It would obviously be fairly tempting to spend one's analysis of this book on the politically fascinating aspects of the book, but instead of falling into political discourse, what would it look like to analyze the book abstractly, without giving automatic preference to the scandalous, concrete details alleged by the book? Instead of looking into the book to find specific conspiracies or scandals, what might it look like to use the book to analyze more broadly the way human history works, and the way journalism has changed that process in recent history.
One will quickly notice that in this book, the winner does not writer his own history. Instead of the myriad examples of powerful people writing their own legacy or narrative for the history books, Rachel Maddow has influence to correct that narrative before it is even really "history." One could say that these subject matters are on-going, but in fifty to one hundred years, perhaps the narrative that is remembered by history will be more influenced by investigation.
Through this lens of analysis, the book becomes a portrait of investigation. Maddow should be credited for the times when she might be able to speculate a conclusion but simply doesn't have the evidence to support her theory; in those moments, she seems to pull her punches so that the book is not a spear-campaign against any specific person or anything like that, but rather, the book is a meticulous demonstration of how much more was available to learn through investigation than ever would have been available through popular news outlets. Maddow should be considered not as a freak of nature for this, but instead could be viewed as an example of an investigative skill which anyone could practice.
