In your correspondent’s [much-addled] mind, “good journalism” should be factual, providing facts and information about which readers were heretofore unaware; enlightening, by arranging said facts into patterns and conclusions not immediately evident; or entertaining, releasing deep, atavistic belly laughs from deep in our psyches. Unfortunately, Dr. Hunter provides precious little of any of the three. I don’t know how his work read in the 1970s, but based on these three criteria it hasn’t aged well.
And still I read all 592 pages. All. Simply because of an innate inability to put down any book I’ve started reading. I need help. Please. An intervention is in order.