Review: John Stossel, Give me a break

Provacative book makes takes a hard look at what's what

Recently finished John Stossel's Give Me A Break. John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC's 20/20. It's his segments I have traditionally enjoyed the most because he's always struck me as being fair. He goes after companies, organizations, and even the government if they fit a fairly simple criteria: Are they ripping off Americans?

Stossel has been under fire recently which is something that took him a bit by surprise. He started out as being the guy who exposed all those seedy big corporations. The polluters, the scam artists, the fat cat CEOs. And by doing so won fame and praise from his peers in the media. He's won so many Emmy awards that he needs a couple shelves to hold them all.

But then something happened. He expanded to expose the pet causes of the left as well. He pointed out fraud in Medicaid. He started pointing out the dishonesty in some left wing groups. He showed corruption in the government. And suddenly he was branded a traitor and has suffered great abuse from the very same people who were once singing his praises.

One of the big themes in his book that really got me thinking was lawyers. His book exposes how both the left and the right (but mostly the left) use the courts to bypass the will of the people. Through lawsuits small groups and wield tremendous power. While a law requires a majority of legislatures to pass, a new legal decision only requires one sympathetic judge or jury. Fail once? Try try again until you get the judge who will  give you what you want.

He also points out how these events end up harming the people they're trying to protect. Big lawsuits over iffy claims of discrimination by the disabled or minorities has led to higher unemployment rates in those groups as companies become more wary about bringing in a huge potential liability.

But for me, the real meat comes into play when he shows how the media pushes stories that have little factual basis.  Take global warming, for example. Environmentalists have cynically been pushing that we're about to destroy the world due to higher temperatures caused by CO2.  But are we? In fact for most of the past 10,000 years the earth was warmer than it is today. The world wasn't destroyed then. And if it could be 3 or 4 degrees warmer say in the year 5000bc when there was no industry, how do we know that mankind is affecting the climate?

Where Stossel really stirred things up was a program on 20/20 that essentially showed the whole "Organic food" craze as nonsense. Essentially it boils down to this -- the trace amount of pesticides on non-organic food are likely to be less harmful than the massive amounts of extra bacteria that "organic food" has. Organic food is certainly no more healthy than any other kind of food. He includes interviews with organic food advocates that demonstrate that they too know it's no more healthy. It's a scam.

Stossel's take on poverty is particularly harsh. Stossel, the journalist who has made his career sticking up for the little guy has very little nice to say about government programs that are supposed to help the poor. Rather than helping the poor, Stossel argues that government programs help perpetuate it. 

For example, in 1959 the poverty rate was 22.4%.  By 1970 it was down to 12.6% just as the "war on poverty" programs were starting up.. But at 1985, when mean Mr. Reagan finally got through some of the elimination of "programs for the poor" the poverty rate had actually increased to14%. In other words, the  "war on poverty" had managed to reverse the historical trend in the United States of decreasing poverty. Poverty remained about the same until the mid 90s when welfare reform was passed. By 2000, poverty had declined to an all time low of only 11.3%.  Imagine where we might be today if we hadn't lost a generation or two of people to welfare?

Probably the most controversial part of the book (which is saying a lot right?) is the argument over what constitutes "doing good".  Do good intentions trump good results?  He compared Mother Theresa to Michael Milken.  Mother Theresa was the model of humility and devotion to the poor.  Michael Milken, by contrast, is the poster child of greed who gave us the term "Junk bonds".  But who did more good? Milken's junk bonds were what financed the creation of CNN, MCI, and hundreds of other high profile companies who have created millions of jobs and created trillions in wealth. Without junk bonds, Mattel would be out of business along with Revlon.  We're not even talking about the millions Milken gave to charities and education grants. Mother Theresa, while noble in intentions, actually accomplished far less in terms of helping people.

Regardless of whether you're left or right, Give Me A Break is a provocative, thoughtful read. Highly recommended.

12,851 views 26 replies
Reply #1 Top
Very good review of the book. I have contended for years that the left wing activists were simply preying on the consciences of the people to support themselves, and that both sides are using the courts (more the left than right) to usurpe the role of legislature. It's about time someone with some credibility (I have none) and a wide loyal audience (again, I have none) started pointing these things out.

As for the media, is there ANYONE left in this country that actually believes what the media is churning out? They lost all credibility a long time ago in my book. A few blithering idiots perhaps.

Sadly, as long as people continue to buy into the all the political right-side left-side bull crap that they use to distract them from what is really going on in this country, it will only continue to get worse. The whole political system is designed to distract people from the truth of what's going on here. Special interest groups and criminals (is there really a difference?) are taking over this country in a very organized and insidious way.

It's a very good book and your review is excellent. Anyone who hasn't read it should make a point of doing so. Sorry if I got a bit off topic, but I felt it tied in. I have my tin foil hat firmly in place.
Reply #2 Top
But at 1985, when mean Mr. Reagan finally got through some of the elimination of "programs for the poor" the poverty rate had actually increased to14%. In other words, the "war on poverty" had managed to reverse the historical trend in the United States of decreasing poverty.


I am having a hard time with this part; it doesn't seem to make sense. To me, it seems to say "Reagan got rid of some programs for the poor and poverty increased" then you conclude that the war on poverty made poverty worse. Did you misstate something?

Milken's junk bonds were what financed the creation of CNN, MCI, and hundreds of other high profile companies who have created millions of jobs and created trillions in wealth. Without junk bonds, Mattel would be out of business along with Revlon.


I don't see any proof of "good" here. A news station and a telcom were created. So what? Any jobs they "created" would have just been "created" by some other news station and telcom. A toy company and a make-up company are still around. Again, so what? If they would have gone under then a competing company's market would have increased and then the jobs would have been provided by them instead.
Reply #3 Top
It's good to know that there are noticeable people in the media who are objective enough to notice the problems on both sides of the coins. It's a shame that people will turn on him as soon as he notices their problems.
Reply #4 Top
Where Stossel really stirred things up was a program on 20/20 that essentially showed the whole "Organic food" craze as nonsense. Essentially it boils down to this -- the trace amount of pesticides on non-organic food are likely to be less harmful than the massive amounts of extra bacteria that "organic food"

Is that the same segment (from 2000?) in which stossel's conclusions were based on tests that werent actually conducted resulting in abc having to issue a retraction, stossel being reprimanded and his producer being suspended for a month?
Reply #5 Top
This is a very good review. I always have loved Mr. Stossel. He just has a way of going about things, it seems. One thing I found interesting in his book was how he had such a hard time speaking, mostly because of his stuttering. I think it's amazing how he conquered that and is now doing what he's doing. He always inspires me and makes me feel there is a little good in the world, even if far outnumbered.

~Sarah
Reply #6 Top
I am having a hard time with this part; it doesn't seem to make sense. To me, it seems to say "Reagan got rid of some programs for the poor and poverty increased" then you conclude that the war on poverty made poverty worse. Did you misstate something?


I think the point was that between the time when the "war on poverty" was started until Reagan scaled back welfare, the poverty rate increased, which would mean that the war on poverty was failing.

Is that the same segment (from 2000?) in which stossel's conclusions were based on tests that werent actually conducted resulting in abc having to issue a retraction, stossel being reprimanded and his producer being suspended for a month?


Apparently Stossel said there were some tests performed on produce, but the tests were actually performed on poultry.

The underlying question is still valid. Experts have raised questions about whether produce fertilized with manure is healther than produce fertilized with "unnatural" chemicals.
Reply #7 Top
i thought it was about poison vs no poison but its very likely manure all the same.
Reply #8 Top
some tests performed on produce, but the tests were actually performed on poultry

it didnt immediately occur to me how little sense that seems to make. what kind of tests would you run on organically grown produce that would be applicable to poultry?
Reply #9 Top
RE: " organic food"
Theres a good study that's been going on a decade, atleast, in regards to genetically modified food.
One group eats genetically modified food as a staple in his everyday diet_
The other group refuses to let trial studies be planted let alone SOLD to the public. The GM gene is not " stable" and can not be gauranteed of long term stability.
So...The first group ( that willingly ingests GM food ) tends to be agressive, sexually frustrated, bigoted, mean, stupid_ I mean real stupid...and gullable.
You Americans have been the guinea pigs in this study it is the biggest difference I can find between Yanks and Europeans is their diet and what the Americans consume willingly and unquestionably.
It's obvious GM food makes Americans stupid, Just Look,,,
Keep telling yourself that MAN isn't harming the planet by dumping way too much co2 into our shared atmoshere. That is the biggest denial I have ever read. It is the US who is guilty of the worst amounts of harmful emissions being dumped into the sky...at our peril.

Reply #10 Top
I'm sorry but I'd rather eat a GM boosted steak in the US than an average one in the UK. Hell, you need a Michelin Star chef to make steak edible over here!

It's obvious GM food makes Americans stupid


Could you please let me know what you eat so I can avoid ingesting it!
Reply #11 Top

Abe: Just before Reagan started zapping some of the welfare programs poverty had reached a new peak.  After Reagan's cuts, poverty leveled off and then after the welfare reform began to drop precipitiously.

KingBee: His book goes into that incident heavily. There was nothing to "retract". Rather the lab screwed up on some of the results but they didn't change the underlying conclusion: Organic food is, AT BEST, no healthier than regular food.

"Joe Blows": Besides sounding like a ranting lunatic, Stossel didn't comment on GM foods. This was organic food versus food treated with pesticides. I recommend buying a new tin foil hat.

 

Reply #12 Top
I wonder if Stossel had to buy a cart just to haul those HUGE FRICKING BALLS around. Anyone who has the sack to compare Miliken and Mother Teresa gets my book buying dollar:)
Reply #13 Top
There was nothing to "retract".

there are two sides to every story. this is an excerpt from a cnn story that was published 8/10/2000.

"Stossel reported that a test conducted on produce for ABC News found that there was no pesticide residue on either conventional samples or organic ones. But ABC, after an investigation, concluded that no such test had been done.

"We've completed our review of the circumstances surrounding the error and have taken the appropriate measures," ABC News said in a statement. "No further comment will be made."

The network reprimanded Stossel and suspended his producer, David Fitzpatrick, for 30 days, according to a network source who asked not to be identified.

ABC had said earlier in the week that Stossel was relying on inaccurate information that had been provided by a staff member. Fitzpatrick apparently mistakenly believed that a test done on chicken had also been done on produce.

Stossel, who was ordered to apologize on the air for his mistake Friday, did not return a telephone message left on his answering machine Wednesday"

Reply #14 Top
Makes it sound like NO tests had been performed and the accusations completely false.. but "Apparently Stossel said there were some tests performed on produce, but the tests were actually performed on poultry." thanks to Madine that tests have been performed, just on a different food group.

It is remarkable how ONE situation has so many spins on it. Just another example of politicking in progress..even if it isn't about politics


give me a break. (after reading the comment above)

id be most interesting in knowing what type of pesticide test would be applicable to organic food and poultry since chickens arent, to the best of my knowledge, likely to be sprayed for scale insects or sap sucking hoppers.
Reply #15 Top
The underlying question is still valid. Experts have raised questions about whether produce fertilized with manure is healther than produce fertilized with "unnatural" chemicals

and the underlying question of whether poulty is fertilized with manure or chemicals?
Reply #16 Top

KingBee: Like I said, the book goes into great detail on that story. His producer had messed up.  But the lab results didn't change the final conclusion: There is nothing healthier about organic food. If you're just going to make smart ass remarks without adding to the discussion, piss off and go somewhere else.

Reply #17 Top
If you're just going to make smart ass remarks without adding to the discussion, piss off and go somewhere else.
i dont believe i did. i wasnt commenting on stossel's conclusion but the ludicrous mixing of apples and oranges that abc originally provided as an explanation as parroted by mandine and amplified by helix.
Reply #18 Top
"There is nothing healthier about organic food."

Ignoring, of course, the whole effect of chemicals on the ecosystem, on children's development (many attribute the explosion in learning disabilities to the explosion in man-made chemicals in our environment, including herbicides and pesticides).

But that's what I love about the right, God bless them, the ability to ignore extraneous details like that and focus on just one detail. It's rather beautiful and child-like.



Reply #19 Top
"But for me, the real meat comes into play when he shows how the media pushes stories that have little factual basis. Take global warming, for example. Environmentalists have cynically been pushing that we're about to destroy the world due to higher temperatures caused by CO2. But are we? In fact for most of the past 10,000 years the earth was warmer than it is today. The world wasn't destroyed then. And if it could be 3 or 4 degrees warmer say in the year 5000bc when there was no industry, how do we know that mankind is affecting the climate?\"

Where's the toggle switch that says, Insightful, Interesting, NO, NO, WAIT - DUMB AS HELL!

Here's what the UN says in their latest climate change report ...

The head of the United Nations Environment Programme, Dr Klaus Toepfer, said: "The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report [the IPCC report] about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community."

The report further notes that

"The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years."

Then we've got the 3,000 U.S. scientists who in the late 1990's released the Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, an unprecedented statement urging the United States to lead in the efforts to stop global warming.

And then there's the 1,500 scientists a couple of years after that who released the "World Scientists' Call for Action," urging government leaders to act immediately to prevent global warming. This statement included 110 Nobel laureates and 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners.

Then the 35,000 members of the American Geophysical Union release a position paper on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases asserting that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are cause for legitimate public concern.

And who is on the other side? A bunch of quacks, cranks, kooks and boys in the pocket of BIG OIL - these folks can't even get their facts straight. For most of the past 10,000 years Draginol, the earth WAS NOT warmer than it was today. Please direct me to one (1, ONE, numero uno) reputable science foundation who says so. Cause all the ones I look up say otherwise.

DING DONG is anyone home?

Reply #20 Top
And who is on the other side? A bunch of quacks, cranks, kooks and boys in the pocket of BIG OIL - these folks can't even get their facts straight.


Have you shot a messenger today?
Reply #21 Top
the whole effect of chemicals on the ecosystem, on children's development (many attribute the explosion in learning disabilities to the explosion in man-made chemicals in our environment, including herbicides and pesticides).

There are no "new" learning disabilities nor more of them than there were 20 years ago (IMO). Now there are just more people trying to "fix" things that have always existed. The problem is that every kid has to be told they are just as good at everything and just as smart as the other when this just isn't true. In the old days "slower" kids were lead to a more manual trades tract or something like that. Now, we can't dare hurt the feelings of a child by telling him the truth, "I'm sorry, but you will not be a rocket scientist." Instead we have to put them in some over priced special program or pump him full of drugs to try and make up for his own genetic misfortune.

Again, just my opinion.
Reply #22 Top
Off the subject, but I work for a public education system, and I'm fed up with it.
Reply #23 Top

Uh Jay Walker, your space ship will be arriving to pick you up shortly.

Those right wing extremists of Europe dump far more pesticides on their crops than we do in the United States. Maybe that's why they're so messed up!

Chemical fertilizers (aka NITROGEN, which makes up 75% of the air we breath) must be really dangerous. I can see why it's safer to dump feces on the ground instead. Feel free to show a single legitimate report that states that organic food is safer.

KingBee: My point was that you're trying to discredit the whole report because of a technicality. It's akin to those people who correct grammar in spelling in articles. It detracts from the main points of the argument. If you believe organic food is safer than conventionally grown food, then say it and back it up because the onus is on those who think organic food is safer since that's been their claim to fame.

People, regardless of ideology, tend to become quite viscious advocates of something if that something turns out to be a scam that they bought into.  Whether that be religious people who buy into the latest Noah's arc claim or environmental-leftwingers who buy into the claims of organic food growers. 

Organic food is such a terrific example of what is wrong with the left.  First, it takes massively more acreage to grow organic food because a lot more of it is lost to pests.  That means if there was a wholesale switch to organic food millions would starve because it's only through modern farming techniques that we can even remotely feed the world.  But hey, don't blame the leftwingers, they had good intentions, they just didn't think of the consequences.  And sure, organic food is vastly more concentrated with bacteria (since it's grown in feces) and insects (many too small to see) which makes it very likely less healthy than conventionally grown crops. But that must be good - it's natural. Salmonila is natural too. It must be good. But hey, no matter, their INTENTIONS were good. Who cares if the number of children who died of bacteria related illnesses vastly increased as a result. They were trying to save the environment from chemcial fertilizers (nitrogen, which is, btw, natural as well) and pesticides even though at such low dosages there's no evidence of any damage.

 

Reply #24 Top
Uh, Brad - I notice how you avoid commenting on my climate change comments (despite you saying that's the "real meat" - it's enough to make one a veggie).

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your position.

DING DONG
Reply #25 Top
Oh, bye the by, Brad ...

I don't think I can be classified as a "left-winger". In the last five (FIVE) federal elections, I voted for the party on the right, in the last two local elections, I split my vote on the right (latest one) and left (election before that).

I just can't stand some of the ignorant rhetoric that some on the right spew out. Kind of reminds me of the Wizard of Oz - Ignore the global warming here children, Ignore the effects of man-made pesticides children - trust the Great Man.

Of course, you can always shift the debate - change my comments relating to pesticides and herbicides to something about fertilizers. Helloooooo - did I say anything about that?

DING DONG?