Does the Trump book feel a bit too tabloid-ish to anyone?

[oberliner]

Can anyone who has read it weigh in?

[sunonmars]

1. Trump is trash tabloid.........perfectly fitting.

[oberliner]

2. Reasonable point

[UnTied]

13. Hear Hear!

DILLY! DILLY!

[thegoose]

15. Yeah, no intellect to ponder

Just one giant orange angry id. And really stupid. Really, really stupid.

[Dorian Gray]

114. Absolutely....

The book and Trump are tabloid fodder.

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. It's Wolff's style

most reviews make note of this but if one is not aware of it they may think it's stretching in some places, perhaps Wolff's style makes what would otherwise be a grotesque read into something palatable?

[teamster633]

4. Not really sure how a book about a reality "star" pResident can be too tabloid-ish?

[oberliner]

5. Yeah I get it

I guess I'm not even really sure what I'm asking.

[highplainsdem]

7. I'm guessing you're just reacting to the criticism of Wolff, maybe wishing for a

serious "All the President's Men" sort of book.

And someday we'll see more serious, much more carefully researched books about all of the Trump admin scandals and crimes.

But not yet...

In the meantime, I'm happy Wolff wrote that book.

[oberliner]

16. That's probably it

I just feel like I've read some really good, insightful reporting from folks with respect to the Trump WH that has illuminated things in some really interesting ways - and this book doesn't seem to do that quite as well.

[emulatorloo]

40. I am guessing you are absorbing RNC talking points without realizing it, as their surrogates

are out there constantly lying about the book and the author. That is their job as propagandists, to make the lies about the book become “common knowledge” and “conventional wisdom.”

Here are the RNC talking points that got leaked today.

Here are the RNC's weekend talking points about Michael Wolff's book.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210065731

[oberliner]

47. I don't think so

I think that I have read a lot of really good reporting about the awfulness of the Trump WH that the excerpts from this book don't seem as well-written or informative, so I'm not sure what the appeal is beyond the "Trump is an idiot" stuff that we already know.

[emulatorloo]

50. The appeal to me personally: morbidly fascinating and I was getting sick of being gaslighted

by some in the media and some on the internet who defended Trump and pretended we were delusional and crazy. So to me the book is in part a vindication for me, you, and every DU’er who saw early on what a disaster Trump is.

Also remember there are lots of Americans who didn’t “already know” what we knew. The book has also become a platform for some in the media and politics to acknowledge the ugly truth.

[oberliner]

54. Have you read this Vanity Fair article?

THE INSIDE STORY OF THE KUSHNER-BANNON CIVIL WAR

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/jared-kushner-steve-bannon-white-house-civil-war

It's from May 2017 and covers a lot of this ground quite effectively.

[emulatorloo]

60. Ive read it.

[John Fante]

65. You really want this book to fail, don't you?

[oberliner]

66. Huh?

Why would I want the book to fail?

I'm just asking what people think of it who have read it. Seems like better writers have covered the same ground more effectively - but I am open to other points of view.

Have you read it? If so, what did you think?

[John Fante]

90. You're nowhere near as subtle as you think.

[brush]

105. That ice is getting pretty thin you're skating on, and transparent.

[dewsgirl]

127. +1 😉

[yardwork]

6. Compared to what?

What would you expect? Nobel laureates aren't likely to waste a year hanging out in Trump's West Wing.

Your local library has lots of copies of elegantly written, well-researched volumes of history. I recommend All Quiet on the Western Front.

[oberliner]

17. Well, there has been some really good reporting

Even on Twitter I've seen some quite interesting insights into the current WH.

[yardwork]

69. I agree. This is not good journalism. It's just a dude sitting in the West Wing.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. His fucking life is one long mind numingly stupid ass tabloid. Why would this be

any different?

[Tipperary]

30. Yes.

This.

[Thekaspervote]

78. Took the words right out of my mouth

[bigtree]

9. look at what he had to work with

...is there anything that isn't gaudy and gross about the Trump presidency?

We know the subjects and they're caricatures of themselves, without any help from Wolff's book.

Besides, he's a Hollywood reporter. If it's fluff, it's what Trump asked for when he gave him access ( and yes, I believe Trump gave him access, just based on Wolff's Hollywood connections and Trump's need to ingratiate himself with that crowd).

[panader0]

10. I haven't read it so I don't know....

but I love the reaction to it.

[AlexSFCA]

11. Love the book because it is easy to read and

entertaining. Suitable for all ages. Even trump can read and understand it. In fact he is the ont who should what people in his circle talk about behind his back. I bet it will become essential read in schools in the future. The writing style is just perfect at this time in history.

[oberliner]

18. Gotcha

That makes a lot of sense.

[nocoincidences]

82. There is no way Trump could read this.

The vocabulary is much too difficult.

Wolff overuses the word indefatigably, loves the word obsequious, and slipped in hegemony at least once.

I was listening to it on Youtube yesterday, the whole 11 hrs. of it, and the content and style might be tabloidish but the sentences are complex and the vocabulary is overblown.

Trump would put it down after a couple of pages.

[bdamomma]

98. it doesn't have pictures!!!

and he doesn't have the attention span.

[Lurks Often]

12. Do you mean like the Ed Klein books about the Clintons?

[oberliner]

19. Haven't read any of those so I don't know

I was thinking more like some of the pieces that have been written by various reporters covering the WH.

[Lurks Often]

52. I never bought into Klein having sources that close to the Clinton's

that would talk to him.

Michael Wolff has a prior history of exaggerating stories and making things up, so I will remain skeptical of what the book is saying. Just because the book says what a lot of people want to hear, doesn't make it true.

[brush]

106. Huh? Where'd you get this sentence?

"Michael Wolff has a prior history of exaggerating stories and making things up"

Steven Miller said the exact same thing on CNN this morning before Jake Tapper cut his ass off.

Lotta talking points in this thread, including the OP.

[Lurks Often]

119. Three links, all long before Trump became President

Some links and note the dates are long before Trump became President:

2004: https://newrepublic.com/article/67746/wolff-trapped

1998: https://web.archive.org/web/20120718061524/http://www.brillscontent.com/burn.shtml

2010: http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_wolffs_high_cynicism.php

People are believing what Michael Wolff wrote, not because it MIGHT be true, but because it reinforces what they already believe about Trump. Much like all the tweets and blogs for almost a year that have been saying THIS is the week Trump goes down and have turned to be wrong.

[brush]

120. Why repeat almost verbatim a repug talking point from nazi Steven Miller?

[Lurks Often]

121. Your definition of a "talking point" is anything you don't agree with

The New Republic is a reliably liberal website, the Columbia Journal Review is another mainstream website & the BrillsContent which was founded by Steven Brill, someone who thought Ken Starr broke the law during his investigation of Bill Clinton.

I did some basic research and found out that Michael Wolff has some credibility issues according to three different legitimate media organizations.

[brush]

122. Critique the book if you will, but quoting slimey repugs...come on.

I saw nazi Steven Miller on CNN say what you said, almost verbatim.

[Lurks Often]

123. I'm linking to credible sites, if that bothers you, that's your problem

I don't have cable so I didn't watch the interview. Feel free to believe the book as I am sure you have believed all the tweets and blogs saying THIS is the week that Trump will be brought down.

[brush]

124. How does it happen you and Steven Miller come up with the exact same words about the book?

[Lurks Often]

125. You keep changing your goalposts

First "Why repeat almost verbatim a repug talking point from nazi Steven Miller?" & "I saw nazi Steven Miller on CNN say what you said, almost verbatim."

And now "How does it happen you and Steven Miller come up with the exact same words about the book?"

As expected, since you are unable to refute the links I provided, you resort distorting what I posted and making veiled personal attacks.

For the inevitable jury alert: (Post 119)
Three links regarding Michael Wolff's credibility, all long before Trump became President

Some links and note the dates are long before Trump became President:
2004: https://newrepublic.com/article/67746/wolff-trapped
1998: https://web.archive.org/web/20120718061524/http://www.brillscontent.com/burn.shtml
2010: http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_wolffs_high_cynicism.php

People are believing what Michael Wolff wrote, not because it MIGHT be true, but because it reinforces what they already believe about Trump. Much like all the tweets and blogs for almost a year that have been saying THIS is the week Trump goes down and have turned to be wrong.

[brush]

126. I'm not trying to refute the links, how does it happen you use Steven Millers words almost verbatim?

[Lurks Often]

128. More personal attacks?

Why don't you stop being coy and come out and call me a Republican mole or a Russian Bot?

Can't refute the links so you choose to attack me. Come back when you are willing to discuss why those three sites find Michael Wolff to have credibility issues.

Three links regarding Michael Wolff's credibility, all long before Trump became President

Some links and note the dates are long before Trump became President:
2004: https://newrepublic.com/article/67746/wolff-trapped
1998: https://web.archive.org/web/20120718061524/http://www.brillscontent.com/burn.shtml
2010: http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_wolffs_high_cynicism.php

[brush]

129. Calling you a repug hadn't entered my mind. It seems to have entered yours though.

[womanofthehills]

14. Just read a few chapters - I don't think so

More about all the people surrounding Trump, how they got their jobs at the White House & cabinet, & Trump's relationships with them. Also about Trump's relationships with the big Republican donors. Author was at a dinner with Rodger Ailes and Bannon and describes that. I love that the book opens up with the author describing Trump eating a pint of Hagen Daz Vanilla ice cream during their talk.

I listened to this while walking my dog so I probably have to re listen to pick up what I missed - my dog is a super hyper puppy so I was pretty distracted.

[oberliner]

20. OK

Just wanted to get a sense of what folks thought. I appreciate your insights.

[John Fante]

21. Taking jabs at the book already?

Have you even read it?

[oberliner]

22. Only some of the published excerpts

It does feel a little tabloid-ish to me - but maybe that's the point.

I'm curious to hear other perspectives - especially from folks who have read more of it.

[a kennedy]

23. Thats what the dolts on faux noise were saying.......that the book was so

tabloidish..... Don’t even really know what that means.

[oberliner]

26. Factual errors and salacious writing-style

A lot of folks on CNN and MSNBC have made the same observations.

[emulatorloo]

59. What factual errors?

Can you point to specific “factual errors”? Or is this a ‘some people are saying there are factual errors’ type thing you are hearing?

Again it is no surprise that Trump surrogates may be claiming “factual errors”; like Trump they are liars and they lie constantly. If a liar tells you something is a lie, then best to consider the source.

[Kingofalldems]

24. I am sure Trump fans won't like it at all.

[oberliner]

25. Obviously not

But do you think it's a bit too much on the tabloid side? Have you gotten to read any of it yet? Be curious to get your insights.

[Demsrule86]

42. Which makes me very happy.

[dewsgirl]

27. Is anyone else listening to the audio book?

[samnsara]

29. i started to listen to the free version on UTube...

..my hard copy is due in today.

[dewsgirl]

34. I'm shocked that it's even on there, every now and then a new movie will be on Youtube, it's usually

Pulled back down within a couple hours. I love when he narrates the CIA speech, he sounds even more coked up then Trump himself.

[womanofthehills]

56. I downloaded it from Audible to my iphone

You can sign up with Audible for a month and get a free copy and drop Audible any time. Personally, I love Audible and have been a member for yrs.

[dewsgirl]

68. I got in on audible as well. I love Audible, I had it for

A really long time, now I just got this one. I have Tuner now, cheaper definitely not better than Audible.

[samnsara]

28. havent read it yet but tabloid news is befitting of trump!

[cagefreesoylentgreen]

31. What jumped out at me

Was the typos and punctuation errors. Otherwise I’m enjoying the read.

[democratisphere]

33. Rushed to get it on the shelves. Where is the spell checker or

proof reader.

[democratisphere]

32. drumpf is a true tabloid character with his antics and actions.

Only difference is his stuff isn't made up!

[oberliner]

35. That's true

I guess that kind of book suits him.

[MFM008]

36. you cant write a scholarly book

about a dumpster fire.............

[oberliner]

38. Good point

Though I would say that I have read some really well-written pieces about the WH chaos in a variety of sources over the past year.

[lunatica]

37. Our country has become a tabloid in itself

So the book, if it is tabloidish fits right in.

[oberliner]

39. That makes sense

It's a sad state of affairs indeed.

[Demsrule86]

41. I have the book and it is fascinating. No I don't think it is tabloid. This is going to leave a

mark...on Trump. We should rejoice.

[Drahthaardogs]

43. This is too tabloidush for you

Yet six anonymous women are the fucking gold standard? Seriously?

[Orrex]

46. Nailed it.

[Drahthaardogs]

49. So it's not just me?

Because I'm starting to have too many WTF moments around here!

[emulatorloo]

62. Well Trump says its all lies, and Melania said it is a long form tabloid

Everyone on DU knows the Trumps are honest truthtellers. There is no way Donald and Melania would ever lie about anyone or anything. Plus the RNC is very very honest too, their talking points must be true as well.

[Hekate]

94. It's not just you

smh

[JI7]

64. Yup

[NurseJackie]

74. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!

[Eliot Rosewater]

88. Ka ching

[Hekate]

92. That may leave a mark

[brush]

107. Way to zing 'em, and see through the transparent bullshit.

[cwydro]

111. Bingo.

[Autumn]

44. Not at all, it's Trump and his coherts to the letter.

[Orrex]

45. Right on schedule...

[NurseJackie]

75. ...

[Eliot Rosewater]

48. How can it "feel" like that if you havent even read it yet?

[Drahthaardogs]

53. Maybe some anonymous reviews would help?

Eom.

[Laffy Kat]

51. I figure the format appeals to those who NEED to read it.

So I'll give it a pass.

[oberliner]

55. That makes sense

I just hope people know there is some really great and well-written reporting covering a lot of this ground.

[womanofthehills]

57. Well those reporters were not in the White House for a whole year

so they can't possible cover the ground that this book does.

[Vinca]

58. I don't care if it is. It's pissing Dear Leader off royally so I'm happy to buy it.

[Irish_Dem]

61. That is what will sell the most books right now. nt

[JI7]

63. It sounds like the shit he tweets and says all the fucking time

That's why it's so easy to believe.

[redstatebluegirl]

67. His life and work are the definition of "tabloid"!

[pnwmom]

70. Does the Trump Presidency feel a little too cartoonish to anyone? nt

[oberliner]

71. This GQ article better states my take on all of this

Michael Wolff Did What Every Other White House Reporter Is Too Cowardly to Do

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

Namely that the book is both trashy and valuable at the same time.

[pnwmom]

89. Yes -- and I loved that article. The whole country should read it. n/t

[GreenEyedLefty]

72. I'm about 25% through it and it needed more severe editing.

The descriptions of Trump and his associates are long winded and repetitive. I find myself flipping through them.

The narrative, "what happened" parts are well-written, though.

[George II]

73. Did you read it?

[oberliner]

81. Only the excerpts available in various publications

That's why I am asking for further insights from those who have read more.

[Vinnie From Indy]

76. LOL! You are about as subtle as a hurricane.

Your posts are hilariously obvious.

[oberliner]

79. Here's a good article from GQ that better expresses my feelings

I’m gonna begin this post with the same disclaimer that needs to come with every post about Michael Wolff, which is that Wolff is a fart-sniffer whose credibility is often suspect and who represents the absolute worst of New York media-cocktail-circuit inbreeding. But in a way, it’s fitting that our least reliable president could finally find himself undone at the hands of one of our least reliable journalists.

All of Wolff’s excerpts from Fire & Fury so far (the book was rushed into stores today) read like jayvee fan fiction. They read like a pilot that Steve Bannon himself wrote, pitched to Hollywood, and had rejected 17 times over. They read, in short, like bullshit. And yet…Wolff has audio. He’s got hours upon hours of audio. Not only that, but the book has already caused legitimate upheaval in the administration, opened a permanent rift between President Trump and Bannon, AND it confirms what we have all always known to be true: that the president severely lacks the cognitive ability to do this job, and that he is surrounded at all times by a cadre of enablers, dunces, and outright thieves. As much as I wanna discredit Wolff, he got receipts and, more important, he used them. Wolff got it all. Wolff nailed them.

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

I think most would agree that "the book is trash" and "most of the info is accurate" can both be true statements.

[janterry]

77. a tabloid president taken down by the tabloid press

IDK.

It has a certain kind of poetic justice to it.

[oberliner]

80. Makes sense

I'm coming to understand that.

[BumRushDaShow]

83. It's like a long long-form article

from Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair, done in a somewhat "story-telling" narrative style (as if it were a transcript of a verbal rendition, complete with interspersed clarifying statements and witticisms in parenthesis).

Typical historical biographies can be droll and boring, so this was a pleasant change given I expected it to be (or at least hoped it wouldn't be) one of those "boring" tropes.

What just came to mind perhaps as an analogy was what happened with the events related to the 2008 election and the story behind Caribou Barbie via the book "Game Change" (that became a HBO movie). I never read that book and only saw snippets of the movie (but read quite a bit of commentary about it here and elsewhere). However I expect given the insanity that we knew was bubbling out in public regarding that 2008 race, it had to be a doozy behind the scenes, and the question would have been how that could be characterized and translated into written form. Of course that book was co-written by Halperin and we know what just happened to him!

[oberliner]

84. Good point

Though I think that there have been long-form articles in Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and elsewhere that covered this ground more effectively and with better writing.

That said - it's good that people are reading this book who may not have read those articles.

[BumRushDaShow]

85. Hilarious WaPo breaking (notably the headline) that just came out

Stephen Bannon, under fire after West Wing tell-all, expresses regret over comments attributed to him

By Washington Post Staff January 7 at 11:48 AM

The former White House chief strategist had not previously remarked on Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury,” which prompted questions about President Trump’s mental fitness. Trump said on Twitter today that the “Fake Book” was written by “a totally discredited author.”

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/07/stephen-bannon-under-fire-after-west-wing-tell-all-expresses-regret-over-comments-attributed-to-him/?utm_term=.fb36cbe3be6a

[oberliner]

86. Mr. Never Apologize, Never Back Down

Is apologizing and backing down.

[BumRushDaShow]

87. Probably due to the Rebekah Mercer rebuke.

April Ryan tweet -

Link to tweet

TEXT
AprilDRyan
✔
@AprilDRyan

Is it too late for Bannon’s apology? @realDonaldTrump is upset with him. He lost standing in the party. There are calls for him to be fired from Brietbart. Mercer’s withdrawing support. Looking as politics and DC I think it is too late!
11:43 AM - Jan 7, 2018

[bdamomma]

100. Changing his

tune because of the money factor, Bannon has his own agenda to continue the white supremacists crap to make America Great Again

[brush]

109. All the tough talk about not backing down and it turns out...

he's just a punk who's backing down and afraid of getting fired by the Mercers.

He sees a penniless future so he tries to walk back his comments in Wolff's book about Jr.

I hope his white supremacist, Roy Moore-backing ass gets booted to the streets.

[Hekate]

91. I decided to buy it when I read a British review stating that a) it's very well written, and...

...b) when the full history of this horrible admin is written and being taught, F&F is going to be required reading regarding the first year.

Besides (and this made my husband and I ) THERE ARE TAPES, OBERLINER.. THERE ARE TAPES.

[oberliner]

96. I'm sure that he accurately quotes many people in the book

However it does also appear to be "sensational in a lurid or vulgar way" based on the excerpts I have read.

It can both be a trashy, tabloid-style book and also provide a valuable series of insights into what was going on in the WH during the first year

[Hekate]

99. Since you are so seriously concerned, I suggest you read it for yourself & get back to us nt

[oberliner]

101. My view is that it is tabloid-ish but also valuable

There's been some really thoughtful replies here that have helped me understand how the tabloid nature of the book could actually be one of the assets - since it maybe opens it up to a wider audience.

[UTUSN]

93. Nope. Will re-post what I've said about Kitty KELLEY a few times.

Disclaimer: Have read the few excerpts, not the whole book. My post was a response to a put-down of KELLEY, related to WOLFF.

********(re-post: ) I don't know what would rule out somebody as a "credible source" who conducts hundreds of interviews for each of her books, with every anecdote being verified by two or more of her sources, and picked over by a team of lawyers. She is not the "source" of the stories.

She attributed the comment (via her sources) about Nancy's talent/reputation to Peter LAWFORD.

Years ago, I was being gigged here for posting items from Page Six, on the grounds of how lowbrow and unseemly it was to post GOSSIP (gasp!1) here at DU. Back then I copied/pasted the dictionary definition of "gossip" multiple times, the upshot of which is that it has NOTHING TO DO with being UNtrue, that it might be embarrassing or something not wanted to be spread around or whatever but NOT UNtrue. The items I posted were about politics, and legitimate reporters who specialize in gossip operate by standards, and a lot of one day's gossip becomes mainstream journalism days or weeks later. Notice, I am not talking about the Globe, Examiner, et al.

Here's something I'll take credit for. While I was disappointed in KELLEY's book about the BUSH Family Evil Empire (2004) because I thought it wasn't up to the snuff of her early books and that she went soft on the BUSHes, I eagerly tuned in to the Today show interview scheduled over two days. Whatever Matt LAUER's game was in politics and towards women (compare his 2016 treatment of Hillary) I didn't know, but I was appalled on the first day when he SCALDED Kelley for having the gall to do her kind of writing about the holy BUSHes and just tongue lashed her for the entire "interview".

I spent the next couple of hours Googling to find a phone number for the Today show and, incredibly, got through to some Today staffer (maybe a producer), and went over what I'm saying here about "gossip" and KELLEY's integrity and how unfair and horrible LAUER had been to her, and the staffer was totally receptive. The second day, LAUER was thoroughly chastened, sat close/next to KELLEY and conducted an entirely different, subdued and respectful, conversation with her.

[kcr]

95. The tone works and is just what the country needs. This book was the best thing to happen.

For example, Vanity Fair is now publishing an article about his charity foundation. Get used to seeing a lot more of that. We will now see mainstream and pop culture outlets post stories like this and we have Wolff's book to thank. Nothing will ever change the minds of his 30%ers, but now the vast swaths of Americans who don't follow politics closely will learn all the things political junkies have known all along. These things may not seem revelatory to us, but it will be for them. Those who don't get the point of Wolff's book miss the significance of this, but they will see soon enough.

[oberliner]

97. Maybe so

It is what it is - and there is some value in it, I would agree. I guess it reflects the vulgar characters it covers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

102. It is tabloid-ish, and Michael Wolff is a tabloid-y writer.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, considering the subject matter.

[oberliner]

103. Yes, I've come around to that opinion myself

Thanks for the response!

[Hoyt]

104. I can believe everything Ive heard happened. However Im skeptical of

anyone who can make big bucks if their book takes off. I can also see the temptation to “embellish” things quite a bit. Then again, if none of it were true, Trump would still be a deplorable human, not to mention Prez.

[Lil Missy]

108. Have you read it?

[oberliner]

116. Parts

Seems to be a good bit of padding, though.

There is an entire chapter on CPAC for some reason where it basically just goes over the Bannon and Priebus appearance there.

[donkeypoofed]

110. How could the book NOT be tabloid-ish ?

It's dealing with a subject who is tabloid fodder all-the-way!! The chaos and disorganization in the WH pleases that orange ball of gas, so how the heck could the book documenting it not be wild and circus-like?! Drumpf's "public image" is everything to him and it hurts him inside to know that people are laughing at him and disliking him, which I think is delicious. Buy this book! It's a great read.

[oberliner]

117. Yes, that's a good point

[Kentonio]

112. He does write in a tabloid fashion.

I'm about halfway through, and its a fascinating read that rings extremely true to what we already know about the people involved. There's no denying that his writing style is pretty tabloideque, but given the nonsensical nature of the cast and the sheer idiocy of what they think, say and do, it's strangely fitting.

There's a couple of places where he uses a variation of 'they thought..' which raises questions about source, but he makes fairly clear in his introduction that there was a bizarre willingness on many people's part to speak openly, so its probably fair to assume that these sections are people recounting their thoughts to him. I can understand why serious journalists and authors have been a little contemptuous of his writing style though.

[oberliner]

118. Thanks for sharing that

That is my impression as well.

[ileus]

113. Even if not a word is true, it's still good news for us.

[oberliner]

115. Yes, I've come around to that opinion myself