Even Newsweek Thinks Wolffe’s book is Weak
By LisaB on June 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM in Current Affairs
I wondered how a book written so soon after BOs ascension to the presidency could possibly be useful. “It’s just too soon,” I thought. (I fully expect to see an “in depth” biography about Kris Allen any day now). Even Bob Woodward waits a couple of years. But there’s usually a “journalist” willing to write that book and make bank. This time it’s Richard Wolfe.
Ani did a great article about this book recently, covering the “substance” of this book. So why am I doing one now? Well, there’s a little backstory you might like to know. Politico calls it “A sheep in Wolffe’s clothing?” Heh. The title is an ever-so-accurate summary.
It was Barack Obama himself who first proposed that Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe make a play to be this generation’s Theodore White—the legendary journalist whose insider account of the 1960 election painted John F. Kennedy in heroic light.
Now, I must say, that’s a seduction. Telling a “journalist” that he, too, can become an important writer, writing about important people with insight and depth is a powerful come on. Gotta be hard to resist – particularly if it’s the Messiah asking you to write the greatest story ever told. There’s years of pundit shows to appear on, panels to look distinguished at, royalties, quotations and approbation. You will be taken seriously for life, baby. Just look at Ben Bradlee, Eleanor Clift and Theodore White. Bank, baby, bank.
But there’s a pothole in the road to literary immortality:
. . . far from being the toast of Newsweek, which once built its franchise around reporters who were close to the powerful, Wolffe now has a frosty relationship with his former employer.
At a book party at Washington’s Café Atlantico Monday night, there were quail eggs and caviar but no Newsweek editors, who declined to speak on-the-record about Wolffe or his book.
Some of his former colleagues grumble privately that the magazine gained little of news value from Wolffe’s access to Obama and his inner circle, and suggest he lost detachment as he became more enraptured by a politician with whom he shares personal and ideological sympathies.
Commentary has an excellent point about Newsweek’s concern that Wolffe was too close to Obama.
Perhaps the most striking thing to note is Wolffe’s former colleagues at Newsweek coming to the conclusion that Wolffe had become “enraptured” by Obama and lost his detachment — an extraordinarily damning assessment, given that Newsweek is itself utterly enraptured by Obama. It treats him, on a weekly basis, like a political Messiah.
Back to Politico:
“Renegade” is billed on its cover as “based on exclusive interviews with Barack Obama.” The footnotes detail 21 such interviews. They were so exclusive, as it happens, that key elements of them apparently did not appear contemporaneously in Newsweek, which was footing the bill as Wolffe flew around the country with Obama for two years. Nor did they appear in the magazine’s own post-election volume.
Newsweek also grumbled that many “juicy” details should have appeared in the magazine since they were footing the bill and already going gentle on that good candidate.
However, it’s hard to imagine Newsweek being any weaker on Obama that it already was. After reading one if its “well-researched” articles on Obama, you’d need a tall cold glass of frosty milk just to make it go down (and maybe whiskey to kill the pain).
“I worked my ass off for Newsweek and they printed what I had,” responded Wolffe, who noted that his Obama interviews had been the source of half a dozen cover stories.
It’s true. The man has no ass. But I digress. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas appeared on NQ’s Sins of Omission a couple of months back. The interview focused on the campaign and asked Thomas about sexism. He just didn’t see it. That’s useful to know when reports surface that Newsweek staffers think Wolffe chugged Kool-aid. I mean, how would they know?
My takeaway (my opinion after listening) from that Thomas interview was that he believed the following:
* Obama got more favorable press coverage, but it didn’t really matter because he would have won anyway.
* Neither Hillary Clinton nor Sarah Palin were competent.
* Sexism did not play a role in how those women were characterized by the press.
* Maybe the press should have dug a little more on Obama.
* Hillary’s stretching of the truth was MUCH worse than Obama’s.
* Caucus problems? What caucus problems?
* The “tone” of a campaign matters more than real events and documentation. Evidence to back this up is not necessary since we all understand tone. (If you don’t the media will explain it to you.)
* Editors rule and reporters drool, so the fawning coverage may better reflect the opinions of those once removed from BO rather than those who actually spend time with him.
* It’s completely fine to ignore bloggers. They aren’t real journalists and don’t know how to think about news anyway.
* Double ditto for the topics bloggers cover.
If you’d like to listen to the interview to see what you think, please do.
But Wolffe got in a dig at Newsweek and Thomas:
In one passage, Wolffe takes a direct shot at the Newsweek’s chief scribe, Evan Thomas, describing him as one of the magazine’s “most senior, and white, writers” whose “racial stereotyping” wasn’t that different from Jeremiah Wright’s inability to “to accept that America was in the process of change.”
Considered weak even by Newsweek standards, Wolffe’s pieces for that magazine were often paired with more “hard-hitting” articles. (I know, I know.) But how do heavy weight journalists conduct such deeply probing research with a subject?
Among his press plane colleagues, Wolffe’s access to the candidate was no secret. After a campaign event at a restaurant in Reno last August, Wolffe and Obama shared a heaping piece of frosted carrot cake as the Secret Service ushered the rest of the press corps to a waiting bus, according to a pool report. Reporters also knew that Wolffe was regularly playing basketball with the candidate – games that were off limits to everyone else.
(An aside here. While the bball games may have reduced Wolffe’s ass, the “heaping piece of frosted carrot cake” added to it. That’s a wash.)
Obama chose Wolffe, as anyone would, because he thought he’d get “good coverage.” But why did Wolffe choose Obama?
Wolffe writes that he identified with Obama because of his own mixed background – his parents hail from different parts of the Jewish diaspora – and his love of basketball. His book is deeply sympathetic to Obama and his viewpoint, and broadly – though not uniformly –accepts the campaign’s view of itself.
———-
On the public stage, Wolffe is best known for his appearances on MSNBC. During the campaign, he would often play the chortling Ed McMahon role to Keith Olbermann, as the host lacerated McCain.
Yep. We know. Even SNL knows. During an absolutely wonderful sendup of Olbermann, Wolffe was depicted as an ineffectual sidekick type. (See timestamps 6:19 and 4:12 if you’re interested).
Newsweek, perhaps sensing Wolffe’s changed allegiances, did not offer him the standard post-election plum job for campaign suck-ups, according to Politico.
When the election ended, the Newsweek brass offered him a new job. Not the White House beat – a natural extension of his campaign coverage – but, he said, “a blog, no less.” He describes the genre in his book as the equivalent of “fried and fast” food, as compared to his own more nutritious “slow food.”
As for the whole blogger vs journalist thing. Whatever. What most people want is journalists who write about news. Not partisan hackery. When “journalists” started calling themselves “news analysts,” they lost their way. They started selling their “understanding” of news rather than straight reporting. And that’s when people can and do vociferously disagree with their assessments. After all, people like to make up their own minds about what news means. That’s part of the general discussion. No one likes to be fed someone else’s opinions and be told that is “straight news” about which there is no debate.
So, will Wolffe’s book sell? Probably. Does it offer nutritious “slow food?” Well, if Newsweek found it too saccharine, I can’t see how this book will offer more “meat on the bone.” I’d look for it to be remaindered soon enough.
And I’d say we still need to wait for a definitive account of the campaign, whether of BO’s or anyone else’s. “Slow food” is SLOW, after all.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
