If Goldstein elected to reissue a second edition of Killing the Messenger, he would do well to include an essay by the recently deceased Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist who proudly revived the muckraker tradition by declaring that the best journalists are willfully opinionated. By selecting Roosevelt's "The Man with the Muckrake" as part of Killing the Messenger, Goldstein presents a balanced perspective of modern journalism. He concedes to the fact that many critics of the media accuse journalists of being "muckrakers" in the Rooseveltian sense of being unnecessarily negative. The media cannot and should not fall into the role of only being a social critic, never pointing out the uplifting or positive aspects of a culture. With too much negativity in its tone, the press risks influencing the public into being cynical and hopeless. On the other hand, a press that wears rose-colored typeface risks contributing to mass delusion and brainwashing, otherwise known as media propaganda. In fact, Spiro Agnew's essay elucidates the conflict inherent in modern journalism, as he points out the "right to know belongs to the people," showing how the mass media can often be as corrupt and biased in their presentation of the facts as even politicians can be (85). Thus, through his inclusion of Roosevelt's and of Spiro Agnew's essays, Goldstein suggests that when journalists muckrake, they should do so with discernment and discrimination.

On the opposite side of the press ring from Roosevelt and Agnew was Upton Sinclair, a premier journalist and novelist who accused the press as being "a slave to capitalism," (140). Similarly, Will Irwin critiqued the press for being unduly sensationalist and "wedded to wealth," (122). Media men like Irwin and Sinclair offer a keen balance for the stances of politicians like Roosevelt and Agnew. Killing the Messenger in part illustrates the tenuous and codependent relationship between the press and politics.

Readers of Killing the Messenger will conclude that the press must at once provide a truth as objective as possible, one based on observable fact and report all sides of any given issue. However, it must do so with selectivity and judiciousness, and also with a human touch and with integrity to morality and societal values. Muckrakers, "gonzo" journalists, and bloggers play an important role as social critics; White House press conferences almost serve an opposite role.
Killing the Messenger is enlightening for any student of modern journalism as its essays chronicle a century of major political and social events in American history as portrayed through the media. Newspaper and magazine editors and television program managers are usually the ones who are entrusted with the decision to inform the public. One of the main problems with the press is the delicate balance between business, quality, and objectivity.

One of the main strengths of Killing the Messenger is Goldstein's reliance on the power of the primary sources. His section introductions and his own preface are thankfully brief: the editor allows the authors to speak for themselves and therefore allows the reader to draw personal judgments. Goldstein thereby proves himself worthy of being called a journalist, one who can present the facts at face value, and one who refrains from either muckraking or pandering to patronage.

Works Cited

Goldstein, Tom. Killing the Messenger: 100 Years of Media Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.