re: #133 JordanRules

Maybe it’s the comparisons she made that make it look a little self-serving to me, knowing she is working on a book.
And I meant, I wanted her to take specifics from the book and say things like “this shows how my reporting on xx signifies x” Or “x’s contention from the book that x, is contrary to what x told me on the record from my report xx”. Show some work. If she’s got the big body of meaty reporting here then surely she can align with new works to inform the public more.

I realize that others are making the same observation about the Woodward book and I think it’s a little stale coming from everyone. We need to keep getting reporting about this secretive, lying regime so the record will keep showing that the GOP let a crazy man run our country.

And I agree with you that her book will not likely be a grovel fest. She does palace intrigue stuff and that’s what I expect.

As one of the biggest Maggie critics, here’s what bugs me about her. It’s the way she frames her stories. You can either be a news reporter or an opinion writer, but I feel that often her choices in phrasing and mood cross that line. (She was even worse when she collaborated with Glenn Thrush on their Whitehouse intrigue stories—it was like reading a bad romance novel.)

A news reporter doesn’t use phrases like:
He vanquished the economic aides he had previously seen as having more stature than he did…

But Mr. Trump’s moods have always been like storm clouds passing quickly over a desert island…

With Twitter as his Excalibur, the president takes on his doubters, powered by long spells of cable news and a dozen Diet Cokes. But if Mr. Trump has yet to bend the presidency to his will, he is at least wrestling it to a draw…

I’ve said it before and will repeat it here. I dislike her and much of her reporting for the following reasons:

1. She writes like a gossip columnist—usually much more taken with palace intrigue than actual news.
2. She regularly writes fluffers about Jared and Ivanka—with little value, little fact.
3. Any time she’s called out for anything, she is totally defensive, snotty and condescending.
4. I’ve seen, first-hand, how she can take a 20-minute interview and turn it into a 3-word quote that is the opposite of what was said, but fits her pre-conceived frame for an article.