So, the New York Times thinks Joe McGinniss "chases caustic, unsubstantiated gossip.” That's to the Times' detriment, not McGinniss', as it apparently thinks the world still revolves around it, and that if it refuses to follow up on multiply-reported accounts of the Brad Hanson affair, it can keep claiming it's gossip. It's also laughable, at best, hypocritical at worse, for the Old Gray Lady to chastise him for using anonymous sources. And, if it's "easily available to anyone with Internet access," then why didn't the NYT report more of this itself? Or is the "readily available" only the non-"unsubstantiated"? (Paging Judith Miller, paging Judith Miller!)
Reality? Palin had every opportunity to sue the National Enquirer three years ago, when it broke the story. Even as a "public figrue," with the higher bar on libel, if the story was false, it would have been an easy win for her. "Silence gives assent," you know.
Ultimately, Janet Maslin's review, by turns tut-tutting, vaguely elitist/snooty, chiding and "inside New Yorkish" ... "yentas" in Palinville? ... says more about her and her paper than about McGinniss. (Of course, speaking of affairs, there's been "unsubstantiated gossip about Miller and Scooter Libby, and about NYT publisher Punch Sulzberger, too ... just saying)
Speaking of, Politico notes the Times' review violated a publisher's embargo. Niccceee ... hypocrisy and self-righteousness together. It also reminds us how it's not the first time the Times has shown Palin some love. And, I remember that nutbar column from the Aspen Institute person; it showed what was wrong with two institutions at the same time.
Next, the Times will probably offer her a guest columnist job.
Having now read and reviewed McGinniss' book, I see the NYT protests WAYYYYY too much. Reality? This is a solid book; everything the Times calls "gossip" actually, per the legal profession, "goes to motive," to establish Palin's character and personality.
That said, given what he says about her and her parents, I wouldn't be surprised if there were sexual abuse in her background, given that she may well be manic-depressive, have a love-hate attitude about sexuality, and may be anorexic and/or bulimic.
I also learned why the Anchorage Daily News never really followed up on Trig birth issues or other things. It's either had its collective head buried deep up her ass for a long time, or else it, too, is afraid of her.
And, speaking of .... I think the Trig birth questions that McGinniss brings up are the "gossip" that the NYT abhors. And, McGinniss has a new answer to this: Palin filed to adopt a Down's baby in order to become a symbol for anti-abortion radicals. She had to hightail it back to Mat-Su Regional Hospital from Dallas because the adoption finalized early. It makes as much sense as anything.
That said, Sam Tanenhaus looks more critically at the "art of book promotion," in the NYT's Sunday op-ed pages.
already out there. “The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power" may be much better, tis true. It's half again as long, and more thoroughly researched yet than McGinniss. From an Amazon reader:
Given the amount of material covered by this book, it is very well structured, and moves along compellingly. Dunn manages to overlap many layers of events in a way that doesn't compromise overall coherency or readability.I don't know how I missed this boo. I'll have to take a look at it perhaps in the future.
Even though there were few novelties for the tiny minority of truly seasoned Palin-watchers, Dunn reveals many bombshells which have--inconceivably--not gotten mainstream play in the slightest, including destructive behaviors which intentionally undermined the McCain/Palin campaign (or "Palin/McCain" campaign, as Sarah would have it).