This book is dense. There is a lot of information and it isn't the most readable. The vibe was very textbook. While comprehensive, there are more illuminating books out there. And some that are a little less controversial. I wanted more analysis and less of the play-by-play recent history. I'm aware this doesn't always come naturally to an old-school journalist who deals in hard facts, but a book (especially one 500 pages long) isn't always just about presenting the facts. It's a deep dive and readers, rightly or not, seek more from authors.

As noted by the Guardian, the strongest sections of this book are when she focuses on women. A narrower focus on this would have been a timely book, a strong seller, and more interesting. As one of the few women to sit at the top end of the masthead she could have offered an entirely new perspective. Apart from the chapter that covered the time of her tenure editing the NYT the book lacks personality. And you can do both. Her story would have made the wider story more interesting (see Katharine Graham's Personal History, Tina Brown's The Vanity Fair Diaries: 1983 - 1992, All the President's Men, Charles Bean's The Western Front Diaries of Charles Bean). Abramson’s tenure as first female editor of the NYT will always be significant for that reason alone. And despite the controversies surrounding that tenure, her departure, and indeed those surrounding the contents of this book, her perspective on her time there and on journalism more broadly is also significant. Rather like a female conservative prime minister perhaps her legacy has left women a little wanting, but she forged a path and we can certainly see the difference between deserved criticisms and those that were because she is a woman. And to be quite frank, like many female leaders, she was handed an already sinking ship and expected to clean it up, and ultimately doomed to fail - ie, the glass cliff. (Hello Theresa May and Brexit, Marissa Mayer and Yahoo, Mary Barra and GM... the list goes on). She doesn’t have a perfect record, but was she held to a higher standard? Most definitely.

Journalism is valuable and important. People in power (from politicians to billionaires) will always be slightly at odds with it, using it to their advantage and dismissing it when it suits them. But the Fourth Estate is essential, and I can only hope we continue to value it. I said it at the end of my review of Breaking News: The Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters Now, but if this is what we do know (thanks to journalists), what of the things we don't?