What’s it about?: Janet Malcolm‘s study on the ethics of journalism, examining the professional choices that shape a work of nonfiction. It was originally published as a multi-part essay for The New Yorker. The journalist and murderer discussed are Joe McGinniss, and former Green Beret doctor Jeffrey R. MacDonald, respectively. MacDonald was the subject of McGinniss’s book, Fatal Vision.
My opinion: To pigeonhole this book as “true crime” would be an embarrassing disservice. It is a fascinating case study on ethics in journalism (and not video game journalism). Definitely food for thought, as Malcolm’s books always are. Consider the opening paragraph:
“Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction learns—when the article or book appears—his hard lesson. Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and ‘the public’s right to know’; the least talented talk about Art, the seemliest murmur about earning a living.”
I have a lot of respect for authors who take on tough subjects. Malcolm’s account of MacDonald’s contentious trial — and McGinniss’s writing on it — is very powerful, especially when read in today’s world of fake news. We’re talking about the practice of gaining a subject’s trust, obtaining sensitive information from them, and then distorting the truth to suit a narrative that sells newspapers and books. She portrays journalism as inherently psychopathic, and that the distortion of truth is part and parcel with the profession. That this text is both a work of journalism and an indictment of nature of the profession is incredible.
The question that runs throughout Malcolm’s text is, At what point does a journalist cross the line? Are multiple factual inaccuracies and outright lies acceptable in any context, as was the case with McGinniss, as he interviewed the Green Beret doctor accused of murdering his wife? We’re talking about fabrications that go far beyond the occasional honest mistake, by a huge margin, which is why McGinniss was forced to pay MacDonald a six-figure settlement.
Although Malcolm doesn’t clearly define what a “good” journalist is, the text does focus on the relationship between data and interpretation as the key to how journalism is practiced as a profession. It would have helped if she had expanded on this more, specifically in relation to how journalists can conduct themselves responsibly and ethically. Instead, the conclusion is that the distortion of truth is always there, and that the subject is always at a disadvantage. Malcolm definitely challenges the reader to consider the role of journalist as both a storyteller and a confidence man.
I wouldn’t consider The Journalist and the Murderer to be the definitive text on how journalists conduct themselves when reporting on a controversial story, but one of several. It is very good, well worth reading, and a valuable insight into just how far a journalist will go for the sake of the story. It sits comfortably with The Brass Check and Trust Me, I’m Lying, for any reader trying to understand where news comes from and what its biases are.
Definitely would recommend.
Lawrence Deveney 