And Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media

OK, maybe not, but his lookalike John Stossel is definitely keeping self-important bureaucrats and fat cats "under pressure."

Stossel cuts through the groupthink and lack of perspective that pervade the "reporting" we're subjected to from dim bulbs like Matt, Katie and Paula. His arguments for a freer society - one where risk-taking behavior is encouraged, not feared, point the way to a U.S. that stops chasing dimes with dollars, a country where it's easier to start a business or invent a product and harder to file a shakedown lawsuit. Stossel's arguments aren't theoretical - he's learned his lessons over 36 years of reporting, finding out that the regulators and crusading lawyers aren't always the white-hats.

But Stossel's not looking hard enough if he thinks most consumer scams are small and burn themselves out quickly - InfoWorld magazine's Ed Foster battles tech ripoffs and gotchas constantly. They're perpetrated by the most respected names in the business and have even started to win legal imprimatur from ever-more "pro-business" courts.

Stossel misses another story that contradicts his general theme - the trends (in the U.S., anyway) towards the white-collar sweatshop and declining inflation-adjusted entry-level wages. These trends are real and troubling, and Stossel overlooks them when making his defense of winner-take-all salaries for executives. While it's easy to say one can simply climb the ladder, the fact is that Stossel, an exceptional individual who works all day around other exceptional people, probably overestimates the amount of ambition and talent the average person innately possesses. Half of us are, by definition, average or below. No one should have to work Stossel-like hours (though he does so willingly) just to put food on the table. Which reminds me, it's time for a crazy little thing called a nap.

Imagine John Stossel's surprise when he discovered that, contrary to the opinion of most of his co-workers in the circus often referred to as the American media, the free market system works. It just doesn't work on Mondays, Tuesdays, and every other Friday. Capitalism works all the time, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And it works best, not surprisingly, when government and advocacy groups stand back and let it go. That's right--Stossel's lengthy career as an investigative journalist devoted to exposing business scams and the scamsters who run them took him down the road to puritanical libertarianism. "Give Me A Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media" is an examination of that long, hard road that few journalists in this country dare to travel. Heck, it's an examination of a long, hard road few citizens dare to travel. The idea of reducing government to a bare bones operation scares the bejeezus out of both liberals and conservatives. As I soon discovered upon reading the book, it's a path I'm not completely comfortable following to its inevitable conclusion, either.

Stossel lays the groundwork for his journey by discussing how he came to work in a newsroom. I quite enjoyed this inspiring part of the book. Although the author attended Princeton University, he readily admits his devotion to study left much to be desired. He literally fell into journalism by accident, amazingly enough, and the first years of plying this demanding trade left him with nothing but cold sweats. Why? Stossel stutters, horribly so, and actually did several stints in front of the camera before seeking treatment for his condition. He began his career in gotcha journalism at roughly the same time, and before long his career skyrocketed. Stossel became the go to guy in uncovering mail order scams and other assorted business shenanigans, sort of a baby boomer version of the venerable Mike Wallace. And as we all know by now, Stossel became very good at his job. So good, in fact, that he gained the opportunity to expand his investigations. The largest corporations cowered at the threat of a John Stossel interview. Lawsuits started pouring in, always a sign that a journalist is likely doing something right. And then our hero had an epiphany.

What if the real problem isn't big business but big government and special interest groups? After all, if all of the bureaucratic protection agencies and watchdog organizations were doing their job, why was John Stossel still uncovering scams? Because government is, at best, ineffective and at worst dangerous. "Give Me A Break" moves into high gear at this point, examining a host of government sponsored initiatives and bureaus. Stossel discovered that more government rarely solves any problem. Limits placed on the marketplace to protect people from abuses? Doesn't help. How about supporting unions and price controls? Government drives up prices and drives out competition when it does so. How about massively expensive programs to save Americans from lead poisoning, chemicals and a thousand other potentially life threatening problems? They don't work, according to Stossel, because the risk posed by any given danger is usually so blown out of proportion that the end result is greater public fear instead of solutions. Welfare rewards and encourages indolence, lawyers' lawsuits drive up costs for everyone, and policies such as the war on drugs intrude on personal freedom. Like I said, classic libertarianism. He even finds more value in Michael Milken's junk bonds than Mother Teresa's humanitarianism. Read the book to see why.

It's difficult to argue with libertarianism. Less government IS always preferable to more government. No bureaucracy IS always better than any bureaucracies. History is rife with examples of governments overburden with bureaucracy collapsing because the clutter of rules and regulations made it impossible for that society to respond adequately to impending threats. The idea of living in a free society raises the question, "How free?" Libertarianism tries to provide an answer by endorsing almost total freedom--freedom to do whatever you wish to your own body, freedom from government intrusion on civil liberties, freedom to conduct your business unfettered by rules and regulations. I like it. Most people would. But there are problems, not the least of which is the natural tendency in humans to exercise power over others. No governmental structure will ever triumph over the laws of nature--not communism, socialism, democracy, or libertarianism. Alas, Stossel never provides any explanation of how we could achieve a libertarian society. How do we function as a country of nearly 300 million people on the principles of personal responsibility and tolerance for others' decisions? Good luck!

Most of what Stossel argues, however, bears fruit and is for the most part well reasoned. Especially appealing is his writing style, a breezy, almost chatty method of communicating ideas to people that mirrors in no small way his onscreen persona. The author definitely doesn't come across as a member of the media elite, but more like your friendly next-door neighbor. Too, he possesses a wonderful sense of humor that is often self-deprecating. It's wonderfully refreshing. For example, the chapter where Stossel thanks his readers for paying for repairs on his damaged beachfront property through tax dollars is roll on the floor hilarious. So is the inclusion of several pictures. One series of shots shows Stossel taking a beating from a professional wrestler, and another shows him wondering around a toxic dumpsite in a suit and tie while government workers in protective suits work nearby. Guess those dioxins aren't as dangerous as they seem, eh? Great stuff, and so is the rest of the book. Give "Give Me A Break" a break soon.

"Give Me a Break" is an easy read, and potentially a very challenging one. Stossel compels us to think outside our boxes on a wide variety of issues. Depending on what cherished notions you hold dear, this can be very comforting or very confrontational. For instance, his investigative reporting style is very well suited to exposing consumer scams like breast enlargement through hypnosis, supposedly unique cosmetic formulas, envelope stuffing, and price-fixing on milk in New York City. Any reader can take these accounts at face value because the subjects were caught on lying tape. End of story.

I am much less comfortable with his style when it comes to scientific issues. He offers credible arguments on subjects like sodium intake, dioxin and breast implants, but not on issues like global warming, food safety, and genetically engineered organisms because he does not cite his sources, so there is no way to check his facts. Some of what he writes is not accurate according to published research, and these issues have much broader consequences that are not addressed at all. [Yes, I know organic produce is more expensive for marginally superior nutritional value. But related issues like economic devastation through crop contamination by increasingly pervasive GMOs should not be ignored.]

I applaud Stossel's effort and courage in taking on excessive regulation, ruinous legal practices and wasteful government. These sections really did more to clarify my understanding of Libertarian thought than any I'd read previously. In particular, his examples of welfare abuse by the wealthy, the tobacco settlement, and free market capitalism are a breath of fresh air.

The major disagreement I have with him is his clumsy use of the term *greed* with regard to profit, compensation and capitalism. Any business owner knows their business has to make a profit to continue to exist. No problem there. And I personally don't care how much profit Monsanto makes. The issue that many activists have with some corporations is *recklessness* -- the pursuit of profit without adequate regard for the consequences of those directly or even indirectly affected by their products or services.

I read this book to challenge my thinking and beliefs. It certainly did that. I've come away with a much stronger commitment to doing my own due diligence, and digging deeper for all the facts on matters that I care about most.

In 'Give Me A Break', John Stossel exposes numerous problems in our society and provides some solutions. This work is well researched, well documented, and full of important information.

During the course of this book, Stossel points out problems with both liberals and conservatives and will undoubtedly irritate both considerably.

He takes on four of the sacred linchpins of the left: The government, labor unions, a biased media, and trial lawyers.

He does an excellent job of showing how government regulations and consumer 'protections' have killed businesses, cost jobs, and made things less safe. Numerous examples are provided. One very good one is the way that the excessive regulation of the FDA kills people. He makes the case that 'the perfect is the enemy of the good' in showing how the regulator's goal of perfect safety costs lives of numerous people who might have been willing to risk taking a medication that they are not allowed by these 'protectors'.

One example of the harm done by unions that he discusses is how their insistence on high salaries for even the simplest jobs costs beginners who don't end up being allowed to work in that field.

The media is taken to task for such things as overemphasizing minor risks to hype stories, inadequate research, and always focusing on the negative. He documents how hysterical reporting makes fears worse and leads to other problems.

Trial lawyers are admonished for runaway lawsuits that drive up the cost of everything, cost jobs, etc.

So called conservatives aren't left blameless in this expose either. The miserable failures of the 'War on Drugs' and welfare for the rich are two of their areas of support that are dissected.

He makes the great case that the exorbitant resources used in fighting drugs leaves other more serious crimes unresolved, which makes everyone less safe. The incredible numbers of minor drug offenders targeted and incarcerated squanders resouces that could be better used dealing with rapists, murderers, burglars, and robbers.

In his section on welfare for the rich, he gives examples of many, himself included. The personal part involved federal flood insurance. He makes the case that people who insist on building houses close to the ocean, rivers, etc. that are prone to flooding should not be bailed out by all of the less wealthy among us. He mentioned how a beach house that he owned was rebuilt twice under this federal subsidy. He also took on many other types of the rich benefitting from welfare such as sports stadiums, wealthy farmers paid to not plant crops, huge corporate giants such as steel companies, Archer Daniels Midland, etc. getting preferential treatment at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Stossel also makes a strong defense of free speech, taking the PC police on campuses, and elsewhere to task.

He doesn't stop with pointing out problems. He also has some solutions that would be extremely helpful and very doable. This is an excellent book. It would certainly be educational to almost anyone who reads it.

I found this book highly informative yet also entertaining. He writes as he would be speaking directly to you. If you're bewildered with aspects of both liberals and conservatives yet don't see how "moderates" can solve our problems either, you need to read this book. If you're a liberal or a conservative, the only way this book doesn't make you think is if your mind is closed.

It's written for the wide, general audience which makes it an easy read but those like me who like alot more details and for the authors to deal with each issue thoroughly - you may be disappointed. I think this book is still good enough for 5 stars. It made me think more deeply about issues, it made me think DIFFERENTLY about issues, and it's served as a spring-board toward in-depth research on libertarian solutions. I highly reccomend this book to anyone, especially highschool and college students who need as much information as possible while forming their political ideas which will likely stay with them for life.

Stossel rise as both a consumer reporter and his attack on the sacred cows of both the left (i.e.: government) and the right (i.e.: drug war) is an interesting read, both in what he exposed and in the reactions of the people who he does expose.

The book is an easy and entertaining read to the point where I was in the Urgent Care center with a splitting headache but still unable to put it down.

It should be pointed out that his cost comparisons are without a value judgment and should be treated accordingly. He is a libertarian and a fine example of one, but his observations and conclusions are honest and refreshing and deserve consideration.

I loved this interesting book. Stossel makes some great points about our society. I think ideas in this book are important as we see the government get bigger and bigger all the time and more in control of our freedom. Democrats and Republican leaders are both guilty. Give me a break Obamanation!

If you wonder whether freedom really works, John Stossel shows why the alternatives are frightening and haven't worked anyway. "Give Me a Break" is one of the most effective -- perhaps THE most effective -- popular explications of market-based thinking and policy that I have ever read. And Stossel does it in the same homey but piercing style as his television work. In fact, much of the book is based on his ABC News specials and "20/20" segments over the years, but it is not any less interesting if you have seen them all. In fact, he goes behind many of those TV programs, telling readers even more than he could put on TV and dealing head-on with some of the TV controversies. Surprisingly, he even discusses with candor his mistakes and what he learned from them. While most of the book takes to task bureaucrats, activists, politicians, and trial lawyers, Stossel also addresses philanthropy. One delightful chapter parallels his hour-long special "Greed." In it, Stossel reports on Ted Turner and T.J. Rogers and raises the comparative advantage question (although he doesn't use that or other technical economics terms) of whether successful business people ought to stay focused on creating wealth for society (like Rogers) rather than giving it away (like Turner). If you care about America and want to know what will make it better and what won't, read "Give Me a Break" and give copies to your family, your neighbors, and your elected representatives.

I wish more people would do what John Stossel has done. I'm neither a left winger or a right winger. I'm an open minder and this book does a good job of pointing out "holes" in our current "lives".
I hope more people read this book, it encourages action and hard work as opposed to systems and government "over-regulation". If you want to make a difference is this world, educate yourselves about some of the problems in America and make a difference. However YOU can.

John Stossel is a very entertaining person to listen to. He knows how to speak to his audience very well. He will tell you that he doesn't know everything, but he helps the average american by using his resources to find out what is RIGHT. He is someone in the media that actually understands morals and what's ethically right.
I gave 5 stars for this book because I enjoyed reading about John's journey through his media career, and his discoveries along the way. Good, Quick, Entertaining, and Easy to Comprehend.

It's been interesting to watch the transition in John Stossel's politics over the years. His ideas mirror many of my own. I started out as a left liberal and have been increasingly moving towards a more "libertarian" position. I've also received a lot of flak for that, especially in the women's movement where I was active for decades.

Stossel describes the failure of a number of well-intentioned government programs in great detail and in an easy-to-read style. He shows the absurdity of bureaucracy and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to accomplish anything with governments' long list of restrictions and regulations.

Although he batters the reader with the benefits of the free-market system, it did make me pause and wonder how a bloated government was ever going to serve us.

Stossel not only displays creative thinking and critical, investigative skills but he has one hell of a lot of courage to continue to voice his opinion when others vociferously disagree. The country is so polarized right now between red states and blue states and Democrats and Republicans that many people have trouble thinking outside of the box. When they hear him, they immediately feel the need to label Stossel as a conservative yet in many ways he defies categorization.

My only complaint would be that Stossel did not expound on HOW we are to reduce the enormous government bureaucracy. How many layoffs would be involved? How many people would lose all of their financial and social stability? Where would they go? Free markets aren't known for their benevolence, despite the fact that business tycoons get big tax cuts.

Pure laissez-faire capitalism left millions of people homeless and miserable before the New Deal. Admittedly, Stossel does not advocate a pure free-market system; however, he does have a lot more faith in the market than I do. BUT I certainly share his dismay re government.

Great read. Certainly would recommend it.

Sigrid Macdonald

It's been interesting to watch the transition in John Stossel's politics over the years. His ideas mirror many of my own. I started out as a left liberal and have been increasingly moving towards a more "libertarian" position. I've also received a lot of flak for that, especially in the women's movement where I was active for decades.

Stossel describes the failure of a number of well-intentioned government programs in great detail and in an easy-to-read style. He shows the absurdity of bureaucracy and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to accomplish anything with governments' long list of restrictions and regulations.

Although he batters the reader with the benefits of the free-market system, it did make me pause and wonder how a bloated government was ever going to serve us.

Stossel not only displays creative thinking and critical, investigative skills but he has one hell of a lot of courage to continue to voice his opinion when others vociferously disagree. The country is so polarized right now between red states and blue states and Democrats and Republicans that many people have trouble thinking outside of the box. When they hear him, they immediately feel the need to label Stossel as a conservative yet in many ways he defies categorization.

My only complaint would be that Stossel did not expound on HOW we are to reduce the enormous government bureaucracy. How many layoffs would be involved? How many people would lose all of their financial and social stability? Where would they go? Free markets aren't known for their benevolence, despite the fact that business tycoons get big tax cuts.

Pure laissez-faire capitalism left millions of people homeless and miserable before the New Deal. Admittedly, Stossel does not advocate a pure free-market system; however, he does have a lot more faith in the market than I do. BUT I certainly share his dismay re government.

Great read. Certainly would recommend it.

Sigrid Macdonald

We're in the "information age," right? We have more knowledge readily obtainable and freely exchanged now more so than any other point in the history of mankind-by far. The hottest arguments of the day are not so much about conflicts over resources, or class structures, or religion, or other traditionally newsworthy items but more often than not are about specifically how information is going to be classified and delivered. In political elections, the press is as likely to report about reports of their own bias as it is about the candidates and their platforms. Various permutations of the arguments over political correctness dominate discourse at all levels of the society from business, to politics, to PTA meetings. Fortunes are routinely made and lost not in business ventures but just plain information about business.

 

This makes a book about the press and its dysfunctions so relevant to business leaders. Learning how the press creates and reports its information through its various apparatuses is strikingly similar to companies and their own dissemination of information between its various departments and executives. Stossel is a very convincing, a very earnest, and a very amusing writer. He writes with a sincerity of purpose that is beguiling: his motives are pure, he clearly wants to believe that the rest of the world operates from a similar set of motives and principles, and is surprised and disappointed-again and again and again-each time he uncovers some new scandal.

 

Is that not the business world? A mass of people motivated on the surface to work in the service of a company with a single profit-oriented goal in mind but beset with all the flaws, problems, and Murphy's Law Incidents that stem from the chaos of thousands of competing individual interests.

 

And here is where the business leader can learn so much from Stossel. He identifies, through a chronicle of incidents, the problems of mob opinion, the evils of lazy research masquerading as detailed analysis, and the vigor that is Capitalism in its constant and eternal struggle against collectivism and bureaucracy. There are countless stories here that resonate directly in to the Office Politik not to mention serving as a primer in the dangers of dealing with the media on behalf of your business.

 

Read this book if you don't understand the antagonism the educational elite and the media seem to hold to business and Capitalism. Read this book to understand how information becomes transmuted and subverted. Read this book because it teaches you about the lifeblood of your business-information and how it flows.

READ MORE AT INCHOATUS.COM

John brings up some valid arguments. Too much government interference stifles growth, impedes innovation, and may cost jobs. But, eliminate it completely, except for those functions called for in the Constitution, and I think you'll have a recipe for abuse by business. Monopolies, Oligopolies, and Collusion are just some of the possibilities.

None, the less, a should read for every libertarian, democrat, or republican.

A quick and enjoyable read. Liberals, and I don't consider myself one, will most certainly dislike the section on why government in general tends to mess things up. However, Mr. Stossel does criticize the private sector as well, and this gives the book a certain balance.

5 stars for enjoyment and 3 stars for content: Like many libertine followers, John gets it half right, but his book is extremely enjoyable and he makes accessible, Ayn Rand objectiveness theory at a popular level (this book is influenced by the popular 20th century political philosopher Ayn Rand).

First, where does John get it right? Well, he does "hit the nail on the head" very often. He destroys the sacred cow of leftists that capitalism is "evil." While he fails to cite all his research with a bibliography or even more precise information so people can verify his data, much of what he cites is easy to find at several government or think take studies. Much of it is also self evident information based on reason and logic.

For example his argument that America's poor are relatively rich compared to most in this world is accurate and that those countries that restrict free markets with stuffy government programs increase the poverty level is a matter of history (US vs Soviet Union as an example).

While he picks on government programs that reward a welfare state for the poor, he is balanced enough to mention the endless government programs that help the rich. He is further correct in calling the government out in making the poor a pariah while increasing subsidies for corporations and farmers.

Further, he is correct on the billions spent on the failed drug war and the failed fight against prostitution. His sections on junk science are great.

Next where does he go wrong? Well, his section on physician assisted suicide is extremely week and as he says in other areas, "lazy thinking." He does not cite the problems these laws have had inn countries where it is legal, nor of the possible abuses. Lastly, he does not address the cowardly laws that have surfaced in other countries or Oregon. After all, if one wants to kill themselves, why get a doctor and displace one's guilt. There are several cheaper ways of doing business (bullet to the heart is very effective).

As a journalist, he like others in the profession, under developed their arguments (a rampant problem in that profession) and makes non-sensical assertions. Take for example, his "Who did more for the world: Michael Milken or Mother Teresa?" Well, there are some serious flaws in his presentation. One, he must assume that materialism is the best thing in the world, since his argument is based on economics. This is highly debatable. Further, unintended consequences may not be able to be measured or did he even try to measure them. Also, Mother Teresa's example and life may inspire others for many for centuries to come, ever increasing her influence. There are several other problems with this section alone, but that would be a long essay in and of itself. A better way to ask his question would be a less contentious postulation, "Who has increased the wealth of people more?"

All in all, a very fun read and while I sometimes disagreed with him, I enjoyed his presentation and willingness to state his positions knowing many, if not all people will disagree with him on some issue. Also, John pokes fun at himself a lot, and you cannot help but like a man who is so brutally honest.

I enjoyed this book because I learned something about our Government, and about Mr. Stossel. I've always liked his reporting, and I even remember from Good Morning America.
I liked the sections when he writes about free market vs. govt; providing better services.
I also thought the report on the $330,000 outhouse in Pennsylvania was a hoot!

I do not agree with everything Mr. Stossel has to say, but his assessment of the economy and poverty is dead on. This book is saturated with the evidence. Buy a copy. Buy another for your spouse. Buy one for your grandparents and friends. Heck, buy a case. This book should be taught in schools (but heaven forbid the government teach anything that undermines its effectiveness).

Stossel intelligently lays waste to many of the sacred cows of the liberal left and some on the conservative right. He touches on a key point which many people don't care about or delude themselves on: THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND SPEND YOUR MONEY IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE YOU "FEEL" SAFER. The problem is you aren't any better off than before. You end up with fewer rights, less money and you are no safer or better off than before. The essential problem with the left is that they "know" (I use this term very loosely) they are smarter than you and that you are too stupid to make your own decisions and take care of yourself. Thus you need government to tell you what to do and what not to do. He even touches on an individual's right to die if they so choose. While this is a big issue with the conservative right, Stossel is right on saying, "butt out!" A very interesting book to get you thinking about your rights and how your tax dollar is spent, just don't expect a liberal to be open minded enough to even read what Stossel has to say.

Stossel echoes a lot of things that have been said before. Reading this book, I can see snippets of ideas covered by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Milton Friedman (among others). The fact that this author is popular will mean that much of what these others have said (who have not gotten the audience that they deserve) will be brought before a large number of people for consideration. (I bought this book in an airport, which only stocks books that are likely to move fast.)

Bad points:

1. No footnotes that could be used if the reader wanted to look deeper into some of the authors sources.

Good points:

1. Almost no abstractions. So, when reading a book by F.A. Hayek, there is the statement of some general case without giving any specific examples. Not only does John Stossel give specific examples, but he gives many of them for a given instance of an idea. So, a common theme was the difference between intended results and observed results of different government programs. He gave many very specific examples that were interesting and not excessively detailed.

2. Good discussion of self-generated victimhood in BOTH the black and Native American population in the USA. A good discussion of how ghettos came to arise. Most people never think about this. They just assume that wherever there are a large numbers of black people there is bound to be crime.

3. Exposition of the fact that markets work on a different timescale than bureaucracies, as well as some of the other reasons that bureaucracy just never manages to "get it right."

This is definitely worth the time it takes to read, even if the prognosis for the US is NOT good based on the trends described in this book.

I learned a lot from reading this book, like silly things that our tax money are used for. I did not know 10 years have to pass before the FDA would approve a product, even something that might be helpful. If you don't know much about the goverment this is a good book to start with.

When I first began reading this book, I thought I might enjoy it. After all, John Stossel is (or was) a leading consumer reporter with some excellent credentials to his name. However, by the end of the first third of the book I was already lowering the number of stars I planned to give it.

The first problem I encountered was writing that was simplistic. For someone who is a journalist and who graduated from Princeton, I expected the writing to be more professional. I can't tell whether he "dumbed" the book down or if this is the way he usually writes. Either way, it is a simplistic (and very quick) read.

The second, and by far larger problem, is the argument he puts forth in the book. He claims to be a "free market" advocate, yet throughout the book he stumbles on his own argument. His argument is that in a free market, industry will always do things for the best, since it is in their best interest to increase profits.

Because of that argument, he strikes out against government intervention. One example he gives is OSHA. While OSHA is not a well loved agency, the reason for their existence is exactly to opposite of what Stossel claims. Worker's compensation laws were passed in the early part of the 20th century to get business to stop injuring workers. Industry, however, continued to allow unsafe work conditions and worker injury rates continued to climb. OSHA was the result of the inaction of industry. They didn't do what was right...they did what was cheap.

In another example, he rants about mandatory airbags in cars. He is against the notion of paying for them when you don't want one, and claims that over a roughly 10 year time frame air bags have killed over 200 people. He leaves out how many (thousands?) were saved that would have died had air bags not been present in the vehicles. A short while later, he stumbles on his own argument again when he discusses vaccine manufacturers. He claims that they are going out of business because of lawsuits brought due to injury to children from the vaccines. He then makes the point that, because a few children got sick the number of manufacturers is falling, which jeopardizes the many. The question becomes, which is it? Do you want to save the many at the sacrifice of the few or vice versa?

I could go on for pages, but that isn't really the point to a review.

There are places in the book where I agree with his arguments and they make sense. There are government agencies that are redundant and ineffective.

Overall, I don't think the book is worth the purchase price. I would recommend getting it from the library or a yard sale if you are inclined to read it.

I read some of these reviews and people point out Stossels views on social issues of abortion and the right to die, etc.. This book has absolutely nothing to do with those subjects. This book is about economics and the idea of limited government which has allowed our country to advance light years ahead of others that have been around much longer than we have. Its about the liberals and Democrats who are trying to control every aspect of our lives because we dont know whats best for ourselves. Hes right on the money with this book.

Most Americans are what I call "default liberals". John was too, and he shows how most people, including me, have an epiphany of the faulty logic involved in modern liberlism, and make the slow, painfull transformation away from these feel-good yet harmful policies. This isn't a difficult or very acedemic book on libertarianism, but it is the best "starter" for anybody getting into politics I have ever read.

John Stossle is equally vigilant on democrats and republicans alike. Although I don't agree with him on everything (mostly his views on making drugs 100% legal) he writes book that mixes personal views with interesting accounts.

A lot of people who don't agree that America is on the wrong path with Government interaction and the removal of privatization complain about this book. If you read with an open mind you will see he is a great writer. I recently moved from NY to MT and haven't been able to watch the Yankees until the post season. I actually read his book while watching game 3 of the ALCS because I couldn't put it down.

Fun quote "Why should we do a story on exploding BIC lighters? Toilets drowned 4x as many people last year".

Bottom line- explains the proof behind why capitalism is needed for our country to run as well as it can.

This book simultaneously angered me and energized me. It angered me that government largess and corruption is just as bad as that of corporations, if not more so. It angered me even more that the government is allowed to do this with a nod and a wink from the media. It energized me that there's someone as high profile as John Stossel that hold my beliefs about freedom, and regular airs those criticisms through networks that sleepwalk through %95 of their reporting. John Stossel is a true Classic Liberal, and if he ran for office, I would vote for him in a heartbeak. No more "Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich" (South Park fans will get this reference).

a largely entertaining and casual romp through the corridors of irony within popular culture and government, delivered with charm and humor by one of the most loved libertarian commentators around.
Fun reading!

John Stossel is one of the few reporters to emerge from the stupor of mindless media liberalism to rational observation. In many respects `Give Me A Break' is a textbook on systems thinking. Stossel destroys a multitude of liberal and conservative paradigms by demonstrating the second and third order consequences of self-serving governmental, social and economic positions. Stossel understands, like few others in the media, that there are trade-offs, and often-unintended consequences, with every decision. Stossel's book is balanced, humorous and irreverent; it relentlessly unmasks the uncomfortable realities underlying the massive clouds blue smoke generated by special interest groups. If you are looking for a great read that will expand your understanding of contemporary social issues, then by all means purchase this book.

Stossel does an excellent job of covering a wide range of topics with his interesting experiences debunking many messages of traditional media. Reading this gives you the feeling that you're finally getting the other side of the story. His method of asking thought provoking questions (rather than mean-spirited finger-pointing) reminded me to not believe everything I hear, but instead question data myself!
Additionally, the general layout of the book is very conducive to brief moments of reading as it has many "sub-chapters".

This book was a quick and interesting read. It was thought-provoking and I appreciated what Stossel had to say on a variety of topics. There were only a few spelling and grammatical errors.
My problem with this book is that Stossel backs up only some of what he says. He provides good rationale for some of his arguments, but sweeps through many of them. For instance, he thinks the FDA should be disbanded, but devotes only one paragraph to explaining why.
There are no endnotes and footnotes. One of his tables had no scale on the Y axis! There is no way to check his facts; we're supposed to trust everything he says. It's ironic that an investigative reporter would expect his readers to mindlessly accept his position on so many crucial issues.
If you choose to read this book, look forward to being exposed to some valuable insight and ideas. But put on your critical thinking cap first.

Just being a fourteen year old kid, many people reading this might not think that my review will mean anything or have any relevance. But I think that Give Me A Break was a great book. While reading it, I really learned a lot about the government and the influence of many things around us. The thing that I gained the most knowledge of was about people working for and against government regulations such as lawyers politicians. Many things that I thought were great about our country, like the FDA and other boards of regulations, are actually bringing our country down. John Stossel showed a lot of his own experiences to prove his point on different topics. Stossel also tells many stories of other people, showing how regulations actually do more bad than good. These "regulations" are the worst part of having such and advanced economy and country. Stossel sort of retells the famous quote by Patrick Henry, "Give me absolute safety or give me death." This just sums up the whole feeling of the book. Stossel, and me too for that matter, feel that regulations, lawyers, and politicians are the down fall of creativity and any advances to come with them.

Overall a wonderful book, that was a very engaging and inviting read for me. John is very adept at exposing the everyday hypocricy and shennanigans that are going on around us. I appreciate the fact that he was self-depricating enough to admit in more than one instance where he made mistakes, where he had gotten caught up in the moment, or just made bad decisions.
The only thing that bothers me about the book is that only 1 1/2 pages were dedicated to any sort of actual solution John discusses and points out so well in throughout the book.

Stossel uses his experiences as an investigative reporter to demonstrate the superiority of private enterprise in solving societies problems, using statistics and anecdotes. He gives a variety of examples of how governmental solutions are wasteful at best and counterproductive at sorst. He also tries to show how many fears that are hyped by the media are not the threats they are presented as.
Read it with an open mind an gain new appreciation for the wisom of the founders of our great country and the folly of our ever expanding governmental "nanny state."

Stossel is concerned with truth and fact. If some group or company, even one with whom he is associated such as ABC should come out looking badly, he doesn't care. It will be told as is.
This book has much more substance than other consumer oriented books out at present. It is far superior to O'Reilly's "Looking out for you" book which is currently at the top. This should be required reading for every student and adult. Thanks John.

John Stossel claims to have moved from "heroic consumer reporter" to "a threat to journalism." This is probably because throughout this book he makes arguments about issues that effect everyone in their everyday lives. One of my favorite arguments was from the chapter entitled, "Scaring Ourselves to Death." Stossel devotes this section of his book to the issue of why we focus on things that are simply "scare stories."

A producer brought Stossel a story on BIC lighters and how they were exploding while simply being left in pockets. This was a risk, yes, but was it highly likely? No. He has come to look at things in a different light, and feels that consumer reports should focus on big risks. Consumer reporters shouldn't be spending so much time on things that are unlikely to happen. This type of reporting scares America's consumers. It causes an increase in spending that is unnecessary and unhelpful when really needed. Stossel argues that if the media continues to scare consumers about less likely risks, then it leads us to take bigger risks. Also, things shouldn't be so hard to get approved today. We're making ridiculous guidelines and rules that products must meet in order to be approved.

Personally, I could not agree anymore with John Stossel on this issue. As American's, we are being scared to death. Media coverage is always on issues that are threatening to our quality of life...but are they really that threatening? Stossel makes very deductively sound arguments on this issue. His premises are true to their word. We just have to look into the facts to see that he is right on the money! It is true that the media should stop spending so much time on issues that aren't likely to happen and start focusing more on things that will actually affect us. This producer that Stossel worked with wanted to actually do a story on the BIC lighters exploding in pockets. That incident killed maybe one person! What about people crossing the street? Over 6,000 people die each year from simply crossing the street. Where are the stories on these people? How many of us cross the street at some point in our day? I would say a lot more than those who carry a BIC lighter in their pockets. Crossing the street is a MUCH bigger risk than a lighter that may or may not explode in your pocket. What about all the money that goes into making things safer, things that don't really need improvement. Stossel uses the example of rubber duckies. Now really, how harmful can a rubber ducky be? So why spend millions of dollars trying to improve it's safety? What happens is that something will eventually come along that truly does need improvement, and then we'll have wasted endless amounts of money on unnecessary products. These inaccurate accusations of risky products or activities are actually causing more risks to be taken. For example, he uses the constant coverage of plane crashes. The more emphasis the media puts on plane crashes actually causes more people to drive. In turn, this puts more people in danger. Driving is much more dangerous than getting in a plane. 43,354 people die each year in motor related accidents. Car accidents just aren't as news worthy as a plane crash. Today, we are obsessed with not taking risks. Think of natural gas and how dangerous it really can be. On the other hand, think about how much we benefit from it. Stossel points out that today, natural gas could probably not get approved. I totally agree. What about vehicles. They're extremely fast. We come in close contact with other speeding vehicles and also human beings. Tires blow out. Brakes go out. What if you have a stroke at the wheel? What if you have a heart attack? What if you have a seizure? What if you fall asleep? Do you think that years ago they considered all of these possibilities? I highly doubt it. They were concerned with advancing technology for the benefits of our country. Should we have not gone through with the automobile just because these possibilities could happen? NO! Imagine our lives without them. If vehicles were just now being introduced, I would bet each of these factors would be considered when deciding if we could accept it, and probably hundreds of others! Josh Stossel makes wonderful points in this section on scaring us with media coverage. He even admits that he too has fallen victim to making us fear products. He said that for years he did reports on "insignificant threats." He admits that this was actually doing more harm than helping anyone. He is completely fair in all of his arguments.

We need more focus on things that may actually cause us harm or risk in our lives. We need to know how to prevent them and be aware of these problems. American's need to be educated, but not on silly, little, insignificant risks that are causing us to worry endlessly over nothing. Money needs to stop being spent on this uselessness. All this coverage is doing is causing unneeded spending and actually causing more risks to the American people. We also need to lighten up and let technology happen without so much drama! We're wasting so much time on making sure everything is 100% safe before it can be approved. NOTHING is 100% safe...that's life! This book is full of wonderful arguments, and if you found just this one interesting, you should read all the others! Until then...don't fall victim to being scared to death!

John Stossel is the rarest of television news personalities. His stories are honest, they often counter "prevailing wisdom" which makes them interesting, and they don't play on our emotions without linking to rationality as so many fear mongers in the news media do. This book captures Stossel's greatest findings in an easy to read, fun (and funny) format. Highly recommended reading for anybody who cares about freedom.

Even if you disagree with Stossel's libertarian viewpoints, it is refreshing to see someone from a non-mainstream ideological spectrum get as much air-time and ink as Stossel. Stossel doesn't just go after the typical liberal TV straw men (though he does a fair amount of that), he also goes after big business leaders and other fat cats who rarely get questioned by American media.

If you have ever heard the expression, "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats", then this book is for you! John Stossel uses many examples of how government and court cases makes life worse for us rather than better. He doesn't promote theories but gives concrete examples of policy and court events and the ending results. He makes a strong and convincing argument for litigation overhaul.

He should subtitle this book, "A Common Sense Guide for America".

"Give Me a Break" has some insightful nuggets in it or at the very least an interesting point of view. His views on dwarf tossing legislation may shock and surprise you. But, as you may have guessed from the title, John Stossel's neck must be tired from carrying around such a fat head.

John was a pioneering consumer reporter back in the day and has turned the sights of his camera from guys selling Juicy Fruit for 100 bucks a pack as an exotic but tasty aphrodisiac to the political arena. Hey 500-dollar toilet seats are a bigger rip off.

The first half is fairly informative and unpartisan. Pointing out that the Emperor truly has no clothes and we were a little dumb for playing along. The second half has political tirades and brow beating not seen since the Lewinski.

So, if you have a few bucks lying around or want to read something while your on the can go for it. If you think the $ 12.95 is better spent on a Big Mac... you may be right.

This book is a wonderful blend of entertainment and commentary. A welcome dose of good old common sense. Stossel tells it like it is without apology and most importantly, without preferrence to one group or party over another. Read with an open mind. You'll have a blast and you'll learn a thing or two in the process.

This book outlines John Stossel's journey from tireless consumer advocate to hard-core libertarian. As someone with ideas that seem to run contrary to most folks', he seems to be used to the ridicule and resistance he encounters. I'm usually very open to hearing all different points of view, but only when they're supported by convincing data. Stossel largely fails to do that in this book.

If I cited every example of faulty logic, cherry-picking of data, contradictions, oversimplification, and sweeping generalizations, this review would be almost as long as the book. Here are a few examples:

Stossel rails against junk science, but he seems to think it's bad only if it supports ideas he disagrees with. If dioxin kills animals, well, it's never been shown to kill people, so how bad could it be? And pesticides? He says that farm workers and their families are exposed to very high levels without any problems. I'm not sure all farm workers would agree with him, but I wouldn't know, as he doesn't cite any of the sources he seems to be quoting. He says that tens of thousands of scientists have signed some document saying that there's no evidence of global warming, but he never says who they are. Yet when he cites the "conclusion" of the EPA report of Ground Zero air quality (that the air is safe) to support his contention that asbestos isn't so bad, he never mentions that scientists originally concluded the air was not safe, and several quit in protest after being pressured to "soften up" their conclusions!

Stossel makes several "always" and "never" statements, as in privatization always works better than the government. Then he picks out a couple of examples to support his statement, ignoring such examples as deregulation of energy in California, where the free market failed miserably. In one part, he says we don't need all the regulations the government imposes on us, that in a free market, companies will self-regulate (naive, if you ask me), but in the section on lawsuits, he says that changes in policy (for example, that coffee shouldn't be so hot) should be made by legislation.

He devotes a couple of chapters to welfare, and how people should just go get jobs. But he doesn't support paying a living wage to all workers; he thinks the market should sort all that out, and people should pay their dues in low-wage jobs and work their way up. Well, that's easy enough for Mr Smarty-Pants Journalist to say, but I'll bet he never had to try to support a family of four on Wal-Mart's meager dime and miserable benefits! Furthermore, he doesn't even practice what he preaches! He admitted, with some pride, to taking advantage of the federal flood insurance program when he built an oceanfront house. He said he knew it was foolish to build there, but rationalized that if the government was stupid enough to offer a program of cheap flood insurance, he'd be stupid not to take advantage of it! I always believed that if you weren't part of the solution, you were part of the problem...

Finally, when he says that free speech is being curtailed, it's only from the viewpoint of the left doing the censoring, in the name of political correctness. Well, the right does plenty of censoring, too. He should have seen the brouhaha here in Utah when Utah Valley State College invited Michael Moore to come speak.

I could go on, but I won't. The tone of the whole book was very confrontational and nasty. The complete lack of footnotes, the circular logic, the cherry-picking, and the absolutist attitude Stossel takes made most of his arguments very unconvincing.

To be fair, I did find his discussion on the drug war (and our miserable failure in it so far) compelling.

At the very end of the book, he redeemed himself somewhat, coming up with some fairly sane and reasoned solutions to the problems he sees. Too bad it took him 270-some pages to finally start making some sense.

John Stossel not only exposes the socialist doctrine that is ruining the United States, but also manages to survive leftist lobby groups and leftist media assaults on his work. In his book he shows us how American freedom is slowly being erroded by government policy--leaving the reader shocked to discover that most of the country is oblivious to the effects.

Mr. Stossel has convinced me that the Liberal Media is hiding the truth from us. It is a very dangerous truth they are hiding and I fear we must not learn it. The Liberal Media has been protecting us for years, until now. Now we must face these truths as we read this book. And we must risk the wrath of our enemies. Mr. Stossel is very convincing that dangerous times are ahead for this great country. Dangerous times...

Like in the very first chapter, on page 1, where Mr. Stossel speaks of the "Six Liberal Media lies that I reveal today for the first time." The second Liberal Media lie is, "Dan Rather's true source of half his stories is Hilary Clinton." (p.3) This is a devastating account of how a sitting US Senator has abused her position to further the ratings of a Liberal TV network. How much money has she received from Dan? Are they lovers? Mr. Stossel does not say.

And in Chapter 6 he goes into depth about the Liberal Media hit squad that seeks out Rush LImbaugh, but has not yet gotten to him; like they did to Sean Hannity who has recently claimed to support John Kerry - Very Mysterious! Very dangerous times we live in, indeed! "Hannity has been hit by the Liberal Media and is now dead to me." (p.121)

If you read only one book this election season, and are paranoid and harried, then this is the book you should pick up.

I hope this review has been helpful to you.

-bobdavisart

Out of all of the books by present day journalists, this one is the best. John discusses his stuttering, career, and revelation of the totalitarian left. This book has strengthened my libertarian leanings. It is a must read for all those who hate big business and those who hate big government.

Stossel nails it with his latest book! If you will keep an open mind while reading this book, Stossel will make you think about the role of government, lawyers, and how society ignores the extreme abuses committed by the above. This books is worth twice the price!

A lively poolside read - once read, can be donated to the Library.

Nothing here that you won't hear on Stossel's visits to the Fair and Balanced Station, Foxnews.

Stossel is a kind of consumer advocate as long as the consumer distrusts the government and its' regulations. A particularly silly chapter in GIVE ME A BREAK is " 'Exploiting' Children" in which JS writes the illuminative "...whenj I had a chance as a reporter to watch the bureaucrats enforce the laws, I never saw victims wanting rescue....what the cops call " 'sweatshop', I simply call 'employer'..No teens ANC interviewed after the raids said they were abused...". When I was 14, I would have been terrified to offend my employer, my parents, or look weak in front of my companions. So the kids thought it was hunky-dory.

By the way, John says, yes, kids that work at night in Baseball Stadiums, or after 6pm on a soundstage get a break. Give US a break.

Let's add, "Labor Department regulations are..onerous". Wanna elaborate, pal? Nah..I thought so.

Maybe if the Labor Department was on the set of the Spielberg movie when the child was killed by a real helicopter in an indoor set, a tragedy may not have occurred.

Less or no FTC or OSHA and we have a beaming, bustling society again. Let's then have an ex-employee of a restaurant stop in to do a survey of the safe-handling rules implementation.

John, go back to 20/20. Barbara Walters' Feminism has mellowed and it's less likely she'll employ her condescension on you, again. But trim that 'stache. It freaked me out in *1988*!

John Stossel has been giving the world exactly what it needs: a shot of classical liberalism in the strict Austrian sense of the word. Leftists hate the book because it encourages free markets, and neoconservatives hate it because it spells out the obvious: Republicans have outspent Democrats for the last 75 years! Neoconservatives like more spending in their government pork than any other demographic, bar none. I expect that the book will ultimately be rated 4 stars, as the extreme left and rights will give this book a cursory glance and not the full attention it deserves. True intellectuals have no choice but to give it 5 stars. The facts are there people! Read the book! He has empirical data that is backed up not only by the "evil corporations" but also by the U.S. government. I would also like to add that Stossel has never pledged allegiance to any political party, but Libertarians know a great Jeffersonian when they see one. God bless you John. God bless you!

Epiphanies are good things. They are psychological wake-up calls to clarity and truth. They cut through years of mental and societal conditioning to expose common sense like a bright copper penny at the bottom of a swimming pool.
ABC consumer reporter (and co-anchor of the news show "20/20") John Stossel shares his epiphany through the pages of his entertaining and informative book, GIVE ME A BREAK. For years, Stossel developed a reputation as a fearless and relentless crusader by exposing rip-off artists, scams, boondoggles, and other unspeakable corruption--all in the interest of protecting the public at large from greedy and selfish corporations. For this, Stossel was an award-winning media darling, a welcome addition to the leftist culture that permeates and controls network news.
But a funny thing happened on the way to liberal nirvana: Stossel began taking a look not only at the warts of the private sector, but at those who regulate the warts as well. And he found some troubling wart hairs--from a $330,000 outhouse paid by tax dollars, to a town in Missouri essentially bulldozed because dioxin found in the soil "might" be harmful to its inhabitants, to corporate "welfare queens" who grow even richer on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. Thus, after 15 years of reporting, Stossel's epiphany was born: government isn't the solution, it's the problem. We don't need more government to interfere and obstruct, we need less.
And this revelation really hit below the belt: capitalism actually works.
Accordingly, Stossel began broadcasting this heresy (giving credit to several people at ABC for having the backbone to air his opinions); he instantly went from media darling to pariah. The "totalitarian left," as Stossel phrases it, was incensed. Countless efforts were made to get him off the air, get him fired, yet Stossel persevered, and now shares his trials and tribulations in this delightful book.
GIVE ME A BREAK is a quick, energetic read that will get you pumped up, regardless of your political persuasion. Stossel's writing style is identical to his broadcast narrative, making the reader feel comfortable and casual. Finally, this is anything but a conservative tome; it is a libertarian manifesto, as sacred cows on both sides of the spectrum are gored. Give me a break? No, give me an epiphany, instead. Highly recommended.
--D. Mikels