My first political memory was the presidential campaign of 1972. Though I do recall Bobby Kennedy's funeral, his coffin covered by the American flag, preempting my regular cartoon programming, it was the Nixon-McGovern battle that marked my civic awaking. My family are old-school democrats and I used to wear a McGovern for President button, but one of my friend's parents were divided along party lines, with competing campaign posters angling for space on this basement walls. This is just to say that I'm a sucker for this period in our history. I was nine years old, the greater world was only beginning to unfold before me, and the landslide win for Nixon feels in hindsight as if it cemented a lifelong affiliation with losers. So, Timothy Crouse's book speaks to my personal nostalgia, but also my youthful ambition to work as a journalist, even if I saw myself more a reporter in the "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" vein than a news junkie. And, of course, I read the infamous Hunter S. Thompson tome on the same election, which I consider one of his best books. Thompson plays a part in THE BOYS ON THE BUS, a travelogue of election reporting, or as Crouse calls it, pack journalism, but he's only one player on the greater stage of the Fourth Estate. It's a fascinatingly sad tale, filled with gossip and manipulation and, finally, almost a treatise on the falseness of objective reporting. One source quoted notes that reporters need to be less worried about being objective in the old hard news way, and more about being fair and honest in their reporting. It's a true assessment.
This book is every good thing that reviewers originally wrote about it. Some of it is dated, forty years later, sure, but the general idea of pack journalism is alive today as it ever was.The funniest parts of The Boys on the Bus probably belong to Hunter S. Thompson, Timothy Crouse's coworker at Rolling Stone, but that should surprise no one. In some ways, this book is a making-of account of Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail from 1972.The book's funniest line, too, belongs to Thompson:"Ed Muskie talked like a farmer with terminal cancer trying to borrow on next year's crop."This book is best when describing the incidents that led to Crouse's disbelief at how expertly the Nixon administration manipulated the White House press corps from 1968 on. It also covers such future journalistic institutions as the late David Broder.This book is best for anyone who looks at the current state of the media and says things have never been worse. On the contrary, it was once much much worse than it is today.
Do You like book The Boys On The Bus (2003)?
This was a fascinating read, and I really enjoyed it. The fact that it wasn't fiction made for a few dry patches throughout, but nothing that made me stop reading. For anyone who has ever had an interest in political history, or especially journalism, this is definitely worth the time. You can practically feel yourself surrounded in newspaper men sweating through their suits in a crowded room, or drinking yourself to sleep in a hotel bar. The portions that include Hunter S. Thompson were particularly entertaining, but there were a lot of really great characters overall.
—Beth
Partly a fascinating look at the journalism business in 1971-1972, with political press criticism that still rings true today (too focused on who is going to win, not enough on who these people are and what they espouse).Partly a bullshit love affair with Hunter S. Thompson and being Rolling Stone magazine and all this "we eschew your tired old ways, man." Yes, a lot of political journalism is a failure. The answer is not to be writing about candidates as campaigning like rats in heat. That kind of approach works if you're a college kid writing for college kids who think they know everything. It doesn't actually convey anything, though.While I had problems with the book, I also found it eminently readable and enjoyable at the same time.
—Matt Daneman
An account of the reporters who covered the Presidential Election of 1972. I really enjoyed this book because it gave a honest, mostly unbiased account of the candidates (Nixon and McGovern) and turned the eyes of the press on themselves. I'm sure many of those journalist highlighted - David Broder, "Johnny" Apple, Robert Novak, Haynes Johnson and Hunter Thompson cringe at the honest, albeit gossipy candor in which they were portrayed (well maybe not Hunter S.). Though there are numerous people mentioned in the book, the reader is able to sympathize and feel respect for the majority of them. While the coverage of the election was fascinating, the coverage of the journalism - which has unfortunately become a dead art - was as electric. In one passage of the book, Crouse talks about recognizing when the candidate's campaign is all but lost. For the journalist, it's a more exciting time because the candidate has less to lose and will say almost anything. At that point, the candidate allows the press to get closer to them.This is one of the few books I've read twice and I recommend it to anyone having an interest in journalism, politics and the human psyche.
—Jim
