Posts Tagged ‘joe mcginniss’

“Journalism on Trial:” my letter to New York Times Book Review

 

The New York Times Book Review will publish on Sunday my letter about Janet Malcolm’s many long-ago falsifications about the reporting I did while working on Fatal Vision. I point out that my rebuttal to Malcolm has lingered in obscurity for twenty-two years, but can now be found here.

I believe it speaks for itself.

Enter THE ROGUE Last Chapter Contest Here…$250 Prize for Winner!

Here’s the best chance for  you commenters–and anybody else who has an idea about what the last chapter of my book about Sarah Palin should say–to make a difference.

I’m about to start writing the last chapter of THE ROGUE.  It’s due for delivery to my publisher Random House/Crown on June 3.

Tell me, please, what you think I should say, why I should say it, and how I can prove it to an extent that would pass legal vetting.

Trig is not off limits–nothing is off limits–but I’m not going to devote the chapter to showing how Figure A or Figure B proves that Sarah was or was not pregnant with that child.  I’ll make my own views on that question clear in THE ROGUE.

So the matter before us today is:  if you had five thousand words, more or less, in which you could summarize The Rise and Fall (and Possible Rebirth) of Sarah Palin, how would you use them?  What would you say?

Please remember, in THE ROGUE, I am not preaching to the converted:  I can’t–nor do I want to–write a final chapter  that contains only snark and invective.  The first twenty chapters don’t do that, so–despite the fact that I won’t pull punches–I don’t want to leave those who read the finished book with the taste of bile in their mouths.

Let’s put it this way:  imagine yourself in a dialogue with a friend who respected your opinions.

You have three or four minutes, without interruption, to explain why Sarah Palin is every bit as bad as you believe her to be, and why she continues to be a danger to the USA.

What would you say?   How would you say it?

As I’m working on my last chapter, I’d love to know.

I’d love to know so much, in fact, that I’m offering a $250 prize to whoever gives me the best suggestion about what I should write in the next two weeks–whether it’s a phrase, a sentence, or whether you take five thousand words to express it.

thanks,

Joe

 

 

After 22 Years, My Rebuttal to Janet Malcolm Goes Public

Thanks to the miracles of modern science (i.e. the internet) the 26-page essay I published as an epilogue to the 1989 edition of Fatal Vision, in response to Janet Malcolm’s wrongheaded and factually inaccurate New Yorker attack on my journalistic ethics and me, (later published as a book titled The Journalist and The Murderer)  is now available online.

And guess where?

Right here. On this very site where you already are.

As I say in the introduction to the epilogue–I know it’s weird to have an “introduction” to an “epilogue,” but what can I do?–

In 1989, the New Yorker published a two-part article by Janet Malcolm entitled “The Journalist and the Murderer.” In the article, which was published in book form a year later, Malcolm offered her skewed perception of my relationship with Jeffrey MacDonald–the subject of my 1983 book, Fatal Vision–to support her bizarre hypothesis that “Every journalist…knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” So numerous and egregious were Malcolm’s omissions, distortions and outright misstatements of fact that I felt compelled to set the record straight in an epilogue to the updated edition of Fatal Vision that was published in 1989.   There is no statute of limitations on truth. Even now, twenty-two years later, Malcolm’s fictions ought not to be accepted uncritically.

What makes this relevant to THE ROGUE is that Jeffrey MacDonald was the first pathologically narcissistic psychopath about whom I ever wrote a book.

Guess who’s the second?

BUSINESS INSIDER Begins Syndication of Joe McGinniss “The Rogue” Blog

Henry Blodget’s Business Insider today begins syndication of some of these blog posts. The first is here.

I’m pleased to be associated with Business Insider, one of the fastest growing sites on the internet, and to be working with someone as innovative and energetic as Henry Blodget.

You can look forward to posts from this blog appearing regularly in Business Insider in the weeks and months ahead.

More from Andrew Sullivan Soon: UPDATE: He’s Delivered…

He writes today: “I’ve been struggling to write a long new post on this entire thing, and am almost happy with it.”

I can say this about Andrew: he recognized from the start that the combination of Sarah Palin and the bedazzled media’s failure
to expose her for the fraud she was and is represented a genuine and grave threat to democracy. At the time, the 2008 election result was far from certain. In her Christian dominionism, her ignorance, her willfulness, her petulance, her spitefulness and her unbalanced belief that God really had annointed her to impose her narrow view of Christianity on a sinful, secular nation, Palin posed a clear and present danger to our way of life.

And we are by no means out of those woods yet. I have no doubt that she is currently preparing for a Fall Offensive that she thinks will carry her into next year’s primaries on a wave of fresh momentum. Given the weakness of the GOP field (Donald Trump?!!) , she could still become the Republican candidate.

The campaign that would follow that calamity would tear this country apart as maybe nothing has done since the Civil War.

So be grateful that Andrew Sullivan is standing watch.

UPDATE

…and many won’t like what he says.

From the start, Andrew has made an effort to be scrupulously fair about the Trig question. For being willing to consider even the possibility that Sarah’s story was a hoax, he was derided. Today’s post is further evidence of his scrupulousness, and although I disagree with him about many things (he is a Republican, after all) I’ve never found him to argue from false premises.

However, I’m less persuaded than he is by the belated first-person accounts of Quinn and Loy.

Loy wrote the original ADN story that said what a shock it was to learn that Sarah was pregnant, because she never looked it.
Now, three years later, he suddenly remembers that, yeah, actually, she did look pregnant, I just didn’t notice it at the time? A good cross-examiner could have fun with that in a courtroom.

As for Quinn, it was widely rumored that he was romantically involved with Palin aide Ivy Frye while covering Sarah as governor for AP. He doesn’t work for AP any more. I don’t know why, but I’ve heard the story of his relationship with Fry often enough and from enough different people without axes to grind that, at the least, it gives me pause in regard to Quinn’s credibility.

But set aside questions about the motivation of these two, suddnly key “eyewitnesses,” who decided in unison to go public last week. As all cops, prosecutors and defense attorneys know, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. How about eyewitness testimony three years later?

I’m a Trignostic. I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I don’t agree with Sullivan that the “recovered memories” of Loy and Quinn (neither of whom I know, by the way) should be accepted as having significant weight.

Not only is eyewitness testimony unreliable, but these were young male reporters covering the most dazzling & sexy political figure in Alaskan history. Sarah invites them to view her (veiled) belly in private? And now–contradicting what they wrote at the time–they both decide retroactively that she was obviously pregnant?

Something about that smells like fish to me: and not like fish that even Todd Palin could sell commercially.

Sullivan says the Loy and Quinn accounts “buttress–powerfully–the case that this whole thing is a tempest in a spatula.” He finds Loy and Quinn “persuasive.” I don’t.

He’s also persuaded by this conversation that Laura Novak had with a pediatric specialist, who argues that Sarah Palin is not “weird” enough to have fabricated her whole story.

Hmm. I’m not so sure. That reminds me of the argument that friends of Jeffrey MacDonald made in his defense: he couldn’t have murdered his wife and children, because he’s not the kind of man who could have done that. Turns out that he did, and he was. So a long-distance psychological evaluation of Sarah by a pediatric specialist who’s never met her doesn’t rise to the level of evidence either.

My verdict? Jury still out. But we thank Mr. Sullivan for his testimony.

Refreshing Rationality from New Yorker’s Amy Davidson

Finally, someone who personally believes that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig respects the right of
Andrew Sullivan and others to ask legitimate questions. Amy Davidson, a senior editor at The New Yorker posts on her Close Read blog.

This is like a breath of pure oxygen after choking on the aggressive contempt spewed by Salon, HuffPo, etc. over the past few days.

I can understand skepticism. But what’s fueling the anger of MSM toward those like Andrew Sullivan, who simply keep asking questions because no one is giving answers? You would think journalists would applaud Sullivan for doing his job. Instead, so many try to marginalize and demean him. I would expect this from hack polemicists like Breitbart, but I’d really like to know what’s behind the defensiveness at MSM sites such as Salon, Slate, and HuffPo. They laugh at and scorn Sarah for everything else she says, but on this one issue she’s declared beyond reproach and taken at her word? And the thoughtful and diligent Sullivan is ridiculed for saying it does matter if Sarah’s whole bit of performance art with Trig was only that?

What could matter more? This woman almost became vice president of the United States, and still harbors hopes (because God will open the doors for her) of becoming president.

I suspect, and certainly hope, that we’ve not heard the last from Andrew Sullivan on this question. I know we haven’t heard the last from me.

Amazon.com

Amazon now has a Joe McGinniss page