Jeff Gerth's Lack Of Credibility

It takes a lot of chutzpah to publish a book about Hillary Clinton by Jeff Gerth. But the publisher Little, Brown chose to do so anyway. Simply put, given his atrocious record as a reporter, particularly on Whitewater, leaves Gerth with no credibiity whatsoever as a reporter, much less, as a reporter on the Clintons.

Here's the thing - Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., Gerth's co-author, may have the goods on Senator Clinton but whatever they write simply will not be believed. That is what associating with Jeff Gerth will do to most any journalistic project.

You see, journalists, like EVERYBODY ELSE, rely on their credibility. Reporters like Judith Miller and Jeff Gerth have forfeited their credibility, one of the most important attributes required for reporters.

And there's the point - can you imagine Judith Miller writing a book about the threat of WMDs? Of course you can't. Miller has no credibility on the subject. So what in Gawd's name made Little, Brown think Jeff Gerth could write a book about the Clintons? Here is a book that was DOA in terms of impact and, I imagine, sales. Did Little, Brown think reporters were immune from the requirement of being credible? A bizarre publishing decision.

No doubt Media Matters and other such organizations will make a point of debunking "My Way." But, in a large measure, it is a wasted effort - any book by Jeff Gerth on the Clintons is pre-debunked. He is not someone anyone will take seriously on the issue.

< Dick Cheney Issues Statement on Scooter Libby | GOP Debate Lowlights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    i'm not even sure it's just (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:52:01 AM EST
    credibility, they both seem pretty inept. now, that could be studied ineptness, or just plain old, "i haven't an f*ing clue what i'm doing" ineptness. their almost complete failure to verify basic elements of the stories they became (in)famous for could have been the result of either form.

    that their editors allowed these half-baked concoctions to see the light of printed day says a lot about their credibility/eptness as well.

    with respect to their book, which i haven't read in whole, only those parts previously released, it doesn't appear to be "the goods" either. this would be pretty much true to form really, given their history.

    on rare occasion, a mediocre miler has a break-out race, and runs a world class time. mostly, they don't.

    Hacks (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    Media Matters already found a really big problem with this book.  It seems that they wrote that Hillary never discussed terrorism as a threat until after Sept. 11, 2001.

    In truth, she did.  In fact, the previous March, Hillary directly addressed the threat from Osama Bin Laden.

    They relied on a half-assed Lexis-Nexis search for their citation.  I can come to no conclusion other than they made the citation fit their preconceived conclusion that Hillary had not addressed terrorism before.  They were wrong but they didn't care.  How many people are going to check the end-notes?

    This book is just another attempt at a hatchet-job on Hillary.

    Link Fixed (none / 0) (#3)
    by eric on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    Sorry, messed up the link above.  It should be LINK.