What do you think?
Rate this book
Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook, and the MAGA Media Are Destroying America
“BATTLING THE BIG LIE is an important read for anyone who’s wondering how the far right traffics in lies and what we can all do to fight back.” ―PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMATHE INSTANT #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER OF YES WE (STILL) CAN! AND CO-HOST OF POD SAVE AMERICA. BATTLING THE BIG LIE explains how to combat political disinformation and dangerous lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. In BATTLING THE BIG LIE, bestselling author Dan Pfeiffer dissects how the right-wing built a massive, billionaire-funded disinformation machine powerful enough to bend reality and nearly steal the 2020 election. From the perspective of someone who has spent decades on the front lines of politics and media, Pfeiffer lays out how the right-wing media apparatus works, where it came from, and what progressives can do to fight back against disinformation. Over a period of decades, the right-wing has built a massive media apparatus that is weaponizing misinformation and spreading conspiracy theories for political purposes. This “MAGA Megaphone” that is personified by Fox News and fueled by Facebook is waging war on the very idea of objective truth—and they are winning. This disinformation campaign is how Donald Trump won in 2016, almost won in 2020, and why the United States is incapable of addressing problems from COVID-19 to climate change. Pfeiffer explains how and why the Republicans have come to depend on culture war grievances, crackpot conspiracies, and truly sinister propaganda as their primary political strategies, Republican efforts from Roger Ailes to Steve Bannon and Donald Trump to sow distrust while exploiting the media’s biases and the Democratic Party’s blind spots. The optimization of Facebook as the ultimate carrier of Trumpist messaging. Educating the Left to stop clutching pearls and start “fighting fire with fire.” How to fight back against the trolls spreading disinformation and hate on the Internet. A functioning democracy depends on a shared understanding of reality. America is teetering on the edge because one of the two parties in our two-party system views truth, facts, and science as their opponent. BATTLING THE BIG LIE is a call to arms for anyone and everyone who cares about truth and democracy. There are no easy answers or quick fixes, but something must be done.
337 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 7, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
June 12, 2022
One of the most intellectually lazy comments or observations you could possibly make is the following: “The Republican Party is biased, but so is the Democratic Party. They both occupy their own independent realities.” Let’s call this the neutrality bias, which is one of the most annoying forms of relativism you can find.
Not everything is by default equivalent; sometimes, one group is more biased or manipulative or delusional than another. But since we love to over-correct problems, we’ve replaced extreme ideological bias with a pathological need to appear objective even when doing so sacrifices accuracy and honesty.
Obviously, there is plenty of bias with the Democrats (and plenty to complain about regarding their overall strategy). But only one party is the party of disinformation, conspiracy theories, religious fundamentalism, anti-science, and voter suppression. Only one party uses disinformation as a clear political strategy, and has admitted as much to those paying any attention.
And it’s clear why. Here’s everything you need to know about the Republican Party in one paragraph. As Pfeiffer wrote:
“One of the primary purposes of this disinformation strategy is to paper over a potentially fatal contradiction. The Republicans depend on a populist working-class base, but their policy agenda asks those very same working-class voters to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. This tension is simply irreconcilable. If elections were centered on the contrasting economic positions of the party, the Republicans would get clobbered. So, they obfuscate and distract. They move the conversation to the cultural issues that unite their base and divide ours.”
Pfeiffer continues:
“If there is a fair hearing on the issues, Republicans will lose. They must defame Democrats, hide their own positions, and keep their shrinking white base fired up with a steady dose of racist agitprop.”
We need to remember that objectivity and civility only apply to interlocutors of good faith. If someone honestly and genuinely disagrees with you, they deserve to be heard. Conservative media plays off this good faith from reasonable people.
But bad faith actors, who are intentionally lying or manipulating the truth for their own benefit, do not deserve such niceties. And we don’t need to bend over backwards to create the impression that we’re covering “all sides of an issue” when one side is not intellectually respectable. It would be like a history professor devoting equal time to holocaust denial or a biology professor spending half the semester on creationism in her evolutionary biology course.
I sincerely hope that this book shakes people out of their need to prioritize appearing objective when doing so forces them to spend equal time considering bullshit ideas. The left has allowed the right to dictate the conversation for too long, playing nothing but defense as conservative media has, in Steve Bannon’s own words, “flooded the zone with shit.” This book is a critical wake-up call to what the right is actually doing, how we’ve let it happen, and what we can do about it moving forward.
Not everything is by default equivalent; sometimes, one group is more biased or manipulative or delusional than another. But since we love to over-correct problems, we’ve replaced extreme ideological bias with a pathological need to appear objective even when doing so sacrifices accuracy and honesty.
Obviously, there is plenty of bias with the Democrats (and plenty to complain about regarding their overall strategy). But only one party is the party of disinformation, conspiracy theories, religious fundamentalism, anti-science, and voter suppression. Only one party uses disinformation as a clear political strategy, and has admitted as much to those paying any attention.
And it’s clear why. Here’s everything you need to know about the Republican Party in one paragraph. As Pfeiffer wrote:
“One of the primary purposes of this disinformation strategy is to paper over a potentially fatal contradiction. The Republicans depend on a populist working-class base, but their policy agenda asks those very same working-class voters to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. This tension is simply irreconcilable. If elections were centered on the contrasting economic positions of the party, the Republicans would get clobbered. So, they obfuscate and distract. They move the conversation to the cultural issues that unite their base and divide ours.”
Pfeiffer continues:
“If there is a fair hearing on the issues, Republicans will lose. They must defame Democrats, hide their own positions, and keep their shrinking white base fired up with a steady dose of racist agitprop.”
We need to remember that objectivity and civility only apply to interlocutors of good faith. If someone honestly and genuinely disagrees with you, they deserve to be heard. Conservative media plays off this good faith from reasonable people.
But bad faith actors, who are intentionally lying or manipulating the truth for their own benefit, do not deserve such niceties. And we don’t need to bend over backwards to create the impression that we’re covering “all sides of an issue” when one side is not intellectually respectable. It would be like a history professor devoting equal time to holocaust denial or a biology professor spending half the semester on creationism in her evolutionary biology course.
I sincerely hope that this book shakes people out of their need to prioritize appearing objective when doing so forces them to spend equal time considering bullshit ideas. The left has allowed the right to dictate the conversation for too long, playing nothing but defense as conservative media has, in Steve Bannon’s own words, “flooded the zone with shit.” This book is a critical wake-up call to what the right is actually doing, how we’ve let it happen, and what we can do about it moving forward.
March 30, 2023
For more than 20 years of working in national politics in high level positions, Dan Pfeiffer has watched as political campaigns changed from reliance on pagers to I-phones and from steering candidates to interviews with local media to social media influencers. In this time a sizable portion of the electorate left traditional news sources in favor of new media sources, which, unbeknownst to them are heavily biased and designed to keep them engaged. He shows how this results in a large section of the electorate really believing that Trump won the election.... and may never have heard the term: "The Big Lie".
Pfeiffer begins with a scenario of what can happen on election night of 2024 if the means for delivering big lies remains unchallenged. Then he shows this scenario is a result of the right wing's investment in its own news sources (Brietbart, the Daily Caller, OAN and others) which has created an echo chamber for those who believe they are getting real news from Fox or Facebook.
Pfeiffer has many concrete examples showing how the news media favors the right wing.
While developing its own new media, the right has been “working the refs” (bullying reporters & editors) of the old media. In response, the press goes out of its way to prove it doesn’t have a liberal bias.
if you hate government (as right wingers do) you can delight when the press does its job in ferreting out public corruption and mismanagement. These stories drown out the good that government does.
Fox and other right wing media do not take time to check the accuracy of what their spin is based on. The digital media (which checks neither accuracy, spelling or grammar) can rapid fire anything. Every day a new issue can "flood the zone with sh.." (Steve Bannon's words).
- When a right leaning viewer clicks on Facebook/Meta, his/her profile will activate algorithms that deliver inflammatory content. Data shows anger results in heavy engagement as the user keeps clicking more and more targeted content. It is in Facebook's/Meta's interest to promote the content that drives usage data to attract advertisers.
The system evolves so that these media consumers will never see facts or other points of view, so stoking racism and anger at the “elites”, Hollywood, media competitors and general grievance issues is unchallenged.
The result is a large portion of the population living in an world designed to make them angry at and resentful towards liberals and Democrats based on false information. Pfeiffer notes that "polarization" is not an accurate description. The situation is a world where a significant percentage of the population lives in an angry fake world, while the rest of the population lives in reality.
While most people reading this review will know all of this, Pfeiffer's examples are very good, and many were new to me. His experience of the hypocrisy of today’s Republican Party shows it to be worse than I had thought.
There are some comments about how traditional media assisted its own demise by providing free online content and not responding to the extreme rhetoric discrediting it.
Pfeiffer's recommendations on fighting this are basically about
- building a media voice similar to that of the right wing and being careful of billionaire (donor) control.
- Those who care about these issues should avoid adding to deceitful posts by a direct response since their comments add to the algorithm and the fake news post will be even more widely spread. Responses should be through new posts with screen shots of the original disinformational post. This way the truthful post will be counted.
-- In the past Pfeiffer had been against having volunteers post, but now feels it would be desirable.
Pfeiffer has no structural recommendations. I have long thought the FCC needs to step in. These are my ideas, not his.
- The FCC should define what a news organization is. Credentials for government press functions should only go to legitimate news print media, channels, websites, aggregators, etc.
- Those outlets and reporters/commentators that support candidates should be subject to campaign finance considerations. For instance if a talk show host introduces a candidate at a rally, that host’s show should be considered a campaign commercial and paid for and labeled accordingly.
-Those channels, websites, aggregators, etc., that are not news organizations should disclose their goals, content selection policies and funding to maintain their licenses.
I am sure there are people who study this who can craft policies such that those services regulated by the FCC meet standards for truth and preserve First Amendment guarantees.
The sections describing the problem are very good. This material is worthy of inclusion in university seminars in journalism and/or politics. For this content I’m giving this book 5 stars.
Pfeiffer begins with a scenario of what can happen on election night of 2024 if the means for delivering big lies remains unchallenged. Then he shows this scenario is a result of the right wing's investment in its own news sources (Brietbart, the Daily Caller, OAN and others) which has created an echo chamber for those who believe they are getting real news from Fox or Facebook.
Pfeiffer has many concrete examples showing how the news media favors the right wing.
While developing its own new media, the right has been “working the refs” (bullying reporters & editors) of the old media. In response, the press goes out of its way to prove it doesn’t have a liberal bias.
if you hate government (as right wingers do) you can delight when the press does its job in ferreting out public corruption and mismanagement. These stories drown out the good that government does.
Fox and other right wing media do not take time to check the accuracy of what their spin is based on. The digital media (which checks neither accuracy, spelling or grammar) can rapid fire anything. Every day a new issue can "flood the zone with sh.." (Steve Bannon's words).
- When a right leaning viewer clicks on Facebook/Meta, his/her profile will activate algorithms that deliver inflammatory content. Data shows anger results in heavy engagement as the user keeps clicking more and more targeted content. It is in Facebook's/Meta's interest to promote the content that drives usage data to attract advertisers.
The system evolves so that these media consumers will never see facts or other points of view, so stoking racism and anger at the “elites”, Hollywood, media competitors and general grievance issues is unchallenged.
The result is a large portion of the population living in an world designed to make them angry at and resentful towards liberals and Democrats based on false information. Pfeiffer notes that "polarization" is not an accurate description. The situation is a world where a significant percentage of the population lives in an angry fake world, while the rest of the population lives in reality.
While most people reading this review will know all of this, Pfeiffer's examples are very good, and many were new to me. His experience of the hypocrisy of today’s Republican Party shows it to be worse than I had thought.
There are some comments about how traditional media assisted its own demise by providing free online content and not responding to the extreme rhetoric discrediting it.
Pfeiffer's recommendations on fighting this are basically about
- building a media voice similar to that of the right wing and being careful of billionaire (donor) control.
- Those who care about these issues should avoid adding to deceitful posts by a direct response since their comments add to the algorithm and the fake news post will be even more widely spread. Responses should be through new posts with screen shots of the original disinformational post. This way the truthful post will be counted.
-- In the past Pfeiffer had been against having volunteers post, but now feels it would be desirable.
Pfeiffer has no structural recommendations. I have long thought the FCC needs to step in. These are my ideas, not his.
- The FCC should define what a news organization is. Credentials for government press functions should only go to legitimate news print media, channels, websites, aggregators, etc.
- Those outlets and reporters/commentators that support candidates should be subject to campaign finance considerations. For instance if a talk show host introduces a candidate at a rally, that host’s show should be considered a campaign commercial and paid for and labeled accordingly.
-Those channels, websites, aggregators, etc., that are not news organizations should disclose their goals, content selection policies and funding to maintain their licenses.
I am sure there are people who study this who can craft policies such that those services regulated by the FCC meet standards for truth and preserve First Amendment guarantees.
The sections describing the problem are very good. This material is worthy of inclusion in university seminars in journalism and/or politics. For this content I’m giving this book 5 stars.
June 5, 2022
**Thanks to NetGalley and Twelve Books for an advance copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.**
This was a 3.5-star read for me. I've read and enjoyed both of Dan Pfeiffer's other books, so I was excited to get my hands on this one. Obviously, the subject matter of this book is different and more depressing than his other books. I liked the organization of the book and the fact that he provides practical strategies for both individuals and for the Democratic party as a whole. And of course, the famous footnotes are back!
However, I felt like this book was missing personal anecdotes and stories, which is what made his other two books so enjoyable for me. I loved his previous use of providing a story (he has so much political experience!) and then pivoting to the ultimate lesson/takeaway. Unfortunately, there was not a ton of that in this book, so the book came off as a little lecture-y sometimes. That being said, I realize that his job in politics has changed a lot, so it's possible that there just aren't as many stories that are applicable to these new topics.
Overall, I still enjoyed this book, and I think anyone interested in making sure our democracy doesn't crumble in the next ten years will enjoy it as well.
This was a 3.5-star read for me. I've read and enjoyed both of Dan Pfeiffer's other books, so I was excited to get my hands on this one. Obviously, the subject matter of this book is different and more depressing than his other books. I liked the organization of the book and the fact that he provides practical strategies for both individuals and for the Democratic party as a whole. And of course, the famous footnotes are back!
However, I felt like this book was missing personal anecdotes and stories, which is what made his other two books so enjoyable for me. I loved his previous use of providing a story (he has so much political experience!) and then pivoting to the ultimate lesson/takeaway. Unfortunately, there was not a ton of that in this book, so the book came off as a little lecture-y sometimes. That being said, I realize that his job in politics has changed a lot, so it's possible that there just aren't as many stories that are applicable to these new topics.
Overall, I still enjoyed this book, and I think anyone interested in making sure our democracy doesn't crumble in the next ten years will enjoy it as well.
June 21, 2022
Thankfully, this book wasn’t just another Trump fear/hate fest. I also appreciated that the author didn’t spend time bashing run of the mill Trump voters. We have plenty of these tales. I think it the height of absurdity to constantly call a block of voters morons and then try to get their vote. The author instead spent his valuable pages describing the slow decline of classic media and the rise of paid propaganda masquerading as news. Fox News is just the gateway drug.
July 11, 2022
Although I agreed with everything the Dan Pfeiffer said, he presents his thoughts in a way that was repelling. It was like he thought he was inventing clever ways to insult certain prominent republicans, it was just as off-putting as when Trump does it. He reminds me of Eddie Haskell from, “Leave it to Beaver.”
A few times I almost gave up on it. I’m glad I didn’t, though. At the end of the book, Pfeiffer offers some solid advice about how Democrats can improve how we use social media tools.
One important idea considers the algorithms that determine how many people see a post. When someone like Ted Cruz tweets something outrageous, we shouldn’t respond to his feed with a comment or a quoted tweet. When we respond, it may be emotionally satisfying, but it amplifies how many people see it. Instead, we should only use screenshots of offensive posts so we aren’t feeding the monsters.
He said responding to the republican creators of outrageous ideas is just like giving them a campaign contribution. Unless you would donate to promote an outrageous post, don’t respond.
A few times I almost gave up on it. I’m glad I didn’t, though. At the end of the book, Pfeiffer offers some solid advice about how Democrats can improve how we use social media tools.
One important idea considers the algorithms that determine how many people see a post. When someone like Ted Cruz tweets something outrageous, we shouldn’t respond to his feed with a comment or a quoted tweet. When we respond, it may be emotionally satisfying, but it amplifies how many people see it. Instead, we should only use screenshots of offensive posts so we aren’t feeding the monsters.
He said responding to the republican creators of outrageous ideas is just like giving them a campaign contribution. Unless you would donate to promote an outrageous post, don’t respond.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 22, 2022
I read the audiobook and loved that Dan reads it himself! Felt like one big podcast, with no ads.
November 15, 2022
3.5 but I’m being generous. Obviously I’m into this book and I liked a lot of the solutions offered, there was interesting political history but there was a lot of Pfeifer being himself that an editor could’ve clearly cut LOL also in light of the midterms turning out better than expected makes this already feel a bit dated but I appreciate the way he’s thinking long term
June 19, 2022
I really went back and forth between three and four stars for many reasons, so I’ll list them.
Positives:
- The humor makes the depression bearable (amazing footnotes)
- The author is willing to tell it to you straight
- There is a serious threat to American democracy, and while I think it could be too late to save it, the author demands that we at least try
- Dan does something not many current affairs writers do, he presents you first the context, then the facts, then the needs, then the HOW
- Sadly relatable
- Insightful and provides evidence in the writing to support claims or examples from recent history
- Does find moments of encouragement and pathways to potential change not only for the individual, but for communities and maybe the Democratic Party
Negatives:
- I’m not actually sure that Dan’s proposed plans are possible, let alone would they be successful. Then again I might just be more pessimistic, but like Dan says, we have to try, American democracy is at stake
- Quite a few spelling errors, which might just be the fault of the digital copy (as well as inaccessible graphs)
- While I can “fact-check” the various instances Dan references, there isn’t actually a reference list. The footnotes are (hilarious but not necessarily useful) additional commentary
Put simply, this is an incredibly painful yet urgent topic that I believe Dan handles rather well. While it hurts to relive some moments, and to think about what one can do to battle misinformation and disinformation, the content and steps are laid out in an understandable and encouraging manner. And while if you gifted this to your MAGA uncle, Dan is right, it would never change a conservatives mind. More than anything, those committed to progress and addressing a world where media and corruption are benefiting an antidemocratic GOP, this book is a must read.
Positives:
- The humor makes the depression bearable (amazing footnotes)
- The author is willing to tell it to you straight
- There is a serious threat to American democracy, and while I think it could be too late to save it, the author demands that we at least try
- Dan does something not many current affairs writers do, he presents you first the context, then the facts, then the needs, then the HOW
- Sadly relatable
- Insightful and provides evidence in the writing to support claims or examples from recent history
- Does find moments of encouragement and pathways to potential change not only for the individual, but for communities and maybe the Democratic Party
Negatives:
- I’m not actually sure that Dan’s proposed plans are possible, let alone would they be successful. Then again I might just be more pessimistic, but like Dan says, we have to try, American democracy is at stake
- Quite a few spelling errors, which might just be the fault of the digital copy (as well as inaccessible graphs)
- While I can “fact-check” the various instances Dan references, there isn’t actually a reference list. The footnotes are (hilarious but not necessarily useful) additional commentary
Put simply, this is an incredibly painful yet urgent topic that I believe Dan handles rather well. While it hurts to relive some moments, and to think about what one can do to battle misinformation and disinformation, the content and steps are laid out in an understandable and encouraging manner. And while if you gifted this to your MAGA uncle, Dan is right, it would never change a conservatives mind. More than anything, those committed to progress and addressing a world where media and corruption are benefiting an antidemocratic GOP, this book is a must read.
September 15, 2022
I actually finished this book a while back but reserved writing my review cause a small part of me was hoping the realization I came to was just in my head but alas it isn't.
Fact is Americans for the most part are just a bunch of gullible people who will believe anything so long as it agrees with their distorted agenda. I for one have listened to both sides and just shake my head because the world we are living in today is one where politicians have their own agenda and could care less what we the public want but alas, here we are.
I appreciated the humor in the book and the straightforwardness the author brought to the book. I also like that the book really showcased the slow decline of classic media and the rise of paid propaganda masquerading as news with Fox News leading the way. And the unfortunate role that Facebook plays in all of this. So for me, I will be slowly transitioning away from FB and finding other social platforms that focus more on allowing me to be social with my friends and not have all of this political crap thrown in there. But I guess many will disagree with me cause I'd be stepping on their right to free speech.
Jumping off the soap box and just saying this book was depressing yet eye opening cause of the reality of it.
Fact is Americans for the most part are just a bunch of gullible people who will believe anything so long as it agrees with their distorted agenda. I for one have listened to both sides and just shake my head because the world we are living in today is one where politicians have their own agenda and could care less what we the public want but alas, here we are.
I appreciated the humor in the book and the straightforwardness the author brought to the book. I also like that the book really showcased the slow decline of classic media and the rise of paid propaganda masquerading as news with Fox News leading the way. And the unfortunate role that Facebook plays in all of this. So for me, I will be slowly transitioning away from FB and finding other social platforms that focus more on allowing me to be social with my friends and not have all of this political crap thrown in there. But I guess many will disagree with me cause I'd be stepping on their right to free speech.
Jumping off the soap box and just saying this book was depressing yet eye opening cause of the reality of it.
June 22, 2022
Finally, someone gets to the heart of the problem: Fox News. And FB and all its social media carbuncles and malignant growths. This is a well-written book from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Now let's get a class action lawsuit going so we can sue Fox for ruining our parents' lives.
Now let's get a class action lawsuit going so we can sue Fox for ruining our parents' lives.
June 7, 2022
Entertaining and packed with facts. Read this book and we very afraid and prepare to work hard to let the truth be heard. Not a dry diatribe, but a book that will make you laugh at same time that it makes you worry about the state of our nation and the future of our political system.
January 14, 2024
I sometimes say that my internal monologue includes footnotes, so I felt right at home in Dan Pfeiffer's Battling the Big Lie. This book contains TONS of footnotes, and they're pretty hilarious. They made for fun side quests while reading about an otherwise heady topic (the potential fall of democracy) and it was fun to see what the author was thinking about as he wrote. And Dan Pfeiffer's thoughts are well worth reading! After a noteworthy career in electoral politics (most notably serving as the White House Communications Director under President Obama), he has carved out a niche commentating on campaign messaging on TV and podcasts. He knows what he's talking about, and it comes across well through his words.
This book presents itself like a history of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, with a particular focus on the ways right wing disinformation may have shaped the outcome of both races. It also offers strategies for combatting this disinformation in the years ahead, hopefully with the goal of building a more savvy voting public. I'm horrible at rating books, but I'll give it a 4.0. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in American politics or even just if you're wondering why your grandma is suddenly very into Fox News.
(Thanks to the author, Twelve, and Hachette Book Group for providing me with a free copy in exchange for my honest review!)
This book presents itself like a history of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, with a particular focus on the ways right wing disinformation may have shaped the outcome of both races. It also offers strategies for combatting this disinformation in the years ahead, hopefully with the goal of building a more savvy voting public. I'm horrible at rating books, but I'll give it a 4.0. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in American politics or even just if you're wondering why your grandma is suddenly very into Fox News.
(Thanks to the author, Twelve, and Hachette Book Group for providing me with a free copy in exchange for my honest review!)
November 4, 2023
Great information and research. The ending has a "we haven't beat 'em so let's join 'em"message that I can appreciate but need to sit more on. I liked the discussion of social media as a tool that the left hasn't really figured out how to use. Side note: the author reads the audiobook and I could not understand a word he said. To my surprise he hosts 'Pod Save America' (where have I been? Reading smut mostly, give me a break) because for me I can't make out a word he says half of the time.
August 2, 2023
Will I ever stop trying to understand 80% of my family and friends who daily fall for the right wing disinformation machine? Probably not.
**BLINK TWICE IF YOU WANT ME TO SAVE YOU FROM FOX NEWS**
**BLINK TWICE IF YOU WANT ME TO SAVE YOU FROM FOX NEWS**
June 25, 2023
It isn't that the rules have changed - it's the entire game. If you have an interest in politics and the media (and you should), then read this book.
June 11, 2022
While I didn't love this one as much as I've loved Dan Pfeiffer's other two books, I do think this has a lot of good information, as well as practical ways people can get involved. The writing style is similar to his other books, with a conversational style full of wit and sharp observation, but I was missing the more personal anecdotes of his previous works. It's still a good book and worth picking up, but it's a little less memoir-ish, so just be aware of that if you've read his others.
June 12, 2022
Very informative. A must read to understand the current political landscape.
August 3, 2022
In the introduction, Pfeiffer writes "when I was writing my first book, I used footnotes to entertain myself with the jokes and asides I thought the publisher would never let me use. I forgot to delete them before submitting the first draft, and they all ended up in the final bound book. Readers seemed not to hate them, so here we go again".
I hated them. The "jokes" disrupt the flow of the text and for a book that talks about disinformation so much, I would have much preferred footnotes that cited the studies, articles, podcasts, videos, etc., that he mentions.
The author also spends a lot of time engaging in the kind of insults and disparagements that characterize so much of the content put out by the folks about whom he is writing, all while saying a different approach is needed.
Lastly, the author mentions in the acknowledgments that he has a tendency to omit words when writing on deadlines. I am typically a fan of Twelve Books but they missed a lot of words he omitted.
There is important material here. The presentation of it is lacking.
I hated them. The "jokes" disrupt the flow of the text and for a book that talks about disinformation so much, I would have much preferred footnotes that cited the studies, articles, podcasts, videos, etc., that he mentions.
The author also spends a lot of time engaging in the kind of insults and disparagements that characterize so much of the content put out by the folks about whom he is writing, all while saying a different approach is needed.
Lastly, the author mentions in the acknowledgments that he has a tendency to omit words when writing on deadlines. I am typically a fan of Twelve Books but they missed a lot of words he omitted.
There is important material here. The presentation of it is lacking.
July 16, 2022
Parts of this book were interesting, especially the end about what needs to change, but not much was new to me.
This book seems to be aimed at people who have not been paying attention to politics for the last 10 years and are wondering what happened. I have been paying attention, which is why much of this was not news to me.
This book seems to be aimed at people who have not been paying attention to politics for the last 10 years and are wondering what happened. I have been paying attention, which is why much of this was not news to me.
June 29, 2022
While I most certainly pay close attention to politics and the news, I don't read a ton of political books — particularly ones with such dramatic titles, holy wow — but I listen to Dan Pfeiffer every week on Pod Save America so of course I picked this one up. I like Dan, I trust him, and the book's timing could not be more impeccable with the January 6th hearings airing all this month.
Despite its title, Battling the Big Lie is about so. much. more. than what happened on January 6th. I learned a ton about the media that I never really knew — how it functions, how it's deteriorated over the years, and how the Republicans have harnessed it to work for their (racist/misogynistic/fascist, pick your adjective) agenda. Combine the knowledge learned from this book and what we've been learning at the hearings all month, and our current reality is stunningly terrifying.
I spent the entirety of last Friday watching MSNBC cover the news of Roe falling. After spending the bulk of the morning in tears, an afternoon anchor decided to interview an anti-abortion activist. I pulled myself out of my pain to realize what was happening: On one of the worst days of my adult life, MSNBC was giving air time to a proponent that actively worked to take away my constitutional right to choose. Immediately, I felt white hot anger — at that moment, there was no way in hell that Fox News was interviewing pro-choice activists about their views. No goddamn way. So why in the good fuck was MSNBC giving air time to a self righteous anti-abortion Republican?
Almost serendipitously, I read this passage in Battling the Big Lie the next day: By favoring balance over accuracy to avoid any perception of [liberal] bias, the media is inadvertently minimizing deeply dangerous behavior. It is normalizing something very abnormal. By giving that woman air time — a minority opinion when it comes to America's views on abortion rights — MSNBC was normalizing her voice rather than shouting from the rooftops that this was the first time in American history that a right given has now been taken away. WHAT.
If you are a progressive Democrat that pays attention to politics, one that wants to learn more about how we got to where we are in this country when it comes to the divisiveness of the media — I would definitely recommend picking this book up. While the subject matter is heavy, it is incredibly important. (And Dan's humorous footnotes do make it a bit easier to accept. Kind of.)
Despite its title, Battling the Big Lie is about so. much. more. than what happened on January 6th. I learned a ton about the media that I never really knew — how it functions, how it's deteriorated over the years, and how the Republicans have harnessed it to work for their (racist/misogynistic/fascist, pick your adjective) agenda. Combine the knowledge learned from this book and what we've been learning at the hearings all month, and our current reality is stunningly terrifying.
I spent the entirety of last Friday watching MSNBC cover the news of Roe falling. After spending the bulk of the morning in tears, an afternoon anchor decided to interview an anti-abortion activist. I pulled myself out of my pain to realize what was happening: On one of the worst days of my adult life, MSNBC was giving air time to a proponent that actively worked to take away my constitutional right to choose. Immediately, I felt white hot anger — at that moment, there was no way in hell that Fox News was interviewing pro-choice activists about their views. No goddamn way. So why in the good fuck was MSNBC giving air time to a self righteous anti-abortion Republican?
Almost serendipitously, I read this passage in Battling the Big Lie the next day: By favoring balance over accuracy to avoid any perception of [liberal] bias, the media is inadvertently minimizing deeply dangerous behavior. It is normalizing something very abnormal. By giving that woman air time — a minority opinion when it comes to America's views on abortion rights — MSNBC was normalizing her voice rather than shouting from the rooftops that this was the first time in American history that a right given has now been taken away. WHAT.
If you are a progressive Democrat that pays attention to politics, one that wants to learn more about how we got to where we are in this country when it comes to the divisiveness of the media — I would definitely recommend picking this book up. While the subject matter is heavy, it is incredibly important. (And Dan's humorous footnotes do make it a bit easier to accept. Kind of.)
January 16, 2024
There were definitely anecdotes and ideas that were compelling in this book, and it changed the way I think about how to approach several topics. An example was the chapter, “The Media’s Conservative Bias,” which raised issues I was not aware of. However, I had a few major complaints. I hate to give a book I think is important just 3 stars, but these were sticking points:
1) It drove me nuts that the author does not use citations. Instead, there are footnotes like these: “Clearly a rhetorical question” or “This is a very, very low bar” or “Raises hand.” This was a disappointing feature compared to similar books, like Brian Stelter’s Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of the Truth, which has 385 citations.
2) Many claims are broad/general interpretations that require specifics, and these specifics should be backed up by verifiable sources. Here is one take, explaining why so many Republican politicians flipped from supporting the COVID vaccines to casting doubts about them: “Trump lost reelection before the vaccines were in full circulation. Yes, the vaccines were made on Trump’s watch, but people would benefit from them under Biden. Republicans therefore had a political imperative to undermine the vaccines and prolong the pandemic in order to increase their chances of regaining Congress and the White House.” This take, among others in the book, seems plausible. It’s compelling and might be true, but the author asserts it without offering cited evidence to verify it; I was left wondering if alternative explanations for that political shift are just as likely (e.g. that politicians feared the reactions of their anti-vaccine supporters, like the crowd that boo-ed Trump when he encouraged people to get vaccinated).
The book gave me new ideas and many new examples of extremely frustrating political cases. But on many takes, I couldn’t leave with much confidence that the author is definitely right.
1) It drove me nuts that the author does not use citations. Instead, there are footnotes like these: “Clearly a rhetorical question” or “This is a very, very low bar” or “Raises hand.” This was a disappointing feature compared to similar books, like Brian Stelter’s Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of the Truth, which has 385 citations.
2) Many claims are broad/general interpretations that require specifics, and these specifics should be backed up by verifiable sources. Here is one take, explaining why so many Republican politicians flipped from supporting the COVID vaccines to casting doubts about them: “Trump lost reelection before the vaccines were in full circulation. Yes, the vaccines were made on Trump’s watch, but people would benefit from them under Biden. Republicans therefore had a political imperative to undermine the vaccines and prolong the pandemic in order to increase their chances of regaining Congress and the White House.” This take, among others in the book, seems plausible. It’s compelling and might be true, but the author asserts it without offering cited evidence to verify it; I was left wondering if alternative explanations for that political shift are just as likely (e.g. that politicians feared the reactions of their anti-vaccine supporters, like the crowd that boo-ed Trump when he encouraged people to get vaccinated).
The book gave me new ideas and many new examples of extremely frustrating political cases. But on many takes, I couldn’t leave with much confidence that the author is definitely right.
June 19, 2022
A prescription for counteracting the lies of the Right by Obama's former Director of communications. The Right has taken 2 decades to build its Right wing megaphone that spews disinformation and discredits the mainstream media. Now 40% of the electorate and 80% of Republicans won't listen to anything the mainstream media publishes that doesn't conform to their echo chamber. The left needs it's own megaphone to multiply its message. Not to distribute its own disinformation, but truth. And not to convert MAGAnites but to preach to the choir and to Independents - to publicize the true Democratic policies and proposals.
Social medias' algorithims repost the most viewed and retweeted posts, whether the posts are liked or disliked, so trying to counteract disinformation on social media is futile - it will only cause more people to view the disinformation. The Right "owns the libs" by invoking the ire of democrats with disinformation. The goal of people like Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene is not to post the truth but to provoke a reaction from liberals and gain credibility among the right.
Mainstream media is afraid of appearing biased so they treat the lies and disinformation of the right on an equal footing with the occasional misstatements and misdemeanors of the left. Hillary's use of a private server in the 2016 election became a bigger story than Trump's lies, taxes, or Russian collusion. Mainstream media thus normalizes the right's disinformation. The media is also mainly interested in making money and Trump still draws an audience - both lovers and haters. Finally, the media is not in the business of reporting the Democrats' message the way Democrats would like. They report it in the way the media thinks would sell more papers or attract more viewers.
So the left needs to build its own megaphone where supporters and independents can get the whole story.
Social medias' algorithims repost the most viewed and retweeted posts, whether the posts are liked or disliked, so trying to counteract disinformation on social media is futile - it will only cause more people to view the disinformation. The Right "owns the libs" by invoking the ire of democrats with disinformation. The goal of people like Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene is not to post the truth but to provoke a reaction from liberals and gain credibility among the right.
Mainstream media is afraid of appearing biased so they treat the lies and disinformation of the right on an equal footing with the occasional misstatements and misdemeanors of the left. Hillary's use of a private server in the 2016 election became a bigger story than Trump's lies, taxes, or Russian collusion. Mainstream media thus normalizes the right's disinformation. The media is also mainly interested in making money and Trump still draws an audience - both lovers and haters. Finally, the media is not in the business of reporting the Democrats' message the way Democrats would like. They report it in the way the media thinks would sell more papers or attract more viewers.
So the left needs to build its own megaphone where supporters and independents can get the whole story.
September 1, 2022
A very interesting look into how news/politics have changed with the advent of the internet and, especially, social media. I especially appreciated the distinction between misinformation and disinformation, and why disinformation is so destructive to the national discourse. Pfeiffer, a former Obama aide and co-host of Pod Save America, is writing to convince those on the Left, "We don't have to fight as dirty as the Right, but we must fight as hard."
Pfeiffer argues that we can't fight disinformation (and those who spread it) by using outdated ideas of media. He asserts that new organizations need to be "committed to fighting that war, not covering it." He advocates for news organizations to be clear on their values, owning up to their inherent biases, to be fair in their coverage, but to abandon the "balance" that often leads to coverage that legitimizes disinformation.
Pfeiffer really drives home the importance of a media ecosystem that prioritizes truth with this quote from President Obama, " If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what's true from what's false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn't work. And by definition our democracy doesn't work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis." Democracy is at stake, and if we want to save it, we, as a nation, need to know how to find and communicate the truth of what is happening in the world around us.
Pfeiffer argues that we can't fight disinformation (and those who spread it) by using outdated ideas of media. He asserts that new organizations need to be "committed to fighting that war, not covering it." He advocates for news organizations to be clear on their values, owning up to their inherent biases, to be fair in their coverage, but to abandon the "balance" that often leads to coverage that legitimizes disinformation.
Pfeiffer really drives home the importance of a media ecosystem that prioritizes truth with this quote from President Obama, " If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what's true from what's false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn't work. And by definition our democracy doesn't work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis." Democracy is at stake, and if we want to save it, we, as a nation, need to know how to find and communicate the truth of what is happening in the world around us.
July 6, 2022
I listen to Pod Save America regularly and I love each of the bros behind it all. There's Jon Favreau, the charismatic ringleader; Jon Lovett, the cheeky, funny gay guy (he's an actual comedian to boot and married to Ronan Farrow(!)); Tommy Vietor, the sweet, sensitive jock; and the author of this book, Dan Pfieffer, who's their resident wonk. Like any good wonky person, Pfeiffer is whip smart and like his compadres, has a great sense of humor, which he uses to fine effect in this often depressing book. Because, let's face it, basically anything having to do with current American politics is depressing as hell, since we're frankly quite possibly nearing the end of our democracy as we know it. But Pfeiffer and crew are doing what they can to stanch the bleeding, this book being just one more weapon in the arsenal. Though it reads smoothly and often enjoyably (as I said, Pfeiffer's sharp sense of humor is fully on display here), I actually don't want to read books like this right now. I really don't need the extra anxiety. But I was happy to buy it to support Pfeiffer and all he does to try to save us -- and he does offer some tangible things people can do to help fight back rightwing fascism, as well as lots of good advice throughout (one helpful hint: stop tweeting back at giant assholes like Ted Cruz--even tho it's superfun to verbally attack them--because it just strengthens their messaging through the stupid miracle of algorithims). Pfeiffer also offers the best advice of all: holding on to hope. Especially important, especially in dire times like these.
April 26, 2024
Omg this book is excellent reading/therapy going into the 2024 election goddess help us! It’s also horrifying, but at least one comes away with a solid understanding of what you’re dealing with when dealing with trump voters: they have been thoroughly brainwashed by the right wing "media" aka faux news, Breitbart, everything that falls out of the clown mouth that gets broadcast immediately to the world thanks to awful social media and the internet. The democrats are stuck in public radio aka npr the 1950s. I honestly thought everyone was just being willfully stupid and sexist and racist in 2016, which they were, but now, with Trump as the republican candidate again (eyeroll emoji), this book points out how the republicans are taking a play directly from Putin ala the 2016 disinformation campaign coming from the russians, which absolutely helped get the orange clown elected to begin with. The only thing that matters in 2024 is absolutely everyone going out to vote no matter what the obstacles. I love Dan's writing style also. Again, therapeutic... We need his truth bombs when dealing with the republican disinformation ecosystem that has infected swaths of this country.
July 5, 2022
Pfeiffer writes with passion about the disinformation epidemic in today’s “news”. He is unapologetically progressive, and chastises today’s Democrats for staying rooted in the olden days of media.
He does not argue for a Democrat version of Fox (disinformation, division, and diversion as a political strategy), calling that strategy “gross and immoral”. But he notes that Democrats—including himself—are so afraid of being called propagandists that they are unwilling to tell “our story on our terms.” To win hearts and minds, “Democrats must be willing to adopt strategies we previously avoided out of fear of being called propaganda promoters.”
He also offers that while anger and fear are the currency of right-wing media, they are not effective strategies for engaging the less-than-politically engaged. Anger and fighting are often a reason these people aren’t interested in politics. And by “these people”, Pfeiffer means a large swath of would-be voters that Democrats would hope to reach. Democrats have their messaging work cut out for them, explains Pfeiffer, because traditional media approaches don’t win hearts and minds, nor would an opposing set of disinformation, fear and loathing appeal to this less-than-engaged but yet disgusted crowd of non-Trumpsters.
I leave to readers the details of Pfeiffer’s recommendations.
Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg is the personification of evil.
He does not argue for a Democrat version of Fox (disinformation, division, and diversion as a political strategy), calling that strategy “gross and immoral”. But he notes that Democrats—including himself—are so afraid of being called propagandists that they are unwilling to tell “our story on our terms.” To win hearts and minds, “Democrats must be willing to adopt strategies we previously avoided out of fear of being called propaganda promoters.”
He also offers that while anger and fear are the currency of right-wing media, they are not effective strategies for engaging the less-than-politically engaged. Anger and fighting are often a reason these people aren’t interested in politics. And by “these people”, Pfeiffer means a large swath of would-be voters that Democrats would hope to reach. Democrats have their messaging work cut out for them, explains Pfeiffer, because traditional media approaches don’t win hearts and minds, nor would an opposing set of disinformation, fear and loathing appeal to this less-than-engaged but yet disgusted crowd of non-Trumpsters.
I leave to readers the details of Pfeiffer’s recommendations.
Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg is the personification of evil.
July 31, 2022
A bit of a slog to read, especially if your obsessively online and get reminded of the things that drive you insane. Did find it funny during the Facebook section how it was Adam mosseri who defended the companies actions considering he currently just defended instagrams policies in a similar way of you just don’t get it.
I get that this was mainly about media, but would gladly read a more in depth book on right wing funded organizations that are also influencing (basically everything Koch money touches).
I get that this was mainly about media, but would gladly read a more in depth book on right wing funded organizations that are also influencing (basically everything Koch money touches).
June 22, 2022
Having read Dan Pfeiffer's previous two books, I'm a fan of his work and agree with him for the most part in all things having to do with politics. And I enjoyed this book, too, but not as much as I thought I would. Maybe it's because he seems to be offering the same solutions or similar ones to the problems we on the Left face in the continuing era (or error) of Trumpism. Maybe his writing style is wearing out its welcome. I don't know what, but suffice it to say that this is a book with which I agreed on a lot, but didn't always enjoy. Pfeiffer tries to make his case with humor, but there are times when the jokes don't land, and when the topic hardly seems amusing. Still, I am in pretty tight agreement with him that our democracy is in danger from the Trumpers who insist on forcing their agenda on this country, and so I recommend this to anyone who shares my fear that 2020 wasn't the last we'll hear from Trump or his goons.
June 25, 2022
I’m a crooked media fan and a hardcore liberal. While Dan’s analysis towards the end offers some tangible hope, the audiobook suffers in three ways.
First, Dan’s vitriol for Trump clouds his analytical ability to offer tangible, provable solvency to the right wing machine.
Second, the analysis preferred doesn’t diagnose why Republicans are so much better at coalescing behind demagoguery than Dems are at rallying behind common sense.
Finally, the quality of the recording is underwhelming. After listen to lively Dan on a podcast for so long, I was hoping for his enthusiasm to come thru in the recording. This comes off as bland, tired, and has several spliced in rereads.
If you already follow Crooked Media, not much new is offered here.
First, Dan’s vitriol for Trump clouds his analytical ability to offer tangible, provable solvency to the right wing machine.
Second, the analysis preferred doesn’t diagnose why Republicans are so much better at coalescing behind demagoguery than Dems are at rallying behind common sense.
Finally, the quality of the recording is underwhelming. After listen to lively Dan on a podcast for so long, I was hoping for his enthusiasm to come thru in the recording. This comes off as bland, tired, and has several spliced in rereads.
If you already follow Crooked Media, not much new is offered here.
October 5, 2023
Written by Obama's former head of communications, this book delves into the successes of Republican disinformation campaigns. It was super informative, but sometimes bogged down by too many statistics.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews