Polls show that a sizeable portion of the American population believes that troops found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11. Even after the 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other reports have concluded that our intelligence was flawed, people in the freest nation on earth continue to be misinformed about something that could not be more vital to understand—the reasons for sending troops into harm's way. This insightful analysis argues that the media should have done a better job of performing its traditional role of skeptic and watchdog, and it examines what went wrong. There are, of course, many people whose support for going to war in Iraq was not contingent on the existence of WMD or a connection to al-Qaeda. But many others based their support for the war on misinformation. Dadge explores why the media did not aggressively investigate the claims made by the administration and intelligence agencies; in short, why they did not do their job: to fully inform the citizenry to the best of their ability. He examines pressures from the Bush administration, pressures from corporate consolidation of media ownership, patriotism and self-censorship, and other factors. He concludes with recommendations for ways in which the media can improve their reporting on government.

In its global campaign to fight terrorism is the Bush administration trying to muzzle freedom of speech? David Dadge, editor of the "International Press Institute", documents a number of disturbing incidents of attempted press censorship in this interesting perspective on the rising tensions between powerful government interests and independent journalists. Dadge concludes by arguing that rather than suppressing the media, political and military institutions would be better off in the end by actually increasing existing freedoms. This carefully researched and well-argued discussion of free expression under siege should be of great interest and concern to all who care about one of our most important liberties.

What happens to journalists who expose uncomfortable truths? How far are journalists prepared to go in order to report a difficult story? "Silenced" provides answers to these questions with the stories of journalists who risked their careers so that the public might be informed. From China, where Jasper Becker, formerly Beijing bureau chief of the South China Morning Post, fought a lonely and unsuccessful battle against owners willing to soften the newspaper's reporting of the Chinese government in the hope of protecting mainland investments, to Zimbabwe where the harsh treatment of the Guardian's Andrew Meldrum led to him being arrested and forcibly deported from the country because he dared criticise President Robert Mugabe, "Silenced" is a forcible reminder of the risks - both personal and financial - accepted by the media on our behalf. In other parts of the world, journalists face more traditional problems. When faced with the threat of censorship, all of these journalists reacted in a similar manner - they chose to report and face the consequences. They decided to place the ethics of journalism above all other considerations.;As such they are proof that press freedom cannot exist without those who are willing to uphold its fundamental principals. "Silenced" is more than a book on the media. It is an expression of the bravery and persistence of journalists everywhere.