Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know Is Wrong

Overview

• Singles have a better sex life than married people, right? Wrong! A University of Chicago study shows that married couples are having more sex--30% more--and better sex, than singles. But movies, TV shows, and other reporting about marriage never feature that fact.
• Do we have less free time than we used to? Countless news stories and anecdotes from friends and family make the overwhelming case that we're running ourselves ragged. But when people actually keep track of their activities in a time diary, ...
See more details below
Paperback (Reprint)
$12.91
BN.com price
(Save 13%)$14.95 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (65) from $1.99   
  • New (3) from $2.75   
  • Used (62) from $1.99   
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know Is Wrong

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$11.95
BN.com price

Overview

• Singles have a better sex life than married people, right? Wrong! A University of Chicago study shows that married couples are having more sex--30% more--and better sex, than singles. But movies, TV shows, and other reporting about marriage never feature that fact.
• Do we have less free time than we used to? Countless news stories and anecdotes from friends and family make the overwhelming case that we're running ourselves ragged. But when people actually keep track of their activities in a time diary, studies show that we have significantly more free time per day than in 1965. So why is everyone out of time?
• Surburban sprawl is ruining America. Huge subdivisions and massive highway construction is eating up our free space and affecting our quality of life. Isn't that what you always hear? So why do you never hear that 95% of America is undeveloped, or that so-called 'smart development' prices lower-income families out of property ownership?
• Also: Does shaving make your hair grow back thicker? Do girls feel more pressure to have sex than boys? Are gas prices really through the roof? Is outsourcing bad for American workers?

John Stossel takes on these and many more misconceptions, misunderstandings, and plain old stupidity in this collection that will offer much to love for old GIVE ME A BREAK fans, and show everyone why conventional wisdom--economic, political, or social--is wrong.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From Barnes & Noble
Do girls feel more pressure to have sex than boys? Is outsourcing bad for American workers? Do we have less free time than we used to? Do singles really have more fun? Consumer advocate John Stossel's "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" segment on ABC's 20/20 earns him top ratings. This book, based on that feature, continues the demythologizing work of the man the Dallas Morning News called "the most consistently thought-provoking TV reporter of time."
From the Publisher
PRAISE FOR GIVE ME A BREAK

"If John Stossel didn't exist, we would have to invent him. . . . hugely entertaining."




Miami Herald

PRAISE FOR GIVE ME A BREAK

"[GIVE ME A BREAK] will delight all believers in free minds and free markets, as Stossel gives copious instances of the harm done by excessive government regulation and politically correct censorship."—National Review

PRAISE FOR GIVE ME A BREAK

"Stossel is the master of confrontational reporting.' Give yourself a break: read and heed [this] insightful, delightful book."
New York Post

PRAISE FOR GIVE ME A BREAK

"A provocative book of commentary on business, government, politics, and the media."—Fort Worth Star-Telegram

PRAISE FOR GIVE ME A BREAK

"It would be hard for anyone willing to leave ideological blinders at the door not to learn from this entertaining read."—Rocky Mountain News

Publishers Weekly
ABC News correspondent Stossel mines his 20/20 segments for often engaging, frequently tendentious challenges to conventional wisdom, presenting a series of "myths" and then deploying an investigative journalism shovel to unearth "truth." This results in snappy debunkings of alarmism, witch-hunts, satanic ritual abuse prosecutions and marketing hokum like the irradiated-foods panic, homeopathic medicine and the notion that bottled water beats tap. Stossel's libertarian convictions make him particularly fond of expos s of government waste and regulatory fiascoes, which are usually effective but lead inexorably to blanket denunciations of "monster government" and sermons on the wisdom of the market. Sloganeering-"Myth: The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) will make America less sexist. Truth: The EEOC will torment people and enrich lawyers"-sometimes crowds out objectivity. The author's complacent glosses on overpopulation and global warming ("we can build dykes and move back from the coasts") are especially glib and one-sided. Fans of Stossel's similarly opinionated bestseller Give Me a Break will eat up this new book, but other readers may wince when the author's ideology overshadows the facts. Author tour. (May) Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.
Forbes Magazine
Most folks will learn more in this wee volume than they probably did during four years of college. Give it to your kids and grandkids. John Stossel succinctly and entertainingly deals with numerous topics for which what we think we know is indeed wrong. Not since Galileo redefined our understanding of the Earth's place in the universe has there been such a vigorous attack on what passes for conventional wisdom. (14 Aug 2006)
—Steve Forbes
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780786893935
  • Publisher: Hyperion
  • Publication date: 5/1/2007
  • Edition description: Reprint
  • Pages: 320
  • Sales rank: 668,370
  • Product dimensions: 5.70 (w) x 8.80 (h) x 0.60 (d)

Meet the Author

John Stossel
John Stossel has been reporting for 20/20 since 1981. Since then, he has received 19 Emmy awards, and been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. His popular 20/20 segment "Give Me A Break" was transformed into a series of one-hour prime time specials, and GIVE ME A BREAK was a national bestseller. He also hosts ABC's John Stossel Specials reports for ABC radio, and ABCNews.com. A graduate of Princeton University, Stossel lives in New York City with his wife and two children.
Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

MYTHS, LIES, and DOWNRIGHT STUPIDITY

Get Out the Shovel-Why Everything You Know Is Wrong
By JOHN STOSSEL

HYPERION

Copyright © 2006 JFS Productions, Inc., and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
All right reserved.

ISBN: 1-4013-0254-8


Chapter One

CLUELESS MEDIA

Thomas Jefferson said he'd rather live in a country with a free press and no government, than in one with a government but no press. "The only security of all is in a free press," he wrote. "It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

I couldn't agree more. Without media to tell us about the excesses of government, the risks of life, and the wonderful new ideas that emerge constantly from every cranny in America, our lives would be narrow, and our freedom diminished. The Fourth Estate both informs and protects us. "Where the press is free, and every man able to read," said Jefferson, "all is safe."

However, thirty-six years working in the media has left me much more skeptical of its product. Reporters are good at telling us what happened today: what buildings burned down, what army invaded, the size of the hurricane that's coming. Many reporters take astonishing risks to bring us this news. We owe them thanks.

But when it comes to science and economics, and putting life's risks in perspective, the media do a dismal job.

MYTH: The media will check it out and give you the objectivetruth. TRUTH: Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death.

We don't do it on purpose. We just want to give you facts. But the people who bring us story ideas are alarmed. Then we get alarmed, and eager to rush that news to you.

We know that the scarier and more bizarre the story, the more likely it is that our bosses will give us more air time or a front-page slot. The scary story, justified or not, will get higher ratings and sell more papers. Fear sells. That's the reason for the insiders' joke about local newscasts: "If it bleeds, it leads."

Also, raising alarms makes us feel important.

If we bothered to keep digging until we found the better scientific experts, rather than the ones who send out press releases, we'd get the real story. But reporters rarely know whom to call. And if we did, many real scientists don't want to be bothered. Why get involved in a messy debate? It might upset someone in government and threaten the scientist's grant money. "I'd rather be left alone to do my work, and not have to babysit dumb reporters," one told me.

One real scientist, Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California, Berkeley, did make the effort. He urged a skeptical reporter (me) to be more skeptical of pseudologic from pseudoscientists: "The number of storks in Europe has been going down for years, the birth rate's going down for years," Dr. Ames pointed out. "If you plot one against the other, it's a beautiful correlation. But it doesn't mean storks bring babies."

We've been swallowing the storks-bring-babies kind of logic for years. (My favorite version: I see fat people drinking diet soda; therefore diet soda must make people fat.) For instance, stories about pesticides making food carcinogenic would fill several pages of a Google search. To the scientifically illiterate, the stories are logical. After all, farmers keep using new pesticides, we consume them in the food we eat, and we keep hearing more people are getting cancer. It must be cause and effect! Get the shovel.

MYTH: Pesticide residues in food cause cancer and other diseases. TRUTH: The residues are largely harmless.

Ames laughs at the claims of chemically induced cancers, and he should know-he's the one who invented the test that first frightened people about a lot of those chemicals. It's called the Ames Test, and its first use in the 1970s raised alarms by revealing there were carcinogens in hair dye, and in the flame retardants in children's pajamas. Ames helped get the chemicals banned.

Before the Ames Test, the traditional way to test a substance was to feed big doses of it to animals and wait to see if they got cancer or had babies with birth defects. But those tests took two to three years and cost $100,000. So Dr. Ames said, "Instead of testing animals, why not test bacteria? You can study a billion of them on just one Petri dish and you don't have to wait long for the next generation. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes."

The test proved successful. It was hailed as a major scientific breakthrough, and today, the Ames Test is one of the standards used to discover if a substance is carcinogenic.

But after getting the hair dye and the flame retardants banned, Dr. Ames and other scientists continued testing chemicals. "People started using our test," he told me, "and finding mutagens everywhere-in cups of coffee, on the outside of bread, and when you fry your hamburger!"

This made him wonder if his tests were too sensitive, and led him to question the very bans he'd advocated. A few years later, when I went to a supermarket with him, he certainly didn't send out any danger signals.

DR. AMES Practically everything in the supermarket, if you really looked at it at the parts per billion level, would have carcinogens. Vegetables are good for you, yet vegetables make toxic chemicals to keep off insects, so every vegetable is 5 percent of its weight in toxic chemicals. These are Nature's pesticides. Celery, alfalfa sprouts, and mushrooms are just chock-full of carcinogens. STOSSEL Over there it says "Organic Produce." Is that better? DR. AMES No, absolutely not, because the amount of pesticide residues-man-made pesticide residues-people are eating are actually trivial and very, very tiny amounts! We get more carcinogens in a cup of coffee than we do in all the pesticide residues you eat in a day.

In a cup of coffee? To put the risks in perspective, Ames and his staff analyzed the results of every cancer test done on rats and mice. By comparing the dose that gave the rodents cancer to the typical exposure people get, they came up with a ranking of the danger. Pesticides such as DDT and EDB came out much lower than herb tea, peanut butter, alcohol, and mushrooms. We moved over to the mushrooms as the cameras continued to roll, and Dr. Ames put his mouth where his convictions were.

DR. AMES One raw mushroom gives you much more carcinogens than any polluted water you're going to drink in a day. STOSSEL So you're saying we shouldn't eat fresh produce? DR. AMES No. Fresh produce is good for you! Here, I'll eat a raw mushroom even though it's full of carcinogens.

Dr. Ames is widely respected in the scientific community, but he is not on many journalists' electronic Rolodexes. He's the real deal, and no help at all if you're looking for screaming headlines.

MYTH: Radioactivity is deadly; keep it away from food! TRUTH: Food irradiation saves lives.

A classic example of journalists falling for a stunningly stupid scientific scare-falling en masse and really hard-was the outcry over treating food with radiation.

The irradiation process would give consumers wonderful new options: strawberries that stay fresh three weeks, and chicken without the harmful levels of salmonella that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says kill six hundred Americans every year, and cause countless cases of food poisoning. (The last time you thought you had the flu, you may have really been sick from bacteria on chicken-this is no myth! Wash the counter, your hands, and everything that touches raw meat, because they are all crawling with potentially dangerous germs.)

But reporters and environmental activists don't worry much about the horrible toll from bacteria. For some reason, even when bacteria pose a far greater risk, the media obsess about chemicals and radiation. Radiation! Horrors! Three Mile Island! Jane Fonda! Nuclear bombs!

They don't worry much about bacteria because bacteria is natural. But radiation is natural too. We are exposed to natural radiation every minute of our lives: cosmic radiation from space, radiation from the ground, and radiation from radon in the air we breathe. Every year, the average U.S. citizen is exposed to natural radiation equal to about 360 dental X-rays.

The reporters and protesters probably didn't know that, but even if they did, they'd still be upset because irradiation plants propose passing radiation through food.

News stories featured Dr. Walter Burnstein, founder of a "consumer group" named Food & Water, saying, "This will be a public health disaster of the magnitude we have never seen before!" I have to admire the activists' skill in naming groups: Food & Water. What reporter could argue with a group with a name like that? They must be the good guys, right? I interviewed Dr. Burnstein and his "political organizer," Michael Colby.

MR. COLBY If you look at the existing studies on humans and animals fed irradiated food, you will find testicular tumors, chromosomal abnormalities, kidney damage, and cancer and birth defects. STOSSEL Caused because somebody ate irradiated food? MR. COLBY Absolutely. Absolutely. STOSSEL [Food & Water claimed an Indian study had said that, but we called the author and she told us she didn't conclude that at all.] We just talked to her and she says she didn't say that! She never said those kids were developing cancer. DR. BURNSTEIN These are pure scientists and she doesn't want to make that break. We are taking it the extra inch. We're saying to people, "Don't-don't be put to sleep by people who work in test tubes-don't." I don't need proof that it goes to cancer. We already know it leads to cancer.

Reporters gave Burnstein and Colby's dubious claims so much credulous press coverage that politicians in Maine quickly banned food irradiation. New York and New Jersey followed suit. That spread fear to other states. I went to Mulberry, Florida, to report on a protest against Vindicator, a plant that proposed using radiation to kill germs on strawberries. When I got there, demonstrators were marching with picket signs, chanting, "Don't nuke our food! Don't nuke our food!" Their campaign persuaded the state of Florida to put a moratorium on Vindicator's opening.

DR. BURNSTEIN Vindicator will go out of business, and not only Vindicator. That'll be the end of the entire irradiation industry ... When we go to talk to people, we don't have to break their arms to convince them not to eat irradiated food. We just say, "Irradiated food," and people go, "What? Who wants the food irradiated?"

The fact that Dr. Burnstein was not a research scientist, but rather an osteopath with a family practice in New Jersey, didn't diminish the respect he got from the media. His protests drew headlines and TV coverage. Reporters knew radiation was bad for humans, and therefore bad for food.

One woman stood outside the Vindicator plant shouting angrily, "How much pollution are we going to put into our mouths?!"

"None," is the answer. People think food irradiation makes food radioactive, but it doesn't; the radiation just kills the bacteria, and passes right out of the food. That's why the FDA and USDA approved the process a long time ago. Spices have been irradiated for more than twenty years. Irradiation is good for us. If it were more common, all of us would suffer fewer instances of food poisoning and we could have fruits and vegetables that stay fresh weeks longer. But scaremongering has kept it from catching on.

Food & Water told people that the AMA and the World Health Organization did not approve of irradiation, but that was a lie. Both organizations did approve. WHO told us irradiation is as important as pasteurization.

Pasteurization also met public skepticism when it was introduced. Louis Pasteur discovered that heating milk would kill bacteria, but critics charged that pasteurization was "meddling with nature," and that it might change the properties of the food-or contaminate it. The U.S. dairy industry actually promoted raw milk as more acceptable than pasteurized milk. Only the persistence of scientists and medical experts allowed pasteurization to become standard practice. Irradiation might save as many lives, if the scaremongers would just get out of the way.

After three years of delays, the Vindicator plant finally was allowed to open. But fear of radiation has kept this good idea from spreading across America. Only a tiny fraction of American meat is irradiated today.

If 50 percent were irradiated, the CDC says nearly a million cases of bacterial infections could be avoided and 350 lives could be saved every year. 350 lives? Why isn't the press screaming about that? Because reporters and legislators look for danger in the wrong places.

Many reporters believe the activists because "something must be causing the cancer epidemic." Mysterious and unnatural additions to our environment are an easy suspect. After all, during the past fifty years, Americans have been exposed to chemicals and forms of pollution and radiation that humans have never experienced before. "No wonder there's so much more cancer!" say reporters. Get the shovel.

MYTH: Chemical pollution is the cause of the cancer epidemic! TRUTH: There is no cancer epidemic.

You wouldn't know it from the media, but there has been no surge in cancers. The death rate due to cancer has been declining for more than ten years. You might argue that fewer die from cancer today simply because there are better treatments for the disease, but look at the cancer incidence rate.

The incidence of prostate and breast cancer is up, but that's only because there's more early detection. In the 1980s more men starting getting PSA tests, and more women had mammograms. Lung cancer increased in women because more women took up cigarettes, and skin cancer increased because of lunatic sunbathing. But overall cancer rates have not been rising, and lots of cancers, like stomach, uterine, and colorectal cancer, are on the decline.

We think there's a cancer epidemic because we hear more about cancer. Cancer is a disease of an aging population, and fortunately, more people now live long enough to get cancer. More talk about it too. Many years ago people who got cancer were secretive about it.

The other big reason we think there is an epidemic is that the media, suspicious of chemicals, hype dubious risks.

Almost every week, there is another story about a potential menace. Reporters credulously accept the activists' scare stores: While I've been a reporter, I've been asked to do alarmist reports about hair dye, dry cleaning, coffee, chewing gum, saccharin, cyclamates, NutraSweet, nitrites, Red No. 2 dye, electric blankets, video display terminals, dental fillings, cellular phones, vaccines, potato chips, farmed salmon, Teflon, antiperspirants, and even rubber duckies.

I refused to do most of those stories, and now I have to ask, if the scares were valid, where are the bodies? If one-tenth of what the reporters suggested was happening did happen, there would be mass death. The opposite is true: Despite exposure to radiation and all those nasty new chemicals, Americans today live longer than ever.

The media hysteria may be nonsense, but our fear is real-and contagious. That can be deadly.

MYTH: DDT causes all kinds of cancers, and nearly wiped out every bird in the world. TRUTH: DDT saves lives.

Malaria will kill more than one thousand children before you finish reading this book. The chemical DDT is at the core of the problem-not the use of DDT, but the failure to use it because of media hysteria. In Uganda alone, said minister of health Jim Muhwezi, "We are losing between two million and three million people a year." Think of it: Millions die because the media gets it wrong.

You are probably saying, "What is he talking about? DDT is awful!" But it isn't. DDT is capable of doing far more good than harm. You just don't know that, because some people, including reporters, are terrified of DDT.

Here's how it happened: Fifty years ago, Americans sprayed DDT everywhere. Farmers used it to repel bugs, and health officials to fight mosquitoes that carry malaria. Nobody worried much about chemicals then. It was a shock to watch the old videos my producer found: People at picnics just sat and kept eating while trucks sprayed thick white clouds of DDT on top of them. In fact, when the trucks came to spray, some people ran toward them-as if an ice cream truck had come-they were so happy to have mosquitoes repelled. Tons of DDT were sprayed on food and people.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from MYTHS, LIES, and DOWNRIGHT STUPIDITY by JOHN STOSSEL Copyright © 2006 by JFS Productions, Inc., and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 33 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 7, 2006

    All time Great

    John Stossel was at his best of writing books he's the king of old wives tales for years and years I belived quite a bit until I read his book and I tell my friends it's a great book

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 17, 2006

    Good Book

    I dont know if he is supporting his agenda, or not. I thought some of his claims were new at least to me. For example, i never thought about the government having a monopoly on education. So, for that i give it four stars.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 20, 2013

    ?

    ?

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 11, 2013

    John's best book!

    John's best book!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 31, 2013

    Best of his books. Very good!

    Best of his books. Very good!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 30, 2013

    Great book, made me look at all aspetcs of my daily life in a mo

    Great book, made me look at all aspetcs of my daily life in a more efficent manner! Awesome book.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted January 24, 2013

    I came upon this book by Stossel while looking for a book in a d

    I came upon this book by Stossel while looking for a book in a different subject area; I'm very glad I did. I can see that must of the reviews here are objective and accurate, but I don't get some of them at all (I really think the negative reviews are from people that became angry with Stossel's subjects and points made in the book). While I didn't agree with everything in this book, it was very good and I couldn't wait to pick it up and read it. In other reviews I have read of this book people say that these are Stossel's opinions; the things is in many instances in the book he gives experts and others that are well versed on the topics to make their case for what is the truth- and most of them fail miserably. And it takes a lot of guts in my opinion for Stossel to call out the media; an establishment he has built his career on, but is not afraid to expose their inaccurate and over-hyped reporting (And he even states that he was guilty of it himself and just didn't no any better). I found this book to be very objective. And time and again Stossel backs up his statements with verifiable data and evidence; kind of hard to argue or refute factual data that is available to everyone if they would take the time to search/research it like Stossel did. Some of this book will really irk you, and with some of it you will be laughing pretty hard- I did (Especially the many stories references to politicians and lawyers:).

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 30, 2007

    A reviewer

    This book made me think twice about some of the myths, lies, and stupidity that I myself used to buy into.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 22, 2007

    A reviewer

    All of which come from the libertarian views of Mr. Stossel. This book should have been called 'Stossel's Theory of Relativity.' In it he could explain how working in a sweatshop is relatively better than the alternative of being a prostitute. Or how relatively speaking, that gasoline is a bargain compared to ice cream, milk and bottled water. Amazingly biased and misinforming, a definite 'Don't Read!' I hope NO ONE buys this book because you'll just be wasting your money. Don't believe everything you read and only half of what you see.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 23, 2007

    A legend in his own mind...

    Lets see, cherry pick a bunch of no-brainers and then be completely wrong on all topics of any consequence. Shoot off his own opinion with zero hard data and then question the scientists??? What a moron! Gee, if 90+% of scientists believe that global warming is happening (after 30 years of testing and retesting data and theories), but good ole John doesn't, well I guess it ain't happenin'. This dude is so hopped up on his self and how smart he is, he doesn't realize how stupid and uninformed he truly is... another billion or so brain cells lost reading shear ignorance.

    0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 1, 2007

    Outstanding

    Once I've read this book, I was skeptical on some of his questions, so I've done my own little research and found that what he saying was all right!!! I'm glad i read this book and am deeply ashamed on the (other) journalist that don't take the initiative to tell the truth.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted September 13, 2006

    Stossel is the REAL myth make here

    Talk about having an agenda. This guy is a shameless hawker of his own newly created myth system. If you want to be entertained with another junk conspiracy book - you'll love this. If you're a critical thinker, or if you only have an IQ that is considered dull normal, then this book is not worth reading!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 5, 2006

    One of the best books for the ADD generation

    There are alot of stereo types and myths out there that most people read through. John Stossel just states the obvious. Nothing ground breaking but the way he lays it out in a simplistic and short burst format made skimming this book fun an enjoyable. You did not have to read through chapters of mush to get to the point of what he was saying. If you got bored with one subject you could move easily to the next. The Subjects were broken up with questions in a box that let you know what the next subject was going to be about. I like that format, and I like it when someone with consumer reporting experience lays out the truth on issues that are not consumer oriented. I can not say I agree with John Stossel on everything, but I can say I like what he writes about and how he writes it.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 27, 2006

    Good, helpful, and downright entertaining.

    No need for a long review here. The book is divided up into varous topics and then myths are stated followed by explanations as to why they are false. A reference list is included at the end of the book in support of it's claims. All in all, it's just a really entertaining book and even if you don't necessarily agree with it's explanations, it does give you something to think about. Topics are well chosen and will be considered important issues for many readers. Also, its not the kind of book you have to sit down and read straight through. Due to the way its set up, you can read a bit, put it down, and read more later without losing continuity.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 10, 2006

    Right or wrong, this book was worth the price.

    I often disagree with Stossel's conclusions in his stories and even some in this book, but hands down this was a very entertaining read and well worth the price.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 20, 2006

    And if you believe this...

    You'll believe the word gullible isn't in the dictionary! As usual, Stossel hand picks his information to support his predetermined claims...

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 19, 2006

    GREAT READ

    This book opened my eyes to many new and unreal myths.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 29, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 25, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 25, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 33 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)