The Journalist And The Murderer

Product Information

Malcolm's penchant for controversial subjects and tendency to insert her views into the narrative brought her both admirers and critics. "Leaning heavily on the techniques of psychoanalysis, she probes not only actions and reactions but motivations and intent; she pursues literary analysis like a crime drama and courtroom battles like novels," wrote Cara Parks in The New Republic in April 2013. Parks praised Malcolm's "intensely intellectual style" as well as her "sharpness and creativity." [31] The Journalist and the Murderer is a multi-part essay originally written by Janet Malcolm for The New Yorker, published in book form in 1990. Examining the relationship between subject and journalist, Malcolm portrays journalism as an inherently psychopathic profession, arguing that it capitalizes on a distortion of truth under the guise of objectivity. To accomplish this, Malcolm juxtaposes the lawsuit of a convicted murderer named Jeffrey MacDonald with a book written about the crime by Joe McGinniss called Fatal Vision. By excoriating both parties’ depiction of truth in this case, her essay is both itself a work of journalism and a commentary on the nature of journalism. Malcolm interviews the accused, the defendant, the jury, and the witnesses, demonstrating how the journalist, by nature of his or her role, always retains the ultimate position from which to synthesize primary and secondary information, empowered by the misguided trope of the objective reporter. Senator Ron Wyden, who wrote the law that ultimately forced the report to be published, said there was “no question” in his mind that more should be declassified. MacDonald's uninterestingness is not unusual at all...When a journalist fetches up against someone like [him], all he can do is flee and hope that a more suitable subject will turn up soon. In the MacDonald-McGinniss case we have an instance of a journalist who apparently found out too late that the subject of his book was not up to scratch—not a member of the wonderful race of auto-fictionalizers, like Joseph Mitchell's Joe Gould and Truman Capote's Perry Smith, on whom the 'non-fiction novel' depends for its life...The solution that McGinniss arrived at for dealing with MacDonald's characterlessness was not a satisfactory one, but it had to do. [19]

Janet Malcolm - Wikipedia

The essay begins with historical context to the parties in the case. In 1979, Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted for murdering his pregnant wife and two young daughters in 1970. During his arraignment process, he became close with journalist Joe McGinniss, asking him to write a book about the trial. McGinniss observed the trial process and eventually became a member of MacDonald’s defense team. Janet Clara Malcolm (born Jana Klara Wienerová; [1] July 8, 1934 – June 16, 2021) was an American writer, staff journalist at The New Yorker magazine, and collagist who fled antisemitic persecution in Nazi-occupied Prague just before it became impossible to escape. [2] She was the author of Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession (1981), In the Freud Archives (1984), and The Journalist and the Murderer (1990). Malcolm wrote frequently about psychoanalysis and explored the relationship between journalist and subject. She was known for her prose style and for polarizing criticism of her profession, especially in her most contentious work, The Journalist and the Murderer, which has become a staple of journalism-school curricula. Charles Finch wrote in 2023 "it seems safe to say that the two most important long-form journalists this country produced in the second half of the last century were Joan Didion and Janet Malcolm." [30] Personal life [ edit ] Malcolm’s personal involvement in the case began in 1987, when McGinniss’ legal team sourced her to write a report on the MacDonald v. McGinniss case. She accepted, but McGinniss aborted the plan after only an initial five-hour interview. Malcolm decided to still write about the case, finding it useful subject matter for an analysis of the hidden motivations and power relationships intrinsic to any piece of journalistic storytelling.The experts said it’s all right to tell the man something you don’t believe in, as long as you’re getting more information from him, for the sake of the project. I listened throughout the two and a half hours, astounded that that would be set forth in a courtroom as being the kind of principle that writers or lawyers or juries should be guided by. We cannot do whatever is necessary. We have to do what is right. The report pointed to the fact that the 15-member hit squad that arrived in Istanbul worked for or were associated with the Saudi Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Royal Court – which at the time was led by Saud al-Qahtani, a close adviser to the prince who claimed publicly in 2018 that he did not make decisions without the prince’s approval. Scardino, Albert, The New York Times. "Ethic, Reporters and The New Yorker", March 21. 1989. "Janet Malcolm, a staff writer for The New Yorker, returned her magazine to the center of the long-running debate over ethics in journalism this month ... Her declarations provoked outrage among authors, reporters and editors, who rushed last week to distinguish themselves from the journalists Miss Malcolm was describing."

The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm

Malcolm's 1990 book The Journalist and the Murderer begins with the thesis: "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." [25]September 2020): The FX miniseries documentary A Wilderness of Error, based on Errol Morris' deeply flawed re-examination of the Jeffrey MacDonald murders, compelled me to revisit -- for the fourth time! -- Janet Malcolm's now-legendary treatise on the subject-journalist relationship. Every reading brings new thoughts, reveals new layers. 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? 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.