Turkish muslim terror group" (!!!) and claimes that the Mojedin-e-Khalq is a Pakistani terror group (double !!!).

This not only terrible, but entirely inncorrect. The PKK, whose initials in Kurdi stand for Kurdish Workers Party, are a Marxist-Lenninist resistance group by the Kurds against the Turks. Despite the fact they occasionally use suicide bombings against their enemies (possibly the only communist group to do so), there is nothing Islamist in them. This is blunder comparable to Stephen Schwartz's mistaken claim that the Hizbolloah and Hamas are identical to the Saudi Wahabbists.

The even more blatant gaffe of the two, concerning the Mojedin-e-Khalq, is even worse. The Mojedin are an Iranian resistance faction, not a Pakistani group. The reason this gaffe is even worse is because they are famously responsible for storming the American Mission to Shah Pahvali's Iran and initiating the hostage crisis that humiliated President Carter (even though the hostages were rapidly turned over by the group to the the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini who was responsible for eventually freeing them). Any American would know that! The group's other main claim to fame is that they are the only Iranian resistance group advocating the destruction and overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran through violent means (who's agenda does that sound like?). For exactly these reasons they have been funneled support by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Republic of France, and indirectly, the United States, despite the fact the State Department still considers them a terror organization. Terrorist or not, they are not Pakistani.

There are several other such gaffes in the book, but I have neither need nor inclination to list them all. That all said, even though I merit it only three stars, it is still a must-read, until somebody does a similar job, only better.

In case your wondering where I sit on the ideological spectrum, I am a subscriber of the National Review.

It is rare that a book these days is able to cover a political subject with absolute fairness to both sides of the political aisle, but Richard Miniter has managed to do just that in his book, Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror. Miniter attacks both liberal and conservative myths with equal research, exhaustive footnotes and fervor. The overall focus here being exposing and dispelling myths of all types regarding the War on Terror.

The book covers six main topics, all with a similar theme; myths pertaining to bin Laden, September 11, Iraq, and terrorism, as well as myths perpetrated by both liberals and conservatives. Most impressive in Miniter's work is his inclusion of enormous amounts of footnotes to qualify his conclusions.

Miniter has done the world a great service with this book. Everywhere we turn, be it network news, newspapers, magazines, radio or the internet, we are bombarded with so-called "experts" giving their version of the facts which rarely contain facts at all. Regardless of your personal political persuasion, you will be shocked by what you will learn from some of Miniter's findings, and I promise you, you will learn a lot!

Some will not be able to contain their own political agendas and will find fault with much of what is presented here, but those people are blinded by their own ignorance and nothing will ever change that. If you want an idea of whether or not what the media is telling, and what the propaganda promoting politicians from both sides are spinning is the truth, then this book is an outstanding place to start your search.

Certainly, Miniter, with this work, has squarely placed himself in the crosshairs of both political sides. For that alone, he is to be commended. This is a very informative work that reads quite well and the documentation is superb.

Monty Rainey

www.juntosociety.com

Reading the reviews of this book, you could get pretty confused. The writer is accused, serially, of being a Bush supporter and a Bush basher. Well, he's neither. He's done research and published facts. These facts poke holes in cherished arguments from both sides of the political spectrum and rather than deal with the facts that may cause people, left and right, to reevaluate their positions, they lash out at the messenger. That's a shame because this is a well written book from an obviously well-informed source who thinks through facts, not emotions.

I think it's clear that the author does "support" the war on terror (define that how you will), but it doesn't influence his reasoning abilities as he pokes holes in arguments that are frequently used, incorrectly, to justify the war.

Assuming you're interested in facts and not another wild-eyed rant from Michael Moore or Ann Coulter based on nothing but hatred, then you'll enjoy this book.