Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 07, 2018

CNN's Alisyn Camerota early Thursday offered a stinging disclaimer around Michael Wolff's new book, which includes allegations and accounts of palace intrigue in the West Wing, saying it "isn't really journalism."

"We should mention that it sounds like Michael Wolff's modus operandi was to let the people he interviewed spin yarns," the "New Day" co-host said, said regarding "Fire and Fury." "And then he didn't necessarily fact-check them. He didn't necessarily need two sources," the former "Fox & Friends" host continued.

"This isn't really journalism. This is a very interesting read but in terms of the way he processed them, he admits in the author's note that he let people tell their own stories and he printed them," she concluded.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In his author's not, Wolff states he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:

"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. These 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 other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Nice to see that he admits that many of the accounts of what happened in the Trump White House "are baldly untrue."

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 09:55 PM | Reply

CNN: Wolff's book isn't really Journalism

Just like the journalistic engineered innuendo with 'Clinton Cash'.

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-07 10:00 PM | Reply

Nice to see that he admits that many of the accounts of what happened in the Trump White House "are baldly untrue."
#1 | Posted by Rightocenter a

I keep reading the article over and over but I don't see this admission. Weird.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-07 10:06 PM | Reply

I keep reading the article over and over but I don't see this admission. Weird.

#3 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2018-01-07 10:06 PM

It helps when you read things outside your personal echo chamber, President Obama would be severly disappointed in you Troofy:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in an author's note that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:

"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. These 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 other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true

Too easy.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 10:17 PM | Reply

Bears repeating:

"That looseness with the truth, if now with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book."

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 10:19 PM | Reply

Just like the journalistic engineered innuendo with 'Clinton Cash'.

#2 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-01-07 10:00 PM

I don't disagree, that was a crock of ---- as well.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 10:20 PM | Reply

The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true

#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Then Trump's cease-and-desist letter will stop the publication and distribution of this book (it won't) ...

And all these supposed fabrications in the book means Trump will sue for libel (he won't) ...

Which means this book speaks the truth of a chaotic incompetent Trump that even a blind man can see.

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-07 10:29 PM | Reply

I don't disagree, that was a crock of ---- as well.

#6 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Well, knock me over with a feather ~

#8 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-07 10:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#7

Cease and desist letters are rarely effective in stopping publication of libelous material, this will be no different since there is a ton of money to be made by people craving Lefty Porn.

#8

Unlike you Pinch, I don't slavishly adhere to blind partisanship.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 10:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Unlike you Pinch, I don't slavishly adhere to blind partisanship.

#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I've criticised the Clintons plenty of times ...

And I'm constantly referencing Eisenhower-style Republicanism, especially when it comes to how the nation spends taxpayer money.

As a patriotic American I'll never shy away from admitting out loud that I happily voted for the very qualified Hillary over the incompetent Orange Doofus.

So who's the partisan now?

You should have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and did what was best for the country by voting for Hillary.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-07 11:04 PM | Reply

Loaf,

Hillary was/is so horribly corrupt that I couldn't vote for her.

For the first time in my life I voted 3rd Party for POTUS. I couldn't vote for Trump either.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-07 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary was/is so horribly corrupt that I couldn't vote for her.

For the first time in my life I voted 3rd Party for POTUS. I couldn't vote for Trump either.

#11 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Bears repeating

There's corruption that equates to beer money ...

Then there's BIG TIME Corruption THAT WE ALL SAW WITH OUR OWN EYES that involved buying the levers of government in order to loot the United States Treasury out of trillions of dollars.

No one was mistaking Hillary for Snow White, or Bill Clinton for Merlin Olsen's version of Father Murphy for that matter. But Hillary was still, hands down, the more qualified candidate.

We Americans are often way too self-absorbed to see the forest through the trees. It happened last year, it happened in 2004, it happened in 1980.

#12 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-07 11:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You should have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and did what was best for the country by voting for Hillary.

Like Jeff, I voted for Johnson, because I couldn't stand either of them, for different reasons. The rest of my ballot, here in CA was Harris and Lieu. When was the last time you voted for someone other than a Democrat?

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-07 11:36 PM | Reply

...But Hillary was still, hands down, the more qualified candidate...

#12 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

More qualified?

No doubt.

The problem was she was equally unfit for completely different reasons.

I'm going to quote Sully - She's an objectively horrible person.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-07 11:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

When was the last time you voted for someone other than a Democrat?

#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

In 2000 when I voted for Dubya. In fact I voted for Old Man Bush and Bob Dole.

But all that changed with the on going Iraq War in 2004, especially the fiasco involving getting body armor to the troops.

And as far as I'm concerned (historically speaking) there hasn't been a Republican worth crap since Eisenhower, and even Ike had his flaws.

I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect (I'm a registered Independent), but there's no way I'll vote Republican again until they stop lying their asses off, especially over fiscal matters, and clearly distance themselves from the religious nut-job evangelicals.

#15 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-08 12:34 AM | Reply

I'm going to quote Sully - She's an objectively horrible person.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And Donald Trump is a welching loud mouthed Orange Ogre with a penchant for fondling women without their consent.

Maybe you, Sully, and RoC would be embarrassed to say out loud that you voted for a woman for president?

#16 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-08 12:42 AM | Reply

"She's an objectively horrible person."

"Horrible" isn't an objective description.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 12:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Like Jeff, I voted for Johnson, because I couldn't stand either of them, for different reasons."

Waste of a vote.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 12:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Like Jeff, I voted for Johnson, because I couldn't stand either of them, for different reasons."

Waste of a vote.

#18 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not from my perspective.

"She's an objectively horrible person."
"Horrible" isn't an objective description.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It is to any objective person who considers Hillary Clinton when voting.

And Donald Trump is a welching loud mouthed Orange Ogre with a penchant for fondling women without their consent.
Maybe you, Sully, and RoC would be embarrassed to say out loud that you voted for a woman for president?

#16 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

Put Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayotte on the ballot and I'll gladly vote for a woman for POTUS.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 12:59 AM | Reply

"It is to any objective person who considers Hillary Clinton when voting."

No, it's not.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 01:01 AM | Reply

"Not from my perspective."

Your perspective is that you didn't want either Trump or Clinton to be President, even though only one of them was going to win.

You didn't get what you wanted, so tell me, why aren't you a loser?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 01:02 AM | Reply

The book doesn't meet the highest of journalistic standards but Wolff acknowledges that. It's not an investigative report. It's fly on the wall observations.
How do we know there is a lot truth in it? Look at the reaction from the White House and Trump surrogates. Look at the non-denials. Look at the backlash against Bannon. If they quotes are fake then why doesn't he deny them? Would his financial backers turn him away because some writer falsely attributed something to him?
Look at how Steven Miller wouldn't deny things in the book in his appearance on CNN. He said a lot things that alluded to the idea it is not factual but he stops short of directly making that claim. He claims events in the book do not match his "first hand" experience but he doesn't list a single such instance. He refuses to answer questions about events described. He is asked of Trump met with the Russians at Trump Tower and says he doesn't know what happened that day but then resumes attacking the book and it's author.

#22 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-01-08 01:02 AM | Reply

How do we know there is a lot truth in it?

I've read about half of it and most of it has been reported before anyway. The book does a good job of explaining who all the players are and where they came from. The lack of organization has been pretty obvious from the beginning with many people in high level but not really defined positions. Bannon, Jarvanka and Priebus being good examples. I also did not know that Bannon and Kellyanne Conway came as a package.

The book was definitely rushed out... the editing is pretty bad.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-08 02:16 AM | Reply

Bannon and Kellyanne Conway came as a package.

The book was definitely rushed out... the editing is pretty bad.

#23 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Yeah, courtesy of the mega-billionaire Mercer Family, namely Libertarian crackpot wierdo Bob Mercer and his loutish activist daughter, Rebekah.

#24 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-08 06:19 AM | Reply

More qualified?

No doubt.

The problem was she was equally unfit for completely different reasons.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

One can't be "more qualified" and "unfit" at the same time.

Just an excuse for not doing the right thing.

#25 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-08 06:54 AM | Reply

Thread gets a "Pathetic, yet funny" flag.

"Gotta support th' team."

#26 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-08 07:57 AM | Reply

One can't be "more qualified" and "unfit" at the same time.
#25 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

Yes, they can. "more qualified" is comparative, "unfit" is a declaration.
If I need 5 things to do a job, but only have 3, I am unfit. Yet I am more qualified than someone who only has 2 of those things.

So I agree, Hillary was the more qualified candidate, yet could be considered unfit for the job.

#27 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-08 08:26 AM | Reply

Posted by Rightocenter at 09:54 PM | 27 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Tell us, do you think CNN IS journalism?

#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-01-08 10:34 AM | Reply

#28

When they do pure news 15% if the time, yes. When they do opinion and pure narrative the other 85% of the time (like Fox News at about 95% of the time), no.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-08 12:26 PM | Reply

"Hillary was/is so horribly corrupt that I couldn't vote for her.
For the first time in my life I voted 3rd Party for POTUS. I couldn't vote for Trump either."

Historically speaking, you threw away your vote.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-08 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Historically speaking, you threw away your vote.

Posted by danni at 2018-01-08 12:36 PM | Reply

The only vote thrown away is the vote not cast.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-08 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If I need 5 things to do a job, but only have 3, I am unfit. Yet I am more qualified than someone who only has 2 of those things." - #27 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-08 08:26 AM

"Unfit" and "unqualified" are not the same thing.

One can be 100% qualified for a job (based on the objective job requirements), yet can be completely unfit for it (based on subjective evaluation).

Trump fails on both accounts.

#32 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:43 PM | Reply

"...and clearly distance themselves from the religious nut-job evangelicals." - #15 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-08 12:34 AM

That actually started well before you voted for Dubya, Bob Dole and Old Man Bush:

"I know you can't endorse me. But I endorse you, and what you are doing." - Ronald Reagan, August 21, 1980, to a crowd of 15,000 evangelicals in Texas
One of many reasons why I didn't vote for Dubya, Bob Dole and Old Man Bush and, of course, Reagan.

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:56 PM | Reply

#32

Agreed, and I don't think anyone would argue that Hillary was unqualified...that still doesn't justify the coronation: Hillary, in my subjective evaluation, was just as unfit for the job as Trump was, but for mostly different reasons.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-08 04:09 PM | Reply

"We should mention that it sounds like Michael Wolff's modus operandi was to let the people he interviewed spin yarns," the "New Day" co-host said, said regarding "Fire and Fury." "And then he didn't necessarily fact-check them. He didn't necessarily need two sources," the former "Fox & Friends" host continued.

A former Fox and Friends host is complaining that someone else let people lie? Amazing. Fox and Friends is Trump's go-to megaphone for mendacious lies that support his own lies.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-08 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

""I know you can't endorse me. But I endorse you, and what you are doing." - Ronald Reagan, August 21, 1980, to a crowd of 15,000 evangelicals in Texas"

Reason enough, alone, to oppose that a*****e. Plenty of other reasons but that alone was enough. I honestly feel sorry for the morons that idolized him, they were fools. He cared nothing about average Americans, he was an actor. Never forget that, his act was pretending to care about average Americans.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:49 AM | Reply

That a Fox News host would forget about Hillary's child sex ring run out of a Washington pizza parlor is typical of Fox News. Let's be clear, anyone who gets their news from Fox is clearly an idiot.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:51 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort