Adrian W. (adrianweber) reviewed The Briefing: Politics, the Press, and the President on + 11 more book reviews
It got off to a slow start but got better toward the end. Spicer comes across as credible, knowledgeable and professional--a political insider (and true conservative) who adheres to a personal code of ethics.
I found my own perspective somewhat shifted by his recollections and insights regarding the present-day relationship between the media and the administration. I'm now inclined to agree with him that too much emphasis is given to "palace intrigue," that reporters seek to become the first to break a story (or non-story), and that they do not hold themselves and each other truly accountable for errors and omissions.
As for the book itself, Spicer often employs odd sentence structure, has several glaring errors (a reference to Pres. Obama in 1999--I think he meant 2009--as well as a misspelling of Lara Trump's first name), shifts in tense, and a convoluted way of storytelling.
If you're choosing between this one and "A Higher Loyalty" by James Comey, go with the latter. It's better written, more compelling, and ultimately offers greater lasting value because of its extensive discussion of what is (and isn't) ethical leadership.
Still, I'm glad I read this one.
I found my own perspective somewhat shifted by his recollections and insights regarding the present-day relationship between the media and the administration. I'm now inclined to agree with him that too much emphasis is given to "palace intrigue," that reporters seek to become the first to break a story (or non-story), and that they do not hold themselves and each other truly accountable for errors and omissions.
As for the book itself, Spicer often employs odd sentence structure, has several glaring errors (a reference to Pres. Obama in 1999--I think he meant 2009--as well as a misspelling of Lara Trump's first name), shifts in tense, and a convoluted way of storytelling.
If you're choosing between this one and "A Higher Loyalty" by James Comey, go with the latter. It's better written, more compelling, and ultimately offers greater lasting value because of its extensive discussion of what is (and isn't) ethical leadership.
Still, I'm glad I read this one.
