You have a serious problem with this essay: The product on the page does not match the vision in your head. Whoa! you might respond, how can I possibly know the vision in your head? Easy. You've presented it from start to finish. You tell the reader exactly what you think of this book, precisely where you feel the book succeeds and where it falters. As an intellectual exercise, it performs nicely. Alas, you've left your reader out of the equation. If all you needed to convince was yourself, you've done a fine job. Most readers, however, will scan through your statements and come out with that ageless reader reaction: Oh yeah? Sez who?

Fortunately, while the condition is crippling, the solution is easy. You simply need to go back to your source material (with which you are clearly familiar), and, at each point where you state an opinion of your own, find buttressing material from the text to justify your opinion. That's called argument and persuasion. Right now, you are doing neither. You simply tell us what you think. Your job as an essayist is to show us why you think it, with sufficient logic and clarity that you convince us to agree with you.

You set out your premises in the first paragraph. After that you need to get down to cases. Consider these three sentences from the opening of the second paragraph:

Radford succeeds in detailing the mainstream media's exploitation of emotion. He explains common logical fallacies committed by martyrmakers. With that, examples of groups profiting from tragic events illustrate some of the most deplorable aspects of the media and ordinary people working together to manipulate public opinion.

At the moment, they are simply your opinions. Do you have a reason for them? Where does the media exploit emotion? What examples? What fallacies are committed by martyrmakers (did you mean mythmakers)? What groups profit from tragic events? How do they do so? Examples, examples, examples.

This is a variation of show, don't tell. You're telling us what you think. Show us why. There's a dual operation at work here: Radford's book on the one hand, your assessment of it on the other. Both are needed in equal parts to create a convincing essay. I think it's fair to say that every sentence in the second paragraph requires you to return to the text and use Radford's words to argue your position and persuade us of its accuracy.

Here's another from the third paragraph:

While the book provides useful information, the organization of data and analysis feels frenetic, as information gets lost in ill-formed transitions.

Show me a transition that is ill-formed, point out how this dilutes his message and perhaps even offer a suggestion as to how he might improve his presentation.

You will never reach the point of turning your opinions into facts. That's not your job. Opinions are, in fact, your stock in trade. Clearly I have no problem with your positions or the ways in which you frame them. Now, turn those opinions into a legitimate essay and you'll be good to go.