Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Journalist and the Murderer” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Journalist and the Murderer

by Janet Malcolm

3.77 · Rating details · 2,412 Ratings · 246 Reviews

In two previous books, Janet Malcolm explored the hidden sides of, respectively, institutional psychoanalysis and Freudian biography. In this book, she examines the psychopathology of journalism. Using a strange and unprecedented lawsuit as her larger-than-life example -- the lawsuit of Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted murderer, against Joe McGinniss, the author of Fatal Vis ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Paperback, 163 pages

Published October 31st 1990 by Vintage (first published 1990)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Journalist and the Murderer, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Journalist and the Murderer

Lists with This Book

Best Books of 1990

200 books — 123 voters

All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein

Books by Journalists

394 books — 78 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)

filter | sort: default (?) | Rating Details

Jun 25, 2012 Katherine rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: horrid, thought-provoking, summer-2012

Well, I read this. And as I initially suspected I would, I hated it. I had just finished Fatal Vision, which includes a rebuttal to this very book - and like any good journalism student, I knew I had to read it to get the other side of the story.

I don't take Malcolm's central argument as offensive. It's true that journalists work on very shaky moral ground, all the time. And some of her reporting was very good. Reading McGinniss's letters to MacDonald really surprised me - he seemingly went out Well, I read this. And as I initially suspected I would, I hated it. I had just finished Fatal Vision, which includes a rebuttal to this very book - and like any good journalism student, I knew I had to read it to get the other side of the story.

I don't take Malcolm's central argument as offensive. It's true that journalists work on very shaky moral ground, all the time. And some of her reporting was very good. Reading McGinniss's letters to MacDonald really surprised me - he seemingly went out of his way to make Jeff think that he was still his best friend, and that I found upsetting. In fact, I would say Malcolm's case is pretty well-written and thought-provoking, if it wasn't for these couple of sentences:

"I have read little of the material he has sent - trial transcripts, motions, declarations, affidavits, reports. A document arrives, I glance at it, see words like "bloody syringe," "blue threads," "left chest puncture," "unidentified fingerprints," "Kimberly's urine," and add it to the pile. I know I cannot learn anything about MacDonald's guilt or innocence from the material. It is like looking for proof or disproof of the existence of God in a flower-- it depends on how you read the evidence. If you start out with a presumption of guilt, you read the documents one way, and another way if you presume his innocence. The material does not 'speak for itself.'"

WHAT??? With those sentences, Malcolm lost any credibility she had with me. Why? Because she simply did not do her job. She made a claim she could not support, NOT due to lack of material, but because she was lazy. She wouldn't read the physical evidence. As anyone who has read Fatal Vision knows, as anyone who was at that trial or on that jury or who worked on that case for years knows, the reason people think MacDonald is guilty is the physical evidence. The fact that she could just write all of that off -- that she thought it was below her, even though it convinced an entire jury and numerous judges and investigators, even though what hung in the balance was the murder of three people -- makes me feel nothing but disgust for her and this book.

Plain and simple, she was sloppy. And the first rule that all reporters learn is that if you screw up your reporting, you will lose your credibility. Always call that extra source. Always walk that extra block. Always walk up to one more person. Always READ ALL THE EVIDENCE.

So that pissed me off. As well as this quote: "the journalist confines himself to the clean, gentlemanly work of exposing the griefs and shames of others."

What an idiotic statement. Did she not just write a whole book on how messy and ungentlemanly journalism can be? Oy vey. I cannot handle this woman.

UPDATE 9/9/2012: I've been thinking more about this book since reading A Wilderness of Error and I wanted to add to it. The truth is that I DO find parts of Malcolm's central argument offensive. The first line: "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."

Um, no. I'm a journalist and I think what I do is completely morally defensible. I ask people questions, I get answers and I write them down. I don't take statements out of context. I make my intentions clear to every interview subject. I write what I learn, truthfully. And if I break any of these rules, I deserve to be called out for it. Journalism is central to truth. It is central to the weeding out of corruption, deception and ignorance. When journalists and their work contribute to those things instead of fighting them, then they are NOT journalists and what they do is NOT journalism. Janet Malcolm's self-indulgent book does nothing to help elucidate the motives of journalism. Instead, it proves her to be a writer more committed to writing out every convoluted thought in her head than to finding the truth. I find her book to be morally indefensible, not my profession. ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

May 29, 2011 Jimmy rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: female, non-fiction, year-1990s

If you were a journalist interviewing an alleged murderer for your story (that you've already spent many years working on), would you say things like "I believe you are innocent" (even though you didn't really believe so) in order to get him to continue talking to you? That is what Joe McGinnis did, and now the murderer is suing him. But McGinnis didn't just tell one lie, he became really good friends with his subject, even becoming part of the defense team during the trial, and continued to sen If you were a journalist interviewing an alleged murderer for your story (that you've already spent many years working on), would you say things like "I believe you are innocent" (even though you didn't really believe so) in order to get him to continue talking to you? That is what Joe McGinnis did, and now the murderer is suing him. But McGinnis didn't just tell one lie, he became really good friends with his subject, even becoming part of the defense team during the trial, and continued to send the murderer effusively friendly and encouraging letters in jail. Time and again he sided with the defense in letters and personal communications, while behind their backs he was convinced that the subject was guilty, and writing a book about it.

Janet Malcolm does a good job of bringing out the gray areas in this case. Malcolm clearly sides with MacDonald (the alleged/convicted murderer), but was still able to write intelligently about the opposite argument. I found myself siding with the journalist (McGinnis) at first. My belief was that the journalist owes his subject nothing, but he owes his readers the truth. That was his first job: to get at the truth, and how he got there may not be pretty, but is in service of something greater. Also, we don't like people who betray us, but betrayal in itself isn't a crime! Even though cheating on your girlfriend might be wrong, one shouldn't be able to sue for it. Perhaps McGinnis was a bad friend, even a bad person, but he shouldn't have answer for it in court because what it comes down to is whether or not his book qualified as libel, not whether or not he was a good friend!

But I also began to see the other side more as I read the book. One of the things that worried me was that even though McGinnis went to all the trouble of lying to his subject in order to get him to speak freely, it doesn't seem like he ended up with that much more proof than he started with. His case sounded weak (diet pills? ONE incidence of MacDonald losing his anger/using violence in his whole lifetime?). I felt that if he was gonna lie in order to prove this man guilty, then he should at least find something to justify such means. And if he didn't, he should man up and admit that he didn't. Instead, it seems he might have at one point decided that MacDonald was guilty (perhaps because it would make a more interesting book) and went on a witch hunt to find reasons to justify that decision.

As with the best nonfiction, I'm left thinking more than before, though not sure what to think. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jun 10, 2016 Jessica rated it liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: newbie defense attorneys; con art connoisseurs

I didn't find the subject matter or main character particularly engaging, but Janet Malcolm could make a trip to the tag agency interesting to me. This is the story of defense attorney Sheila McGough, who in the 1980s gets so caught up in rabid defense of her con artist client that she ends up being implicated in one of his schemes, convicted of a felony, going to prison, and being disbarred. Malcolm finds McGough a compelling if offputting figure, but I never did. Sheila is dull and sounds like ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2010 Lobstergirl rated it it was amazing

In 1979, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of the 1970 murders of his pregnant wife and two daughters, ages 5 and 2. He had asked journalist Joe McGinniss to write a book about the trial, and McGinniss was not only a close observer, but even became a member of the defense team. MacDonald and McGinniss became friends. But the publication of McGinniss' book Fatal Vision in 1983 revealed McGinniss' belief, hidden until then, that MacDonald was a lying sociopath, guilty of the murders. Furious and In 1979, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of the 1970 murders of his pregnant wife and two daughters, ages 5 and 2. He had asked journalist Joe McGinniss to write a book about the trial, and McGinniss was not only a close observer, but even became a member of the defense team. MacDonald and McGinniss became friends. But the publication of McGinniss' book Fatal Vision in 1983 revealed McGinniss' belief, hidden until then, that MacDonald was a lying sociopath, guilty of the murders. Furious and feeling betrayed, MacDonald sued McGinniss for fraud. As evidence he produced many sympathetic letters McGinniss had written to him in prison, proclaiming his outrage over the verdict. That civil trial ended in a hung jury; McGinniss eventually settled and paid MacDonald $325,000. Enter journalist Janet Malcolm, whom McGinniss and his legal team solicited in 1987 to write about MacDonald v. McGinniss. Malcolm accepted, but after a five-hour interview McGinniss bailed on the project. Malcolm wrote about the case anyway, in two long New Yorker articles which became this book.

This is great journalism and wonderful writing, clear and accessible but sometimes also surprising and provocative. Malcolm is a brilliant observer of human behavior and motivations and she's not above noting her own errors of perception or flawed assumptions. Looking at the McGinniss case provides a pretext for her to examine all feature journalism as a moral enterprise, and a power relationship between journalist and subject in which the former holds all the cards. (She begins by comparing this relationship to Stanley Milgram's experiment in which test subjects were instructed to administer what they thought were increasingly painful electric shocks to others, after which they were "debriefed" or "dehoaxed," told the real purpose of the experiment, which was to see how cruelly authoritarian they could be. The journalist's subject goes through a similarly disorienting and humiliating dehoaxing when he reads the journalist's expose, she argues.) Journalism is "morally indefensible." So how are we to take her journalism? Her confessional tone makes her seem deeply honest and frank, yet she also warns us that much "confessional work...confesses something different from what the confessor thinks he is confessing." (This is a reference to one of McGinniss' earlier books.)

In Malcolm's telling, McGinniss and his lawyers do not come off well. The writers William F. Buckley Jr. and Joseph Wambaugh, testifying on behalf of McGinniss, do not come off well. Buckley, asked by opposing counsel to define a lie, begins a discourse on Sissela Bok and Thomas Aquinas. Malcolm's discussion of MacDonald is fascinating; she is agnostic on the subject of his guilt or innocence, preferring to focus on his rhetorical blandness and the ways in which Fatal Vision foisted bizarre yet hackneyed notions of psychopathology onto him. She is struck by the graceful way he eats vending machine powdered doughnuts in a prison interview: "He handled the doughnuts - breaking off pieces and unaccountably keeping the powdered sugar under control - with the delicate dexterity of a veterinarian fixing a broken wing." Hopeful that Malcolm will write a flattering book about him, MacDonald sends her long, "unrelievedly windy" missives. "A terrible starkness and bottom-of-life direness permeated these unutterably boring letters that was like the obliterating reality of the paintings of Francis Bacon." Trying to understand how such a supposedly pathological killer can be so vapid, she finds an explanation in literature, from Philip Roth's The Counterlife: "Most people...are absolutely unoriginal, and [the novelist's:] job is to make them appear otherwise." Truman Capote and Joseph Mitchell got lucky: they found in Perry Smith and Joe Gould members "of the wonderful race of auto-fictionalizers." McGinniss, realizing he had a dud in MacDonald - a character unsuited to good nonfiction, rather than a natural Raskolnikov - and could not "prod him into being interesting," succumbed to an unjustified degree of artifice. In most journalism, Malcolm writes, "the writer ultimately tires of the subject's self-serving story, and substitutes a story of his own." As long as Malcolm is the journalist, I wouldn't complain. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Aug 29, 2007 James rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites

Jeff was accused of killing his wife and 2 children,
after 8 long years he was convicted.
Joe McGinniss wrote "Fatal Vision" about that murder and trial.

Jeff then sued McGinniss for libel,
a hung jury favored the murderer over the journalist, 5 to 1.
This book is about the deception journalists practice on people to get
"the juicy story."

The book takes a broad view of deception so the story has ideas that extend to other types of relationships.

The author has a keen wit and knows how to write ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2009 stefan rated it it was amazing

I wish I had the book with me now to quote the first line. It's something like, Any journalist who's not too cocky or ignorant knows that what he does is morally indefensible. The story -- a long essay with a lively plot and lots of reflection -- follows a lawsuit in which a convicted murderer sues a journalist over misrepresentation after allowing the journalist complete access to his defense team in his criminal trial. The case becomes a question of the legal right and more importantly the eth ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

May 05, 2015 Lisa Black rated it liked it · review of another edition

As you can see from previous reviews, the author makes a number of bizarre statements in this book.

I do not complain that she stays resolutely neutral-leaning-toward-innocent on Jeffrey MacDonald's guilt, because this book isn't supposed to be about MacDonald's guilt, it's supposed to be about Joe McGuinness's guilt. However MacDonald's guilt is revisited over and over.

My biggest complaint is that the lawsuit is disposed of relatively quickly and then the book is simply a long replaying of int ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

May 04, 2013 Lobstergirl rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: law

The crime of Sheila McGough was being Sheila McGough: an astonishingly naive and pathologically idealistic rookie lawyer who had the misfortune to take on charming, relentless con man Bob Bailes as a client. McGough defended Bailes to the point of ridiculous self-destruction, and ended up being charged and found guilty of federal offenses related to Bailes's own fraudulent cons in northern Virginia. After serving time and being released from prison, she became convinced that the government had w
The crime of Sheila McGough was being Sheila McGough: an astonishingly naive and pathologically idealistic rookie lawyer who had the misfortune to take on charming, relentless con man Bob Bailes as a client. McGough defended Bailes to the point of ridiculous self-destruction, and ended up being charged and found guilty of federal offenses related to Bailes's own fraudulent cons in northern Virginia. After serving time and being released from prison, she became convinced that the government had wrongly prosecuted her, and contacted Janet Malcolm to write about her story.

It's hard to be completely sympathetic to McGough, even though Malcolm convincingly argues that she was innocent. McGough was constantly getting in her own way, creating enemies, sabotaging her well-being. She would sometimes filibuster before judges, as they tried to get her to put a sock in it. Malcolm's analysis of trial law is on target: it's not about arriving at the truth, but about which side can shape the best narrative.

As usual Malcolm's journalism is impeccable. The portrait of McGough and her elderly parents that emerges is mundane and fascinating at the same time. Whether cooking a meal for Malcolm in the kitchen, or choosing a tote bag for her to take materials back to New York, the McGoughs get full literary treatment. Here's Malcolm as the McGoughs take her to a local breakfast establishment:

Not everyone's pulse quickens at the thought of a plate of scrambled eggs edged with strips of bacon and triangles of toast; there are those who can read the word "waffles" without a stab of delight. But those for whom the first meal of the day is imaginatively fused with the idea of promise and hope and things before they are spoiled will understand the réclame of the Western Sizzlin' restaurant on Lee Highway outside Alexandria. Here the art of the American breakfast is practiced with beautiful attentiveness and utter authority, and here no known American breakfast dish appears to have been overlooked. The first-time visitor can scarcely believe his eyes as he enters and sees the enormous horseshoe-shaped buffet on which every imaginable thing to eat in the morning is arrayed.

Here Malcolm visits the scene of an old con and finds the building blandly reconfigured:

I hurried out of the glaring sunlight into the air-conditioned coolness of the unattended lobby of 300, where Muzak played with a kind of satiric extra-chipperness, as if somehow sensing it had found its true audience: no one. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2013 Rachael rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I'm not sure why it took me this long to finally read this classic, brief book on the ethics of the journalist-subject relationship. This was a book mentioned often by my professors when I was in journalism school, but only now (through the course of research for a PhD program I'm in) did I get a chance to read it.

Malcolm touches on an issue that always struck me, too, while I worked as a reporter. Why do people speak to reporters, especially when the resulting story may be less than flattering I'm not sure why it took me this long to finally read this classic, brief book on the ethics of the journalist-subject relationship. This was a book mentioned often by my professors when I was in journalism school, but only now (through the course of research for a PhD program I'm in) did I get a chance to read it.

Malcolm touches on an issue that always struck me, too, while I worked as a reporter. Why do people speak to reporters, especially when the resulting story may be less than flattering? It never ceased to amaze me how easy it was to convince someone to talk to me, even if it was a difficult or sensitive topic. I always thought if the roles were reversed, I would run far away from a reporter :) The reporter wants a story but the subject, too, wants something: he/she wants his story told, wants publicity, wants a moment of fame, etc. Malcolm offers a perfect example of this delicate dance--the Joe McGinniss/Jeffrey MacDonald trial of 1987. McGinniss spent years with MacDonald while the latter was on trial for murdering his wife and children. What resulted was the book FATAL VISION. When MacDonald was not pleased with his portrayal in the book (he thought he and McGinniss were friends and that McGinniss would write a sympathetic tale), he sued McGinniss for fraud.

Malcolm recounts this case and talks to many of the key witnesses. At issue: does a journalist have an obligation to be completely honest with a subject, even if that honesty would, more times than not, not even result in a story? Are subjects complicit in this arrangement, willing to overlook the uneven relationship for a shot at publicity?

This is a short book (163 pages in the old copy I had) but Malcolm writes with a bit of elevated language that had me consulting my dictionary (doesn't that violate a rule of journalism to not use a big word when a simple one will do?). There was somewhat of an arrogant tone that Malcolm employs, too, but I can't quite put my finger on what makes me say that. She's a big-name journalist writing about other big-name journalists; I guess that's a different and ego-filled world that I didn't find in journalism circles in southern Minnesota.

I recommend this book for journalism students and anyone interested in the field of journalism and the ethics that go along with it. Really, it's a great book for any writer (especially a journalist or narrative nonfiction writer) because she brings up great points about the writer's role. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2013 Mommalibrarian rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

This is a lazy excuse for a book. It purports to explore the questions of the responsibility of the writer to the subject, truthfulness, libel, and freedom of the press. It consists of a scattered set of summaries of the author's interviews with the lawyers and principles in a court case in which a convicted murderer successfully sued the author of his true crime story 'for fraud and breach of contract - as an attempt "to set a new precedent whereby a reporter or author would be legally obligate ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Mar 11, 2017 Cathleen rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Fascinating examination of the dynamic between crime reporters/authors and their subjects, as well as the resulting ethical questions.

"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness..." (p. 3)

Whoa. Strong words that set the tone for a controversial debate, centered on one incendiary case.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 27, 2010 Steve Kettmann rated it liked it · review of another edition

My San Francisco Chronicle review first published in 1999:

THE CRIME OF SHEILA McGOUGH By Janet Malcolm Alfred A. Knopf; 164 pages; $22
Not many contemporary novelists, let alone nonfiction writers, stamp their work as their own the way Janet Malcolm does, and her latest book is no exception. As always, her fans will be enraptured and the rest of us will be left shaking our heads in quiet amazement. Malcolm could squeeze out a couple of hundred pages on watching paint dry and no doubt make the acc My San Francisco Chronicle review first published in 1999:

THE CRIME OF SHEILA McGOUGH By Janet Malcolm Alfred A. Knopf; 164 pages; $22
Not many contemporary novelists, let alone nonfiction writers, stamp their work as their own the way Janet Malcolm does, and her latest book is no exception. As always, her fans will be enraptured and the rest of us will be left shaking our heads in quiet amazement. Malcolm could squeeze out a couple of hundred pages on watching paint dry and no doubt make the account absorbing and rich in telling psychological detail. If nothing else, ``The Crime of Sheila McGough'' proves that. Malcolm has a profound ambivalence for her subject, and it shows. Sheila McGough emerges as a kind of hero, Malcolm keeps telling us, because she gave up everything, did jail time and was disbarred, all to help a resourceful con man named Bobby Bailes. Even when he's behind bars and McGough's on trial for having gotten sucked into his scams, she refuses to testify, since inevitably that would lead to more damning disclosures about Bailes. It's an intriguing tale, but it's one whose power to engage drains away, rather than intensifies, as Malcolm plugs away with her awesome gallery of reporter's tricks. This despite Malcolm's well-developed conceits, like the idea that con men are not failed businessmen, as many in the justice system imagine, but artists of a kind. ``That con artists are indeed artists rather than mere journeymen (like burglars) is demonstrated by their love of invention and dislike of repetition,'' Malcolm writes. ``An artist by definition is someone who refuses to repeat himself, and the con artist, accordingly, keeps introducing variations into his scam to prevent it from becoming a piece of stale and mechanical hackwork.'' The truth of this observation rings out sweetly and undeniably, like a hammer pinging as it makes clean contact. But Malcolm doesn't con herself. Much more interesting to her than the con man Bailes is the riddle of how a nice woman like McGough could let her life get so bollixed up. Malcolm dismisses the popular theory that McGough was romantically linked to Bailes, despite a secretary's testimony in court that he sent her flowers. ``Bailes was a sociopath,'` McGough's attorney tells Malcolm. ``But Sheila didn't have the ability to say, `Wait a minute, I'm doing a little bit too much for this character. Maybe I need to look out for Sheila McGough.' It's sad. There's a tragedy here. Obviously, it's still being played out today if she can't see that she did something wrong, that she took no action to protect herself.'' But this is what Malcolm finds so intriguing about McGough. She came to the law as a second career, and lacked experience when she represented Bailes. She tried to make up for it by adopting his interests, badgering various judges on his behalf and, more than anything, believing in him to the end as a wronged party. Only when he dies does she write to Malcolm and offer to tell her story. Malcolm's astonishing skill in making a point and making it well work against her. She gets across the riddle of how McGough could prattle on endlessly without any instinct for how narrative works, and she makes it clear that this quality of hers turned people against her. ``But Sheila, in any case, was not interested in telling a plausible and persuasive story,'' Malcolm writes. ``She was out for the bigger game of imparting a great number of wholly accurate and numbingly boring facts.'' Malcolm chastises herself for getting cross with McGough, often cutting her off and all but screaming at her to get to the point. The emotion of this self-chastisement is honest and even a little touching. But few would begrudge Malcolm her vexation, since most will share it -- and not want to spend too long mulling it over. Once again, Malcolm pries her way unforgettably into the human psyche, but you almost get the feeling that work on this book has given her a massive headache. Her abundant talent, her gift for portraiture (``In her representation of Bailes she was like a trailer jackknifed across a highway''), her moral imagination -- all of it seems to strain toward the open range of fresh material. That might mean new nonfiction subjects, or it might mean silencing her signature ambivalence long enough to write fiction. At one point Malcolm writes, ``The spell of any work of art can be shattered by the sound of the nasty little voice saying, `But this is ridiculous.' '' Quite so. Yet a writer as smart and unstoppable as Malcolm will keep plowing ahead, regardless of what any nasty little voices say. It will be fascinating to see where she winds up.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 20, 2013 Colleen O'Neill Conlan rated it really liked it

Shelves: cultural-studies

This story started as a two-part piece for The New Yorker. Years ago I read another long New Yorker article by Malcolm, about Sylvia Plath, and was drawn to this plain white cover by virtue of seeing Malcolm's name on the cover.

Jeff MacDonald was accused (and later convicted) of murdering his wife and two young daughters. As a way to raise money for his legal costs and to attempt to tell "the true story," he forges an arrangement with seasoned writer Joe McGinniss, in exchange for full access a This story started as a two-part piece for The New Yorker. Years ago I read another long New Yorker article by Malcolm, about Sylvia Plath, and was drawn to this plain white cover by virtue of seeing Malcolm's name on the cover.

Jeff MacDonald was accused (and later convicted) of murdering his wife and two young daughters. As a way to raise money for his legal costs and to attempt to tell "the true story," he forges an arrangement with seasoned writer Joe McGinniss, in exchange for full access and $300,000 in anticipated royalties. The two men became very close, or seemed to, with long multipage letters going back and forth between them after MacDonald's incarceration. Malcolm reprints excerpts of McGinniss's letters, and they seem like they were written by a supportive friend stunned with the news of his buddy's unfair conviction. Since McGinniss was still working on his book, he maintained this facade and their correspondence. Once Fatal Vision came out and MacDonald saw how he was portrayed, he felt duped and betrayed, and brought a civil suit against McGinniss, claiming McGinniss faked his support and belief in MacDonald's innocence in order to remain in his inner circle. The result was hung jury, with five of six jurors siding with MacDonald.

This civil suit forms the core of Malcolm's book. She takes a close look at the case and is able to interview those involved, including MacDonald, McGinnis, the lawyers, jurors, and expert witnesses. But more so, she explores the ethics of any journalist-subject relationship, including her own role as journalist in this story. Toward the end of her story she recalls reviewing her own letters to MacDonald, and compares them to McGinniss's: "I find my letters as unpleasant as McGinniss's. It is not so much what they say that bothers me as their self-satisfied tone and their fundamental falseness—the falseness that is built into the writer-subject relationship...[which] seems to depend for its life on a kind of fuzziness and murkiness, if not utter covertness, of purpose."

This isn't a long book, but it's intricate, so it took time to digest. You've got two men, both macho, alpha guys. One is Jeff and one is Joe, one is MacDonald and one is McGinniss. The closeness in names had me a little confused at first. One's a bad guy (convicted killer) who come out seeming almost like the good guy, or at least, the wronged guy. One's a good guy (truth-seeking journalist) who comes out looking like a bad guy, or at least a false con-man type. Tricky stuff, and makes for good reading.

...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2012 Khris Sellin rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I had to reread this after Errol Morris quoted from it so heavily in his book A Wilderness of Error, and since he criticized Malcolm for her not wanting to read all the trial transcripts and reams and reams of evidence and correspondence sent to her by Jeffrey MacDonald trying to convince her of his innocence. But her book was not concerned with his guilt or innocence. That book had already been written. She was focusing on the role of the journalist and his ethical/moral duty, if any, to his su ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 19, 2014 GT rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I'd always heard about the New Yorker article that delved into the ethics of what author Joe McGinniss supposedly did to the subject of his famous True Crime book, Fatal Vision. Dr Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted multiple murderer, accused McGinniss of lying and otherwise falsely representing himself and his intentions when he imbedded himself in the MacDonald defense. MacDonald successfully brought a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

Very well written with arguments on both sides. For me, I ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2014 Emma rated it it was ok · review of another edition

This is a quick read that raised valid concerns regarding the morality of journalism. I think I have marked too many essays because all I kept thinking was, 'this is an interesting perspective let down by too many direct quotations, which left the work lacking cohesion'. Then the afterword declared that she has to 'translate' these quotes from 'recorderese' to make them more easily digestible for the reader. And she refused to read all of the case files because, ostensibly, there is no such thin ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 11, 2017 Casey rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I love this book. The central argument really challenged me. I'm a journalist who spends a long time with subjects. You do, over the course of a year, develop a different kind of relationship than you would in a breaking news situation. Subjects eventually forget that you're writing down everything they say. I've never gone so far as McInnis to fake a friendship, all the while cultivating a fanning portrait, but I find Malcom's central challenge one worth remembering as I do this work. We do use ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 10, 2017 Ksenia Anske rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Like a hammer on my head, this book. Glad I read it. Now I understand the unease I felt when I was written about, and the startled reactions of my subjects after they read what I wrote about them. Journalism is a double-edged sword, and the moral dilemma of the obligation to tell the truth versus the factuality of the truth as seen by the journalist and the means by which it was recorded (or not) and the ways it can be interpreted by the audience is a game you have to know how to dance. A misste ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2016 Natalie Cannon rated it did not like it · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. [Trigger Warnings for murder and swearing]

Oh God. This book.

Here's a summary, through which my tone will convey what I thought about this shindig: As noted later by numerous psychologists, army doctor Macdonald has diagnosable narcissistic and antisocial tendencies. His masculinity is as fragile as a wedding topper. His wife Collette goes back to school, and he feels threatened about it. Macdonald takes some meth, murders pregnant Collette and their two younger daughters, and blames it on some h [Trigger Warnings for murder and swearing]

Oh God. This book.

Here's a summary, through which my tone will convey what I thought about this shindig: As noted later by numerous psychologists, army doctor Macdonald has diagnosable narcissistic and antisocial tendencies. His masculinity is as fragile as a wedding topper. His wife Collette goes back to school, and he feels threatened about it. Macdonald takes some meth, murders pregnant Collette and their two younger daughters, and blames it on some hippies who somehow broke into a military base, murdered his family (while leaving him alive), and escaped without anyone seeing them or leaving any evidence behind. All while on acid.

The news story gets big. MacDonald goes on a talk show and acts like everything is fine, which is weird because his family literally just died. MacDonald hires noted inside scoop lover Joe McGinniss to write a book about his upcoming court case, giving McGinniss access to the entire defense team and experience. McGinniss signs a contract saying he can write what he wants as long as he maintains MacDonald's personal integrity. While preparing the case, MacDonald and McGinniss become best friends with homoerotic undertones. It's uncomfortable.

During the murder trial, McGinniss slowly realizes that MacDonald might have actually murdered his family. This doesn't sink in until after MacDonald is convicted, sent to jail, and starts exchanging tearful love letters to McGinniss.

The letters last four years, during which McGinniss' replies become colder and colder and MacDonald more desperate. The letters become even more uncomfortable because McGinniss is obviously exploiting MacDonald for information and book rights. MacDonald thinks that McGinniss' book will be about MacDonald as a Tortured Innocent. McGinniss is disappointed that MacDonald is not Hannibal Lector and instead a slightly charismatic, macho jerk who likes to be the center of media attention. McGinniss publishes his book, FATAL VISION, that paints MacDonald as Hannibal Lector anyway.

MacDonald finds out about this after the book is published, while he is being interviewed on live television about it. MacDonald sues McGinniss for violating his contract where he super pinky promised to maintain MacDonald's integrity. The jury at the trial, reporters/the journalist community, Malcolm (our erstwhile author), and literally everyone on the freakin' planet think McGinniss made a Dick Move, even if MacDonald did murder his family. McGinniss does not admit to the fact that he was a Dick and instead laughs a lot on live television. This makes everyone dislike him more. McGinniss and MacDonald settle the suit out of court, with hefty paychecks. MacDonald also gets a lot of hate mail while in prison. The End.

*HUGE SIGH*

Oh God. Yeah, so that's the book, except for some very weird rabbit trails into love affairs, out-of-date Freudian psychology, inaccurate allusions to Dickens and Romantic British literature, New England classism, and the basic morals of nonfiction writing, which can all be boiled down to the following: Don't Be A Dick About It, Writers Sometimes Have To Slightly Agree With People To Do Their Job Even If They Don't Actually Agree, and If You Get Really Chummy With A Subject, You Should Give Them A Head's Up If You're Going To Shit On Them In An Article/Book. The only people who made a modicum of sense were the prosecution lawyer, the two journalists interviewed in the trial, an elderly black woman on the jury, and an elderly Jewish psychologist with a working class background.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggghhhhhhhh.
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 09, 2015 Margaret rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, american, crime, journalism

Back in my younger and more vulnerable years, I did high school journalism and one of the big concerns was how to report on minors, considering at least 3/4 of the people in the school were under the age of 18. There's a lot of legal precedent to treat high school journalists with the same privileges as working journalists, but at the same time there is a lot of push back from principals who have concerns about parents calling, or even worse, suing. When we reported we always had to be super awa Back in my younger and more vulnerable years, I did high school journalism and one of the big concerns was how to report on minors, considering at least 3/4 of the people in the school were under the age of 18. There's a lot of legal precedent to treat high school journalists with the same privileges as working journalists, but at the same time there is a lot of push back from principals who have concerns about parents calling, or even worse, suing. When we reported we always had to be super aware of all these concerns, and have a lot of reason to address any of those sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll topics especially when interviewing fellow students.

So, when there's a book that combines thorny issues of journalism ethics and crime writing, it was something I had to check out.

Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald's family is brutally murdered, and he is the only active suspect at the time. A military court comes to the conclusion he was not responsible, but the opposite happens when it's take to a civilian jury trial. During the jury trial, MacDonald needs a way to pay his lawyers and comes up with a book deal, where he would retain some of the profits of the book to fund his defense. Joe McGinniss, the journalist who eventually is hired, decides that he believes MacDonald is guilty of the murders of his pregnant wife and young daughters and writes the book to damn MacDonald in the court of public opinion.

MacDonald and his lawyers do not like this and sue.

Janet Malcolm dissects the ethics of New Journalism with respect to this case (what happens when the journalist becomes part of the story?) and what it means to have a journalist actually separate from the work. There's the unwritten social contract between journalist and subject that the journalist can write almost what they want. On the other hand, journalists don't want to burn bridges with sources. "And [the interviewees] still say yes when journalists call, and still they are astonished when they see the flash of the knife," Malcolm concludes.

The facts of the MacDonald case aren't the issue, and frankly with the evidence present gives almost no insight into whether MacDonald is insane, consciously murdered his family, or is totally innocent. It's like one those unsatisfying episodes of "Dateline" where we can never know for sure.

What we can know it that the relationship between journalists and their subjects is hazy at best, and how much lying the journalist can do in order to get the scoop is still up for debate. McGinniss definitely crossed some lines, but where that exact line is Malcolm discusses but cannot conclude for sure.

Recommended to read along side some modern true crime, like In Cold Blood or The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 11, 2013 poingu rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction

As a journalist I've often experienced the condition Janet Malcolm dissects so masterfully here--the way my job--and just the act of writing 'nonfiction' itself--requires me to don a persona with interview subjects that will give me the best chance of getting the information I need for a story, or to shape the events I report on into a narrative that will give satisfaction to my readers. Malcolm isn't talking about breaches of journalistic ethics here, but rather, she examines the simple, unavoi As a journalist I've often experienced the condition Janet Malcolm dissects so masterfully here--the way my job--and just the act of writing 'nonfiction' itself--requires me to don a persona with interview subjects that will give me the best chance of getting the information I need for a story, or to shape the events I report on into a narrative that will give satisfaction to my readers. Malcolm isn't talking about breaches of journalistic ethics here, but rather, she examines the simple, unavoidable necessity journalists have to make their stories compelling. Journalists do this by choosing sides, even if they believe themselves to be balanced (or "fair and balanced," as some would say). They tell the story in a way that bolsters their points of view and that appeals to their readers. Just committing the act of writing one word after another commits a writer to a certain set of conclusions. Malcolm examines this process with a greatness of heart that left me with a far greater awareness of the way I've been making these choices throughout my career.

Malcolm goes deeper than just examining the journalist's role, however. She also drills home the message that in many contexts the people with the best story to tell are the people who get what they want, and who get people to believe their story...whether it be lawyers telling the "true story" to a jury, or journalists adopting a certain level of jovial banter with interview subject they plan to excoriate in print, or suspected criminals trying to convince others that they are telling the truth. Why do we care so much that a suspect sound 'truthful?' What does that mean, anyway? Do we convict people because we don't like them? How is our idea of "truth" shaped by our human desire to hear a good story, or to fit people into certain categories that match our perception of "a good person" or "a wicked person" or "a trustworthy person?"

These are the kinds of questions Malcolm examines. The book is all the more rewarding for her willingness to put her own journalistic practices and beliefs under intense scrutiny as the book progresses.

A marvelous, eye-opening, self-reflective book. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 29, 2015 Peter Boyle rated it really liked it

I was one of the millions of listeners recently captivated by Serial, the true crime podcast phenomenon. Thursdays just aren't the same without Sarah Koenig's dogged, self-conscious probing of the unconvincing convict Adnan Syed - I even miss the "Mail Kimp?" jokes. In the course of reading everything I could about the case, this book The Journalist and The Murderer kept popping up - so naturally I had to see what all the fuss was about.

In 1970 Dr Jeffrey MacDonald's wife and kids were brutally ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 26, 2013 Koeeoaddi rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: recreational-outrage

Update: Fascinating book! I was expecting a bit more of her conversations with McGinnis and would have been interested in whether or not her own view of MacDonald's guilt or innocence had changed in the course of the project. It struck me as an oddly chilly book, though completely engrossing.

Apparently Joe McGinnis has written a rebuttal at the end of his new edition of Fatal Vision:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...

~~~

I don't know what to think about this book. It's certainly holding my a ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 02, 2015 Kevin A. rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Journalists hated this book, and by extension Malcolm, sufficiently that she found few allies in the fourth estate during her own libel trial. But it strikes me as an intelligent and philosophical take on the nature of the relationship between journalist and subject.

One does not need to wholly buy into Malcolm's conclusions to recognize the conflicting agendas of journalist and source. Or to see that the journalist, to preserve access, often will mislead the subject about how much in conflict th ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2012 Caroline rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2013

Late last year I made a crack at Fatal Vision, a behemoth of a book about the case against Jeff MacDonald for the brutal murder of his family. Author Joe McGinniss' case is so incredibly biased and poorly argued that I gave up a few hundred pages in.

The Journalist and the Murderer explores the relationship (and subsequent civil suit) between McGinniss and MacDonald as a tool to discuss the relationship of journalist and subject. McGinniss spent years feigning deep friendship with MacDonald whil ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 03, 2014 Kate rated it really liked it

Recommended to Kate by: Ann and Michael- BOTNS

Shelves: botns-recommendations, 2014-books

Being hooked on the Serial Podcast, I was intrigued when Ann and Michael discussed this volume on the BOTNS podcast. I knew most of the facts of the case, but I had forgotten the details surrounding Jeffrey MacDonald's conviction for murdering his pregnant wife and their two daughters. Author Joe McGiniss was embedded with MacDonald and the defense during his second trial and ultimately wrote a novel Fatal Vision, which clearly agreed MacDonald was the killer. A lawsuit ensued for libel and Jane ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 30, 2014 Jake rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: true-crime

(4.5) This was recommended to me after listening to Serial and I'm glad I checked it out. Goes into depth of the relationship between a journalist and their subject with the MacDonald vs. McGuiness case serving as a backdrop. I found the interviews with other journalists compelling, as well as Malcolm's inner monologue. The bottom line: we all craft narratives of people to help us understand them. Journalists are no different. They have a story to tell. The responsibility of the listener/reader ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 22, 2015 Tim Andrews rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Delightfully written with multiple layers of irony (fortunately only subtly alluded to by the author; we were spared the sledgehammer many others would employ), this should be required reading not only as an incisive insight into the world of media and journalism, but its analysis into interpersonal relationships, psychology, and indeed our sense of self.

Highly recommended.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 27, 2013 Philip Bardach rated it really liked it

What starts out as a bit of a dubious thesis regarding the inherent immorality of journalists actually makes for a very persuasive (and brilliantly written) argument of the slippery ethics that journalism constantly finds itself in. The book also doubles as a tight, engrossing narrative of the MacDonald v. McGinniss trial and the issues surrounding the case.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2012 Mary Ronan Drew rated it liked it · review of another edition

Janet Malcolm's book about the MacDonald murders is an examination of the ethical issues of journalists lying to subjects to get them to share information they otherwise would not want the journalist to know. She sees the conduct of Joe McGinniss as he was writing his book about the case, Fatal Vision, as unethical.

2011 No 186

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Language > Writing

12 users

Psychology

10 users

Biography

9 users

Mystery

7 users

See top shelves…

About Janet Malcolm

Janet Malcolm is a journalist, biographer, collagist, and staff writer at The New Yorker. She is the author of In the Freud Archives and The Crime of Sheila McGough , as well as biographies of Gertrude Stein, Sylvia Plath, and Anton Chekhov.

The Modern Library chose her controversial book The Journalist and the Murderer — with its infamous first line — as one of the 100 best non-fiction ...more

More about Janet Malcolm...

Books by Janet Malcolm

The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes

Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession

Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial

More…

Share This Book

+ Share on your website

Trivia About The Journalist an...

9 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Journalist an...

“Every journalist who is not too stupid or 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.” — 18 likes

“Something seems to happen to people when they meet a journalist, and what happens is exactly the opposite of what one would expect. One would think that extreme wariness and caution would be the order of the day, but in fact childish trust and impetuosity are far more common. The journalistic encounter seems to have the same regressive effect on a subject as the psychoanalytic encounter. The subject becomes a kind of child of the writer, regarding him as a permissive, all-accepting, all-forgiving mother, and expecting that the book will be written by her. Of course, the book is written by the strict, all-noticing, unforgiving father.” — 7 likes

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Journalist and the Murderer
avg rating	preview: The Journalist and the Murderer Goodreads rating: 3.77 (2412 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750596.The_Journalist_and_the_Murderer?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1325542076l/750596.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750596.The_Journalist_and_the_Murderer?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm[/url]

See a Problem?

Preview — The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm

The Journalist and the Murderer

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

About Janet Malcolm

Books by Janet Malcolm

Share This Book

Share on your website

Trivia About The Journalist an...

Quotes from The Journalist an...