To: Cringing Negativism Network
To: artichokegrower
I noticed a reviewer on Amazon, T. Frank, gave a review:
"Performed the "Washington read" of looking up my name in the index, and read the section where I was actually involved, and Dunn gets all the facts wrong (except a handful he cribs from other journalists). They say all publicity is good publicity so long as they spell your name right, but he didn't even spell my name right.
Of course, the book isn't so much journalism as cheerleading for a particular point of view. If you hold that point of view, you'll love the book. If you don't, you won't. Don't expect nuanced analysis.
Edited to add in response to comments: I said I read the "section" involving facts where I was involved and had first-hand knowledge of what happened. That's not "a few paragraphs." That's a "section." Yes, Dunn accurately quotes "Game Change." If that's all you want, why not just read "Game Change"? Asking around, Dunn doesn't appear to have actually talked to anyone involved in the vetting (or even attempted to talk to anyone involved in the vetting), which is perhaps why we get fictional inventions like "Culvahouse was given less than a day to complete the final vetting," which is contradicted just a few pages later. It's a simple standard: if I test the author on questions where I was actually there and know what happened, and the author gets that description wrong and gets basic details wrong, why should I trust the author on anything else? The problem is doubly worse when all of the author's errors are shaded in support of a particular point of view; if the author was making random errors, some would unfairly favor Palin, and some would unfairly criticize Palin. That wasn't what happened here."
I wonder who T.Frank is?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson