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

Janet Malcolm

3.79 · Rating details · 3,276 ratings · 349 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

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.

Lists with This Book

Best Books of 1990

317 books — 160 voters

All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein

The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam

Books by Journalists

408 books — 94 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.79 ·

Rating details

· 3,276 ratings · 349 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Journalist and the Murderer

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

Shelves: thought-provoking, summer-2012, horrid

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 31 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 13 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 11 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 6 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2019 Mehrsa rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

It’s such a treat to read a well-written book. I have nothing at all to say about her factual assertions, but this is a masterclass in exploring the ethics of journalism (and law to a certain extent). And she writes it with an open and nimble mind. It’s probably required reading for journalism students—hopefully it is.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Aug 31, 2018 AC added it · review of another edition

Shelves: true-crime, sociopaths

I love Malcolm's intelligence and her analytical mind. This book is a bit more complex and convoluted than the book on Jeffrey Masson -- and so is not quite as good. The Afterword is especially indulgent. So if you haven't read Malcolm, read In the Freud Archives first.

flag 6 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 5 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 7 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

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 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 31, 2019 Richard Moss rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2019

Despite being written 30 years ago, in an age before social media, podcasts and (the concept of) "fake news", Janet Malcolm's reflection on journalistic morality and true crime still has resonance and bite.

The Journalist and the Murderer starts with a provocative opening sentence: "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."

Her particular focus is a court case which followed involving convicted murderer Jef Despite being written 30 years ago, in an age before social media, podcasts and (the concept of) "fake news", Janet Malcolm's reflection on journalistic morality and true crime still has resonance and bite.

The Journalist and the Murderer starts with a provocative opening sentence: "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."

Her particular focus is a court case which followed involving convicted murderer Jeffrey Macdonald.

But this wasn't Macdonald on trial. Instead Macdonald was suing writer Joe McGinnis for what he'd written about him,

Macdonald had considered McGinnis a friend after he was invited behind the scenes with him and his defence team ahead of the murder trial.

But when he was convicted and read McGinnis' account of his time with Macdonald, he realised that his "friend" had always believed he was guilty of killing his wife and children.

At the centre of that trial were letters McGinnis sent to Macdonald in prison, which certainly give the impression that McGinnis was firmly on his side.

Malcolm questions the ethics. Was it fine for McGinnis to mislead Macdonald - who he believed was a dangerous killer - to ensure he stayed on board and he could complete his book? Or despite what Macdonald was convicted of, was what he did unacceptable?

The court came to its own conclusion, but it's the reader here who must weigh the evidence. Malcolm talks to a range of the protagonists - including Macdonald - to assess the arguments. Her contact with McGinnis though is sadly brief, as he decides not to co-operate.

As a journalist myself, it certainly raised questions with me. Malcolm comes to the conclusion that McGinnis' approach was not ethical, and I tend to agree. Despite Macdonald's conviction for a crime that is horrific (albeit one he continues to deny he committed), it seems to me McGinnis' lies were not justified.

Perhaps he didn't need to spell out to Macdonald that he thought he was a murderous Narcissist, but he could have behaved more neutrally, retaining a journalistic objectivity publicly, avoiding compromising himself.

Others though in the profession may take a different view, but Malcolm's exploration of the case is well worth exploring both for journalists and the general reader. And the recent explosion of true crime podcasts makes it as relevant now as it was in 1989.

One note though. if you are interested in the Macdonald case more generally, probably best not to start here. This is not a true crime book, but more of an exploration of ethics. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2019 Ben Loory rated it really liked it · review of another edition

The court case itself is fascinating—I love the idea of a murderer suing a journalist for lying to him in order to get to the truth of his case—but mostly this whole book just made me want to read Fatal Vision instead (a lot of this just felt like a long book review). I did love the part about "tape recorderese" and how part of a journalist's job these days is to rephrase people's actual (stumbling, repetitive, constantly tangentializing and largely incoherent) speech into "real" organized quota ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 30, 2018 James Hayman rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Fascinating addendum to Joe McGuiness's Fatal Vision.

flag 3 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 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 11, 2020 Bryan Metzger rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I read the entirety of this book in one sitting today, a feat at once uncommon and satisfactory, but admittedly enabled by the fact that this 163 page book is in fact an essay originally published in the pages of The New Yorker. Malcolm takes a fascinating saga involving a libel lawsuit and gruesome murder and uses it to make a general point about the problematic relationship between the journalist and the subject. In the process, she likens the journalist to a con-man or swindler who inevitably I read the entirety of this book in one sitting today, a feat at once uncommon and satisfactory, but admittedly enabled by the fact that this 163 page book is in fact an essay originally published in the pages of The New Yorker. Malcolm takes a fascinating saga involving a libel lawsuit and gruesome murder and uses it to make a general point about the problematic relationship between the journalist and the subject. In the process, she likens the journalist to a con-man or swindler who inevitably betrays the trust of their all too naive subject, regardless of scope or context. It's a fantastic read for anyone interested in the profession of journalism, even a newcomer such as myself.

As I read, I frequently thought back to previous interviews I've conducted-- both for my honors thesis and for particular stories-- with individuals that I personally found reprehensible. One observation I've had is that these subjects are often among my most friendly interviewees, indicating a certain level of trust and confidence in me that is probably unwarranted. I have yet to truly betray the trust of any of these subjects, at least in a clearly identifiable manner, but I know that the day will likely come. The question of what a journalist owes to their subjects-- and how a journalist's supposed devotion to the truth can seemingly justify varying levels of deception towards the subject-- is a question without a clear answer. Indeed, Malcolm never attempts to answer it herself.

A line that continues to resonate with me appears on the penultimate page of Malcolm's essay:

"If [the subject] has nothing to lose anymore from his encounters with writers, a writer has little to gain from him."

The idea that the game of journalism is so zero-sum is one that sits uncomfortably with me. Can't it be the case that someone is furthering their own interests by speaking with me, even as I further what I would consider to be the general interest by pursuing a story? Must there always be this tension? If there isn't, am I failing as a journalist? I don't feel that I have enough journalistic experience to answer these questions now, but I can be sure that they'll remain with me as long as I pursue this profession. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 26, 2019 Lauren Hawkins rated it liked it

I started this nonfiction tale out on a good note—although I went into it thinking that the story would be more of a true crime narrative than an examination of the journalist-subject relationship, I was still interested.

Over time though, the story dragged on even though it's only 163 pages, which is never a good sign. I blame this mostly on there not seeming to be a point to the book as a whole.

I understand that Malcolm is examining this relationship that all journalists face with their subjec ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 19, 2019 Alison Hardtmann rated it really liked it

Shelves: library-book

In The Journalist and the Murderer Janet Malcolm examines the relationship between the journalist and his subject, through the example of Joe McGinness and Jeffrey MacDonald, the subject of McGinness's best-selling book, Fatal Vision. McGinness was invited into the inner circle of MacDonald's defense team and he spent hours with MacDonald, and he continued to write friendly letters to MacDonald after MacDonald's conviction for the murder of his wife and daughters. When MacDonald read the book, h ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 18, 2018 Suju rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Finally read this classic and it is great. A remarkably nuanced take on the relationship between writer and subject in the non-fiction world with no easy answers. It made me think and that's always a good thing.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 07, 2018 Anders Furze rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This is a masterpiece of non-fiction, on so many levels. Gah!

flag 2 likes · 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 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

Sep 25, 2017 Joe Rodeck rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of murdering his wife and kids and who invented a Manson Murders cover fiction, sues Joe McGinnis who wrote his story in Fatal Vision. (One should watch the movie or read Fatal Vision first.)

Partial premise: If Freedom of the Press means Freedom to Lie, perhaps its not something worth fighting for. Basically, the author cozies up to his subject with sympathy and beer buddy behavior all the while fixing to do him in.

It's about journalism ethics, freedom of the pres ...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

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 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 26, 2020 Sunny Yu rated it really liked it · review of another edition

In the classic The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm argues that in the encounter between the journalists and their subjects, the relationship dynamic is always dominated by the journalists, who end up betraying the interviewees no matter how they behave in the actual interview process. Malcolm looked into the MacDonald v. McGinniss case and bases her argument on the disappointment and rage that typical journalism subjects experience. Although Malcolm’s argument is overly pessimistic, t In the classic The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm argues that in the encounter between the journalists and their subjects, the relationship dynamic is always dominated by the journalists, who end up betraying the interviewees no matter how they behave in the actual interview process. Malcolm looked into the MacDonald v. McGinniss case and bases her argument on the disappointment and rage that typical journalism subjects experience. Although Malcolm’s argument is overly pessimistic, the book presents an interesting point of view of the journalism-subject dynamic: journalists hold more power than the generally ignorant and innocent subjects.

The book, a reflection on the classic case of betrayal, starts with the line that echoes with many journalism subjects: “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.” The statement seems out of place, but its essence does hold water. Many journalists misquote their interviewees to fit their own purposes and presentation of an issue or opinion, and many even engage in the treacherous process of deceiving and misleading their subjects in the interview process to grasp the information they need—similar to the case in The Journalist and the Murderer where McGinniss gains MacDonald’s trust by relating to his own personal experiences but always believed the interviewee guilty from the very beginning.

In Becoming the News by Ruth Palmer, the researcher has interviewed more than eighty previous news subjects—many of whom have similar experiences of being betrayed by the journalists whose intentions did not align with those of the subjects. The seemingly overstatement, as a result, becomes a relatively accurate snapshot of the journalist-subject encounter where the journalist gains their trust and betray them “without remorse”.

Even in her own process as a journalist when crafting the book, Malcolm testifies the vicious relationship by possibly betraying her subjects, including both MacDonald and McGinniss. In the last section of the book, she becomes the journalist again in the interaction with McDonald, and she ends the book with betrayal (which also supports her argument) as she refuses to answer the long letters from the pathetic subject who still held hope in the journalist. The book itself, a process of a journalist reporting different stories that target various subjects to fit her own purposes, is the evidence for the argument that the journalist is the actual murderer of truth.

Even in the trial of McDonald v. McGinniss, the distinction between “untruth” and “lies” become an important clash point. While the lawyer of the plaintiff argue that even a criminal deserves the protection from fraud and intended harm, the lawyer on the other side used the First Amendment to defend the freedom of speech, which becomes a common defense of authors and journalists, who even testified in court against McDonald. “Untruth”, according to Krostein, the lawyer of McGinniss, is unlike “lies” that are of bad intentions and ill purposes.

Whether it is a lie or an untruth, the case (the focus of the book) reminds people of the power journalists have and the dangerous relationships. “Something seems to happen to people when they meet a journalist,” writes Malcolm, “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 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.”

Malcolm perfectly characterizes the relationship and the contrast between expectations and reality and the psychology behind them: the attention-craving subjects become incredulous and powerless in the face of journalists as they have the optimistic tendency of trusting someone who promises to act in their favor. On the other hand, the cruel reality is that journalists have their own biases and perspectives, and their stories were formed even before the interview, as the quotes and information only serve to strengthen the journalists’ biases. In such a process, the truth is murdered by the journalists with the so-called “untruth”.

The “blind self absorption” and “journalist’s skepticism” result in the universal relationship dynamic and even the common distrust of the media industry in general by the public. Because of the betrayals and corresponding shocks, people no longer trust the journalists.

Malcolm ignored the one important aspect: the merits of journalism. Despite Malcolm’s mockery, journalists hold important responsibilities in society. During the time of global dilemmas, it is especially important that people are consuming the right information. Misinformation and fake news would lead to public anxiety—they would permeate a common sense of distrust and fear in society, which only worsens the situation. The fake news also serves to mislead and confuse the audiences. Thus, it is the responsibilities of the journalists to fact check and present ethical journalism to the news consumers who rely on the sources to obtain information and form their understanding of the event. And public needs to trust journalists in order to consume the information.

Journalists need to make the ethical choices to preserve the trust, the correct image of their own integrity, and most importantly, the value of journalism in society. Journalists have to stop the murder of truth and give voices to more representations, whether the murder can be justified as manslaughter or not. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2018 Matthew Ogborn rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Short, sharp, shock to the system especially for a journalist like me whose stock in trade are in-depth interviews and books. Malcolm is very adept at explaining the curious balance between journalist/author and subject. Her writing style is fascinating and I will seek out more of her books now.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2016 Ben rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This book is next-level good. It feels like a satire of In Cold Blood with psychoanalytic leanings, accompanied by Janet Malcolm's brutal character analyses and stabbing insights.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 12, 2019 zhixin rated it really liked it · review of another edition

The lawsuit of MacDonald vs McGinniss is a fascinating one: MacDonald, a convicted murderer of his pregnant wife and two children, sues the journalist, McGinniss, whom he had enlisted to write about him in the process of the murder trial, under the assumption that the book would be a portrayal of his innocence. It wasn't. Despite a contract that released McGinniss to write whatever he wanted, MacDonald thought he had enough of a case to sue McGinniss for fraud. The result was a hung jury; McGinn The lawsuit of MacDonald vs McGinniss is a fascinating one: MacDonald, a convicted murderer of his pregnant wife and two children, sues the journalist, McGinniss, whom he had enlisted to write about him in the process of the murder trial, under the assumption that the book would be a portrayal of his innocence. It wasn't. Despite a contract that released McGinniss to write whatever he wanted, MacDonald thought he had enough of a case to sue McGinniss for fraud. The result was a hung jury; McGinniss settled it out of court by giving MacDonald $325k.

The Journalist and the Murderer uses the lawsuit of MacDonald vs McGinniss to dive into the workings of journalism -- specifically, long-form journalism that involves a series of interviews with one or more subjects -- and the duplicity involved in this endeavour. It is a delightful read, because it touches on so many human topics: the social lubrication each of us engages in to varying extents (and the moral ambiguity of hypocrisy), the fascination afforded by a writer's (or perhaps anyone else's!) attention, the ways our narrative expectations influence our judgement of people, especially consequential in a trial. Malcolm does a deft job in laying out the grey areas brought out to light by the case; her various musings of the writer-subject relationship (and by extension, human nature) are a pleasure to contemplate, affording many chuckles of acknowledgement and agreement, along with that particular thrill of having a felt experience articulated so lucidly.

Example: Malcolm talks about the reasons why a subject would be so unwise as to spill out their heart and soul to a journalist: she likens the subject to Scheherazade, living in fear of being found uninteresting by the writer. In gaining the subject's trust, necessary for the journalist to unveil further depths of a subject as a character, the journalist-subject relationship goes beyond that of a professional one, into the realm of the social -- hence betrayal, when it happens, effects a hurt comparable to that from any close relationship or love affair. As with any betrayal, both the perpetrator and the victim do not necessarily inhabit their roles comfortably -- the journalist could very well enjoy the subject's company, yet compartmentalises those feelings of friendship when contemplating them -- clinically even -- as a subject of study; the subject, in turn, has their own vested interest in desiring to be written about, and their agency in presenting selective evidence to the journalist complicates their role as victim.

Malcolm's writing style is light, and elegantly so -- it does not reveal the skill required to maintain that easygoing clarity, as well as layer the material she selects from both the trial and her interviews with the parties involved in a way that sustains your attention throughout. While not mind-blowing, it nevertheless is utterly satisfying, like listening to an intelligent friend articulate their experience. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
THE JOURNALIST JAMAL KHASHOGGI MADE POOR JUDGEMENT	1	3	Nov 02, 2018 11:34AM
Goodreads Librari...: Combine Editions	2	214	Oct 13, 2018 10:10PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

227 users

Crime > True Crime

140 users

Writing > Journalism

83 users

Mystery > Crime

46 users

Psychology

22 users

Language > Writing

17 users

Mystery

12 users

Writing > Essays

11 users

Autobiography > Memoir

10 users

Law

7 users

See top shelves…

About Janet Malcolm

Janet Malcolm

268 followers

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-fi ...more

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…

Malcolm Gladwell Examines the Real Danger of Talking to Strangers

In 2019, does Malcolm Gladwell even need an introduction? In the past two decades, all five of his books have made The New York Times' bestseller...

Trivia About The Journalist an...

1 trivia question

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.” — 19 likes

“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.” — 8 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm

The Journalist and the Murderer

Get A Copy

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

Related Articles

Trivia About The Journalist an...

Quotes from The Journalist an...

See a Problem?

Preview — The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm

The Journalist and the Murderer

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Janet Malcolm

Books by Janet Malcolm

Related Articles

Trivia About The Journalist an...

Quotes from The Journalist an...

new topic
Discuss This Book