GQ: Wolff did what the WH Press Corps was too cowardly to do

[MariaCSR]

https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Tough call for those in the WH press, if they do this they will be fired

without 400 citations of proof for each comment ...


Remember,. when you are telling the truth about a con, you have to have endless proof, not so much if it is about a dem.

[hurple]

2. almost true

Seems like the following conditions apply:

For an R, no number of citations of proof is enough, they're ALL lying.

For a D, seems to be that you only need 7 (apparently that is the magic number, questionable, even anonymous, simple accusations, without any corroborative proof of any kind. Time to get rid of that worthless bum!

[Guilded Lilly]

3. Tough to a degree, yup. However, there is a big however!...

We are in the hideous state we are in, in part, because portions of the media did not have a backbone, forgot their professional qualifications and went for reality show ratings/post hits/social media fame.

We all are concerned about our job security. Understood.

The absolute nature of genuine journalism, though, is to be devoted, driven and dedicated to finding truth as well as fact. Many failed. Or much worse, eagerly chose the “game” over substance. And we have the Cretin and his loonie goons, plus the entire Congressional Republican thugs to deal with now.

Wolff has put in print everything (and more) that the world has realized about this immature ogre-creature who is f’ing with our lives and fate hourly.

I applaud him.

[kentuck]

7. +100

[Locrian]

15. they need to step up

Yes the system is broken and it doesn't support the truth.
Yes there will be consequences.
Yes it will be a tough road to follow.

Tough luck. Time to step up and do the right thing.
It's getting to the point where the "risk" of not doing something is worse that suffering the consequences.

[Dustlawyer]

32. Reporters fight to rise to the top of their profession like everyone else, they must not

piss off their bosses because they were the one who got CNN or ABC banned from the WH press briefings. It is the media outlets themselves who need institutional bravery to green light the reporters to actually do their jobs.

We do not have a healthy press, with some exceptions. The freelance reporters are the ones who will have to step up because the corporate MSM will not!

[NastyRiffraff]

4. That's quite an article

The writer makes it clear what he thinks of Michael Wolff, but:

Everyone around Donald Trump is too polite to Donald Trump. Democrats, foreign dignitaries, underlings… all of them. And the White House press is perhaps the worst offender. From the media pool playing along with Sarah Sanders during press conferences—conferences where Sanders openly lies and pisses on democracy—to access merchants like Maggie Haberman doling out Trump gossip like so many bread crumbs, too many reporters have been far too deferential to an administration that is brazenly racist, dysfunctional, and corrupt. And for what purpose? It’s clear to me that Haberman and the like aren’t saving up their chits for just the EXACT right time to bring this Administration down. No, the only end goal of their access is continued access, to preserve it indefinitely so that the copy spigot never gets shut off. They are abiding by traditional wink-wink understandings that have long existed between the government and the press covering it.

But Wolff didn’t do that. He did not engage in some endless bullshit access tango. No, Wolff actually USED his access, and extended zero courtesy to Trump on the process, and it’s going to pay off for him not just from a book sales standpoint, but from a real journalistic impact. I am utterly sick to death of hearing anonymous reports about people inside the White House “concerned” about the madman currently in charge of everything. These people don’t deserve the courtesy of discretion. They don’t deserve to dictate the terms of coverage to people. They deserve to be torched.

(emphasis mine)

[Cha]

6. Thank you for the excerpt, Riff!

"..I am utterly sick to death of hearing anonymous reports about people inside the White House “concerned” about the madman currently in charge of everything. These people don’t deserve the courtesy of discretion. They don’t deserve to dictate the terms of coverage to people. They deserve to be torched."

Exactly!

[FakeNoose]

8. Wolff used his access without revealing his intent

Nobody questioned him because they all mistook him for an insider. I don't know anything about Michael Wolff except he must have the ability to get along like a chameleon.

He made people forget that he was a reporter who's writing a book about their boss. He was probably careful about taping their remarks with an almost-hidden recorder. (I don't know how he did it, I'm just guessing.) In the very beginning immediately after the election, Trump said "Go ahead, knock yourself out" and that's all it took. Everyone dropped their guard and told him everything.

Lucky for us, because now we get to read all the dirt.

[DeminPennswoods]

10. Trump, et al, thought Wolff was going to

write a puff piece. The rest, shall we say, is history...

[NastyRiffraff]

22. Yeah, that's what they're used to

It is changing, but the media as a whole doesn't have a great track record covering Trump.

[kcr]

17. That's the thing. Journalists have been doing what Wolff did for ages. It's nothing new.

I would take 1000 Wolffs over every ingratiating kiss ass access journalist any day. I know which kind are more likely to get the truth.

[uponit7771]

5. I agree, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Red Don

[kentuck]

9. Did anyone get this "message" in the middle of the article?

"Blocked by Content Security Policy"

Or is it only Firefox??

[NastyRiffraff]

11. I didn't, on Chrome or on Safari

[emmadoggy]

19. I got that too.

[kentuck]

23. Do you use Firefox browser?

[emmadoggy]

25. Yes. nt

[GoCubsGo]

28. Yes. I got it, too.

[Ligyron]

31. So they're censoring this?

[Hortensis]

12. But they've been ABLE to pass along sensational-but-true

gossip all year because they didn't "torch their access" that took years for them to build. No excuses for their real ethical failures, but I disagree with faulting them for not being journalistic versions of kamikaze pilots.

Wolff did something different to get something different that only one person could do. "I took up something like a semipermanent seat on a couch in the West Wing," "something quite close to an actual fly on the walll..." And then he reported on that. And now he'll rake in a pack of money.

As for Drew Magary, he seems like a decent enough guy, but there'll be plenty of competition for his position with GQ any time he cares to show the kind of career-suicide courage he's talking about. How about some good insider reporting on Conde Nast, Drew? Any institutional biases that get served up to 120 million purchasers (not readers) around the planet?

[mobeau69]

14. Well put. n/t

[shanny]

16. Access journalism is a made-to-order method for manipulating

the press, and one with which they are complicit. There should not be cozy relationships, effing Correspondents' Dinners, cocktail circuits etc etc etc. The relationship should be adversarial, not buddy buddy. Remember when Chuck Todd said that determining the truth / calling out lies was not his job? Yeah, it damn well is. Saying otherwise is to adopt the Fux Gnus standard (we report, you decide--as if your opinion has any kind of bearing on reality). Same thing is true of the attempt to give "both sides of the story" and giving equal weight to each side in a 97-3% split (climate change).

"Preserving access" as opposed to practicing journalism has been going on for decades, and our ill-informed public shows it.

[kcr]

20. A hundred times yes to this.

Wolff is being smeared by many of those same people trying to preserve that access. It's self-serving on their part. They don't like being shown how they fall short.

[democrank]

13. Drew Magary is spot on.

In many cases, protecting access is more important to some reporters than telling the whole truth.

Magary's mention of Maggie Haberman's gossip "breadcrumbs" and the press pool "playing along with Sarah Sanders" rang so true to me. I'd like to see reporters ditch their politeness and treat this administration like the dangerous threat they are.

[niyad]

18. k and r

[KG]

21. access is one thing, but to be so deferential to an admin that basically unzips and urinates

on them on a daily basis is another.

[Amaryllis]

24. From linked article:

But Wolff didn’t do that. He did not engage in some endless bullshit access tango. No, Wolff actually USED his access, and extended zero courtesy to Trump on the process, and it’s going to pay off for him not just from a book sales standpoint, but from a real journalistic impact. I am utterly sick to death of hearing anonymous reports about people inside the White House “concerned” about the madman currently in charge of everything. These people don’t deserve the courtesy of discretion. They don’t deserve to dictate the terms of coverage to people. They deserve to be torched.

Trump ascended into power in part because he relied on other people being too nice. It’s fun to rampage through the china shop when the china shop owner is standing over there being like, “SIR, that is not how we do things here!” If Trump refuses to abide by the standard (and now useless) “norms” of the presidency—shit, if he doesn't even KNOW them—why should ANYONE in the press adhere to needless norms of their own? They shouldn’t, and it appears that Michael Wolff was one of the few people to instinctively grasp that, and I hope more White House insiders follow his lead. Sometimes you need a rat to catch a rat.

[Gabi Hayes]

26. Big empty space between

Here

deserve to dictate the terms of coverage to people. They deserve to be torched.





And here

Trump ascended into power in part because he relied on other people being too nice. It’s fun to rampage through the china shop when the china shop owner is standing over there being like, “SIR, that is not how we do things here!”


Is there something I didn’t get to see?

Thx

[mantis49]

33. I saw the same thing,

but I assumed it was my ad blocker causing it. (doing its job)

[Gabi Hayes]

34. I cant get one to work on iPad

Tried unblock and it just sat there when I hit download

[SharonClark]

27. I couldn't agree more. Thanks for posting.

[regnaD kciN]

29. Great closing passage...

"Trump ascended into power in part because he relied on other people being too nice. It’s fun to rampage through the china shop when the china shop owner is standing over there being like, “SIR, that is not how we do things here!” If Trump refuses to abide by the standard (and now useless) “norms” of the presidency—shit, if he doesn't even KNOW them—why should ANYONE in the press adhere to needless norms of their own? They shouldn’t, and it appears that Michael Wolff was one of the few people to instinctively grasp that, and I hope more White House insiders follow his lead. Sometimes you need a rat to catch a rat."

[Gabi Hayes]

35. Couldnt agree more. Now, Nick, how bout a nutritious brunch?

RIP Peter, Phil

[MariaCSR]

37. Excellent

[zentrum]

30. Colluders and cowards.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Wolff has risen to the occasion

This may ignite wildfire in a similar vein as Thomas Paine's Common Sense.