The Journalist and the Murderer
The Journalist and the Murderer book cover

The Journalist and the Murderer

Paperback – October 31, 1990

Price
$16.95
Format
Paperback
Pages
176
Publisher
Vintage
Publication Date
ISBN-13
978-0679731832
Dimensions
5.2 x 0.46 x 8 inches
Weight
5.8 ounces

Description

From Publishers Weekly In a work that sparked controversy when it first appeared in the New Yorker, Malcolm suggests that journalist Joe McGinniss may have betrayed convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald in McGinniss's bestselling book Fatal Vision. Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc. "It is not with regard to journalism but with regard to the making of works of art that Malcom's important book gathers its inspiration, its breathtaking rhetorical velocity, and its great truth."xa0—David Rieff, Los Angeles Times From the Inside Flap 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 Vision, a book about the crime -- she delves into the always uneasy, sometimes tragic relationship that exists between journalist and subject. In Malcolm's view, neither journalist nor subject can avoid the moral impasse that is built into the journalistic situation. When the text first appeared, as a two-part article in The New Yorker, its thesis seemed so radical and its irony so pitiless that journalists across the country reacted as if stung. Her book is a work of journalism as well as an essay on journalism: it at once exemplifies and dissects its subject. In her interviews with the leading and subsidiary characters in the MacDonald-McGinniss case -- the principals, their lawyers, the members of the jury, and the various persons who testified as expert witnesses at the trial -- Malcolm is always aware of herself as a player in a game that, as she points out, she cannot lose. The journalist-subject encounter has always troubled journalists, but never before has it been looked at so unflinchingly and so ruefully. Hovering over the narrative -- and always on the edge of the reader's consciousness -- is the MacDonald murder case itself, which imparts to the book an atmosphere of anxiety and uncanniness. The Journalist and the Murderer derives from and reflects many of the dominant intellectual concerns of our time, and it will have a particular appeal for those who cherish the odd, the off-center, and the unsolved. In The Journalist And The Murderer, Janet Malcolm examines the psychopathology of journalism. She delves into the always uneasy, sometimes tragic relationship that exists between journalist and subject. Janet Malcolm's previous books are Diana and Nikon: Essays on Photography; Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession; In the Freud Archives; The Journalist and the Murderer; The Purloined Clinic: Selected Writings; The Silent Woman: Slyvia Plath and Ted Hughes; and The Crime of Sheila McGough. She lives in New York with her husband, Gardner Botsford. Read more

Features & Highlights

  • A seminal work and examination of the psychopathology of journalism. Using a strange and unprecedented lawsuit by a convicted murder againt the journalist who wrote a book about his crime, Malcolm delves into the always uneasy, sometimes tragic relationship that exists between journalist and subject. Featuring the real-life lawsuit of Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted murderer, against Joe McGinniss, the author of
  • Fatal Vision.
  • In Malcolm's view, neither journalist nor subject can avoid the moral impasse that is built into the journalistic situation. When the text first appeared, as a two-part article in
  • The New Yorker
  • , its thesis seemed so radical and its irony so pitiless that journalists across the country reacted as if stung.Her book is a work of journalism as well as an essay on journalism: it at once exemplifies and dissects its subject. In her interviews with the leading and subsidiary characters in the MacDonald-McGinniss case -- the principals, their lawyers, the members of the jury, and the various persons who testified as expert witnesses at the trial -- Malcolm is always aware of herself as a player in a game that, as she points out, she cannot lose. The journalist-subject encounter has always troubled journalists, but never before has it been looked at so unflinchingly and so ruefully. Hovering over the narrative -- and always on the edge of the reader's consciousness -- is the MacDonald murder case itself, which imparts to the book an atmosphere of anxiety and uncanniness.
  • The Journalist and the Murderer
  • derives from and reflects many of the dominant intellectual concerns of our time, and it will have a particular appeal for those who cherish the odd, the off-center, and the unsolved.

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
30%
(180)
★★★★
25%
(150)
★★★
15%
(90)
★★
7%
(42)
23%
(139)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

Zero stars - pointless exercise...

I'd have a bit more respect for Ms. Malcolm if:
a) she had actually attended MacDonald vs. McGinniss, so that she could write from an informed viewpoint instead of relying on second- and third-hand accounts;
b) she had spent less time oohing and ahhing over MacDonald's personal magnetism, and stuck to the facts of the case at hand;
c) she had bothered to read the literary releases to McGinniss's publishing company, SIGNED BY MACDONALD HIMSELF, that gave McGinniss license to write any type of book he wished (including, one presumes, a book that might actually say that McGinniss himself had concluded that MacDonald was guilty, despite the friendship the Journalist may have felt for the Murderer);
d) she hadn't stated - repeatedly - the total fiction that the jury hung 5-1 in MacDonald's favor. The fact is, the jury hung on ONE QUESTION OUT OF THIRTY-SEVEN, never actually voting on the other 36, because one juror believed that MacDonald had violated his agreements with McGinniss by cultivating other journalists and by ignoring his agreement not to sue McGinniss.
Or is MacDonald next going to sue Malcolm, because in her very title, she herself calls him a murderer?
Let's call an egg an egg, Dr. Jeff. You killed them. Pay the price. Be done with it.
58 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

How far should they go?

Joe McGinniss put himself on the map writing the classic 1969 book, THE SELLING OF A PRESIDENT. That book detailed how Richard Nixon was sold to the public like any other consumer product. It's worth reading if you can find a copy. The Nixon book was such a hit and McGinniss was so young he couldn't find material good enough to follow it up and his next few books were mediocre.

Determined to find another worthy subject, he tackled the case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, a man accused of killing his wife and children. That story became the bestselling FATAL VISION and this book, THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER, chronicles the techniques that McGinniss used to get close to McDonald, and how he pretended to support McDonald through the years of legal proceedings although he always thought him to be guilty and wanted a guilty verdict for a better book. McGinniss' technique led to unfettered access to legal files, evidence, but most importantly access to McDonald. They'd drink together, strategize together and were pals during the experience.

The central question is how far can a journalist go to get the story? Although a jury found McDonald guilty of murder, a later jury found in favor of McDonald in his suit against McGuinniss because they felt that his techniques were so underhanded and self-serving that even a murderer deserved better. The book shows the divide between the win-at-any-cost media and the public that grows weary of the techniques used against people to create news. Does the public have the right to know enough that journalists can lie to subjects to bring the story to press?

This short book makes you question a number of journalistic techniques and it doesn't hurt either that McDonald has strong supporters and could possibly be innocent of the murders, at least in the context of this book.
31 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Are you kidding me?

I was not familiar with Ms. Malcolms work prior to reading this, but she must have had some talent at some time to write for the publications she did. What could have turned her from a professional journalist into...well how to put this kindly a quasi groupie for one of our centuries most repugnant child killers? Long has the heinous Mr. Macdonald been surrounded by a bizzare cast of true believers, now Ms. Malcolm joins their ranks. The book itself is a long rambling dissertation that thinly (very) disguises itself as a book about journalistic integrity. Its not that, its a valentine to Jeff Macdonald and unless you support the release of a man who slaughtered a pregnant woman and two little girls, save your money.
28 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

He said, she said

Malcolm covers an intriguing topic: the nature of betrayal and disappointment within the relationship between a journalist and her subject. As anyone who has been interviewed by a journalist knows, a subject's point of view is NOT the story. And similarly, the story should NOT be purely the journalist's perspective, either. She desscribes the relationship as a dance, or a love affair, both doomed to end, usually in disappointment. Her use of psychoanalytic parallels is suspect, and ill-suited to the material. Ms. Malcolm also neatly sidesteps the question of Jeffrey Mac Donald's guilt in the gruesome killings of his wife and children in 1970. Her focus is on the misdeeds of Joe Mc Ginniss in manipulating Mac Donald in order to write Fatal Vision, a national bestseller. She adopts a curious attitude of moral neutrality that borders on the incredible. After reading both of these books, and especially the 1989 epilogue to Fatal Vision, I have little sympathy for any of the three combatants. Mc Ginnis was motivated by voyeurism and greed, Malcolm by professional jealousy and fuzzy Freudian ideology, and Mac Donald by testosterone and puerile self-interest. Something tells me this battle is far from over.
27 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A sophomoric and narcisstic book

This book was loathsome from beginning to end. It begins with a broad-stroke admonishment of journalism and continues to trade in generalities and opinion stated as fact.

The most regrettable part of the book is that the subject matter is fascinating. The story is lost in dense prose and overly long (yet remarkably bland) quotes and excerpts from transcripts. For all of her research, the author failed to construct a compelling narrative, despite what should have been a slam-dunk for riveting plot and conflict. What a terrible waste of potential.

The author's sentences are needlessly complex, and she seems to choose words based on how exotic or esoteric they are, not whether or not they properly convey any real meaning. There's a sprinkling of references to Russian and French literature to drive home the point that the author is smart, much smarter than you. In her 15-page afterword, she speaks at length about her lawsuit with bitter defensiveness. The entire work is sophomoric in its delivery. I hope that one of her neighbors reports the abuse of her thesaurus and that the proper authorities step in to ensure it goes to a good home where it can recover and live out the rest of its days in peace.
26 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A needed discussion right now

In being nearly twenty years old, Malcolm’s book suffers a bit of dating and a somewhat heavy faith in psychoanalysis, but her ideas about the role of a reporter in dealing with the subject of a news story and how journalism has to break from the narrative that subject wants while actually yay-saying that narrative in order to keep the subject engaged are important ones, especially these days of a media besieged by propagandists who are either too sensitive to understand that proper news outlets have a deeper responsibility or their lackeys who deliberately cloud what that exact responsibility is. Malcolm takes the case of a libel suit against a reporter by the convicted murderer he wrote about being guilty to examine the psychological dynamics behind journalism, trials and jury deliberations (as the libel trial ended in a hung jury before a settlement was reached). With discussions of lies vs. untruth, how we speak vs. what we hear, and fiction vs. nonfiction, Malcolm’s definitions are pretty vital now that entertainment has not only infiltrated the news box but assisted by an administration that heavily favors and spreads propaganda.
15 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

"I'm Too Good For This Work" - an alternate title

"Do you dig in the soil for a living? Then, regardless of how important your work is, obviously you're guilty of killing millions of microorganisms and should be ashamed of yourself. I sullied my hands with a shovel once or twice, but I know better now. I'm too good for this work. I must, in good conscience, leave it to the laboring classes.".... Janet Malcolm (an imaginary quote, of course).
9 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Brilliant

Amazing book. The author explores the behaviour of a journalist who ingratiated himself into the life of a man (a doctor) on trial (and convicted) for murdering his wife. The journalist misrepresented himself to the doctor as being a supporter of his innocence; but actually fossicked and exploited what he learned to write a book completely crucifying the doctor. Malcolm’s book looks at the ethics of what the journalist did. This book is incredibly compelling and fascinating. Highly recommend!
6 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

An Interesting Read

This is an interesting meditation on the relationship between writers and their subjects seen through the lens of one lawsuit. While this a smart and original piece of work, I found the ideas to be a little slight for an entire book. If Malcolm had would cut this by a third and then added it to a collection of essays, this piece would have been completely brilliant. I disagree with other reviewers who are basing their opinions on questions of MacDonald's guilt or the personalities involved. To me, those concepts are not part of the points this book is making.
4 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Candid and Well-written

I first heard of Janet Malcolm after reading an excellent interview of hers in the Paris Review. In that interview she references her becoming an outcast in the journalism/writer community after being sued by one of the subject of this book, Joe McGinniss. This book, which I guess is a widely read book in journalism schools gives a riveting and honest account of her covering the slander trial of the murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald against McGinniss. Malcolm is extremely self aware, and seems to be able to make some real observations about the relationship of a journalist to their subject while not coming across as judgmental or beyond fault as well. But most importantly, she makes the prescient observations in such a stunningly well written manner. This is an excellent little book.
4 people found this helpful