Negative Positive
Title: Funny
Review: I read this for a class and find the fact that people believe this crackpot credible to be humorous. He briefly mentions the Boland amendment which made it illegal to help the Contras, which was a two sentence earmark thrown into the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, it was seen as a dirty trick. He also spends much of his time making Blandon, Ross and other drug dealers look like decent human beings when in fact they were nothing but criminals; but you understand why he makes them out to be good guys when you realize that they are his primary sources. Let's not forget the gaps where there are absolutely no sources, sometimes up to 8 pages without a source. It is no wonder this fool was fired and attacked by his own peers for his lack of journalistic integrity; he had the journalistic integrity of Dan Rathers. It is a shame he took his own life, I would love nothing more than to watch this idiot try to defend this fictional garbage.
Is the review positive or negative? 