From my review of Russ Baker’s FAMILY OF SECRETS: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America,
Halfway through the concluding chapter of Family of Secrets, Russ Baker mentions, not entirely modestly, that when a colleague heard some of the things he would be disclosing in his almost 600-page book about the Bush family and its connections to John F. Kennedy‘s assassination, Watergate and many other pivotal events, the colleague “suggested, only half in jest, that the book be called ‘Everything You Thought You Knew Is Wrong.’ “
Well, any investigative journalist whose credo isn’t “Everything You Thought Is Wrong” should probably pack it in. No quality, not even doggedness, is more important than the ability to embrace the belief that, despite what everyone else thinks, only the reporter really knows the truth. But with this big challenge comes a big burden of proof. As history’s tide rolls out, we may eventually discover that everything we think we know about the George Bushes, père et fils, is wrong and that everything Baker alleges about them in his book — their secrets, their labors on behalf of powerful, self-serving interests — is right on the money. Despite strenuous efforts, however, Baker doesn’t prove it here.
I wish I liked this book more, but I didn’t.
I just read your review of Baker’s book. It was (to my knowledge) the first thing of yours I have ever read.
I came away mildly interested in “Family Secrets,” if only to see if I had the same take on the slant and lack of proof that you did. (Side Note: it always astonishes me how two journalists who take themselves seriously could each write a biography on the same person and come away with two utterly different books, not only in tone but in pure information!)
I was far more interested in you. I write a lot of reviews, and they’re tough to pull off. You’re basically asking people to take your opinion and act accordingly, which is fine if they know you, but tricky when they don’t. I thought you did an excellent job.
You gave an extended example to illustrate your point rather than use that space to do several small examples. Many reviewers make the mistake of wanting to look broadly knowledgeable of the work they are covering, so they give as many examples as possible. Unfortunately we (the readers of said review) don’t know the principle work in question, so we have no idea what they’re talking about!
What a great way to combat that problem.
Anyway, well done. I may or may not check out “Family Secrets,” but I will definitely be looking into Jamie Malanowski.