"Every era gets the Boswell it deserves’"

nota bene said:

From the Columbia Journalism Review, which observes that while Michael Wolff's brand of journalism might be ugly because it prioritizes access over accountability, it's the perfect match for the Trump era:

Wolff deserves credit for producing a thoroughly readable portrait of the Trump administration’s chaos and lack of preparedness. He appears to have played a monster hand of access journalism poker, bluffing his way into the good graces of the administration by attacking mainstream reporters for critical reporting in the early months of the Trump presidency only to rake in the pot by producing a devastating account of those who considered him a sympathetic observer. He’s going to gain a lot of notoriety and make a ton of money.

…[But] Wolff’s fast-and-loose approach to the facts, summed up in Fire and Fury’s author’s note, runs the risk of overshadowing the parts of the book that are verifiably true. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In others, I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

*Access journalism means that the journalist/reporter is granted exclusive or early access to a story or individual. In exchange for the exclusivity and access, the journalist will give up part or all of their [sic] voice to scripted, framed, and/or planted messages that position the story's subject for a predetermined outcome. Simply put, access journalism says we'll give you access if you write the story we tell you.

http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/the-death-of-access-journalism-as-open-source-surges
​

Most of those who naively gave Wolff access must surely now be bitterly chagrined, but I agree that this era deserves this "Boswell."

​

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

From the Columbia Journalism Review, which observes that while Michael Wolff's brand of journalism might be ugly because it prioritizes access over accountability, it's the perfect match for the Trump era:

Wolff deserves credit for producing a thoroughly readable portrait of the Trump administration’s chaos and lack of preparedness. He appears to have played a monster hand of access journalism poker, bluffing his way into the good graces of the administration by attacking mainstream reporters for critical reporting in the early months of the Trump presidency only to rake in the pot by producing a devastating account of those who considered him a sympathetic observer. He’s going to gain a lot of notoriety and make a ton of money.

…[But] Wolff’s fast-and-loose approach to the facts, summed up in Fire and Fury’s author’s note, runs the risk of overshadowing the parts of the book that are verifiably true. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In others, I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

*Access journalism means that the journalist/reporter is granted exclusive or early access to a story or individual. In exchange for the exclusivity and access, the journalist will give up part or all of their [sic] voice to scripted, framed, and/or planted messages that position the story's subject for a predetermined outcome. Simply put, access journalism says we'll give you access if you write the story we tell you.

http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/the-death-of-access-journalism-as-open-source-surges
​

Most of those who naively gave Wolff access must surely now be bitterly chagrined, but I agree that this era deserves this "Boswell."

​

Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:

Trump, and many of his personal clingers, seem to have been Trumped. How very fitting.

I'll note that this all just seems to underscore the constant (pre-Kelly) leakage from this freaky administration. I hope the country can recover, because below the radar Trump and the GOP are railroading us into another robber baron era.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

From the Columbia Journalism Review, which observes that while Michael Wolff's brand of journalism might be ugly because it prioritizes access over accountability, it's the perfect match for the Trump era:

Wolff deserves credit for producing a thoroughly readable portrait of the Trump administration’s chaos and lack of preparedness. He appears to have played a monster hand of access journalism poker, bluffing his way into the good graces of the administration by attacking mainstream reporters for critical reporting in the early months of the Trump presidency only to rake in the pot by producing a devastating account of those who considered him a sympathetic observer. He’s going to gain a lot of notoriety and make a ton of money.

…[But] Wolff’s fast-and-loose approach to the facts, summed up in Fire and Fury’s author’s note, runs the risk of overshadowing the parts of the book that are verifiably true. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In others, I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

*Access journalism means that the journalist/reporter is granted exclusive or early access to a story or individual. In exchange for the exclusivity and access, the journalist will give up part or all of their [sic] voice to scripted, framed, and/or planted messages that position the story's subject for a predetermined outcome. Simply put, access journalism says we'll give you access if you write the story we tell you.

http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/the-death-of-access-journalism-as-open-source-surges
​

Most of those who naively gave Wolff access must surely now be bitterly chagrined, but I agree that this era deserves this "Boswell."

​

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

A super credible book when the author admits their book is full of falsehoods or unverifiable facts.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

My concern too is for the nation. The determination I see to bring down this Presidency, to thrust the nation into even more chaos and division, cannot be a good thing.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

My concern too is for the nation. The determination I see to bring down this Presidency, to thrust the nation into even more chaos and division, cannot be a good thing.

Click to expand...

Sweden said:

Comparing this fast-buck hack to the finest biographer in the English language is stretching a point. (How's that for a model of brevity, politeness and restraint?)

Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:

I don't necessarily want to see Trump removed, but he needs to be marginalized (this has already occurred somewhat) and I want to see the GOP agenda he and Pence are pushing blocked.

The bolded part is all I really care about. The rest is a distraction. If congress or the senate flips in 2018, that should help.

As for chaos and division, I don't think a day goes by where the Trump admin doesn't do something to exacerbate that - and frequently on purpose, just playing to his crazy base.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

As I've said before, the Dems need to beginning reorganizing and looking for new blood. But the attacks on this legitimately elected President began before he was sworn into office and have been relentless. We have a system in place that works--Constitutional safeguards--and what matters to me most is that the Constitution and the will of the people be followed.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

From the Columbia Journalism Review, which observes that while Michael Wolff's brand of journalism might be ugly because it prioritizes access over accountability, it's the perfect match for the Trump era:

Wolff deserves credit for producing a thoroughly readable portrait of the Trump administration’s chaos and lack of preparedness. He appears to have played a monster hand of access journalism poker, bluffing his way into the good graces of the administration by attacking mainstream reporters for critical reporting in the early months of the Trump presidency only to rake in the pot by producing a devastating account of those who considered him a sympathetic observer. He’s going to gain a lot of notoriety and make a ton of money.

…[But] Wolff’s fast-and-loose approach to the facts, summed up in Fire and Fury’s author’s note, runs the risk of overshadowing the parts of the book that are verifiably true. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In others, I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

*Access journalism means that the journalist/reporter is granted exclusive or early access to a story or individual. In exchange for the exclusivity and access, the journalist will give up part or all of their [sic] voice to scripted, framed, and/or planted messages that position the story's subject for a predetermined outcome. Simply put, access journalism says we'll give you access if you write the story we tell you.

http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/the-death-of-access-journalism-as-open-source-surges
​

Most of those who naively gave Wolff access must surely now be bitterly chagrined, but I agree that this era deserves this "Boswell."

​

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

The one thing his book proved is that the Trump administration truly is in a state of chaos. More so than anyone ever thought possible.

Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:

I don't disagree with you there. It does seem like the willingness of the 2 party system to follow rules of common decency and the Constitution have been deteriorating since at least the Gingrich/Clinton era. That isn't healthy. If I could flush these 2 parties, I would. They have become poisonous.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

As I've said before, the Dems need to beginning reorganizing and looking for new blood. But the attacks on this legitimately elected President began before he was sworn into office and have been relentless. We have a system in place that works--Constitutional safeguards--and what matters to me most is that the Constitution and the will of the people be followed.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

Does this era deserve this 'Johnson'?
Jesus, I get a shiver up my spine just comparing Trump to one of the most intelligent, erudite, articulate, well-loved figures in English literature.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

As I've said before, the Dems need to beginning reorganizing and looking for new blood. But the attacks on this legitimately elected President began before he was sworn into office and have been relentless. We have a system in place that works--Constitutional safeguards--and what matters to me most is that the Constitution and the will of the people be followed.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

From the Columbia Journalism Review, which observes that while Michael Wolff's brand of journalism might be ugly because it prioritizes access over accountability, it's the perfect match for the Trump era:

Wolff deserves credit for producing a thoroughly readable portrait of the Trump administration’s chaos and lack of preparedness. He appears to have played a monster hand of access journalism poker, bluffing his way into the good graces of the administration by attacking mainstream reporters for critical reporting in the early months of the Trump presidency only to rake in the pot by producing a devastating account of those who considered him a sympathetic observer. He’s going to gain a lot of notoriety and make a ton of money.

…[But] Wolff’s fast-and-loose approach to the facts, summed up in Fire and Fury’s author’s note, runs the risk of overshadowing the parts of the book that are verifiably true. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In others, I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

*Access journalism means that the journalist/reporter is granted exclusive or early access to a story or individual. In exchange for the exclusivity and access, the journalist will give up part or all of their [sic] voice to scripted, framed, and/or planted messages that position the story's subject for a predetermined outcome. Simply put, access journalism says we'll give you access if you write the story we tell you.

http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/the-death-of-access-journalism-as-open-source-surges
​

Most of those who naively gave Wolff access must surely now be bitterly chagrined, but I agree that this era deserves this "Boswell."

​

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

A super credible book when the author admits their book is full of falsehoods or unverifiable facts.

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

A super credible book when the author admits their book is full of falsehoods or unverifiable facts.

Click to expand...

Fearandloathing said:

I must agree that Wolf's treatment is exactly right for the Trump administration, which threw out the rule book in the truth department. As a journalist I can fully relate to his struggle as to what actually happened and what he is told. In that environment it is amazing he kept it together; we get differing versions of events from Trump himself.

And although its adequate for the times it is not journalism. The concept of obtaining anything, even information, cannot be considered at any point in the research. In my years I was offered a lot to not report some things, once a hinted at seat in the legislature. That's advertising, not journalism.

I give Wolf full credit for having captured what appears to be a consistent insight into the White House, however his "disclaimer", in my professional opinion is bull****. It is not the job of the writer to edit based on consistency, truth, or 'hunch', it is the responsibility of the writer to write what he has gathered and, in all cases, allow the reader to make the decisions.

Years ago I read a biography on General McArthur....a very interesting read, especially in the political discussions, behind the scenes, his dislike of Patton...

I was almost finished when I discovered the book left me having a less than heroic view of the man, but there was no one point in that book where you could say passed judgement.

I hold nothing against Wolf, but that biography was written when television had just gone on the air. We are different people today, we have to be told when to laugh at TV shows cued by "canned laughter",teens (and president) write and read in 144 character blocks, so Wolf's spoon feeding I suppose is a natural outgrowth of what our society has become.

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

Funny you should mention canned laugh-tracks; even when I was a little kid, I hated them and still won't watch a program that tells me when something is supposed to be funny.

I'm with you on the "disclaimer," but keep in mind that Wolff writes for the Hollywood Reporter and isn't an historian/biographer by trade. I mean, he's no Kitty Kelley, much less a Merle Miller or Robert Lacey.

Click to expand...