I just saw the editor of a publication describe Proof of Corruption as “a book on Trump’s impeachments” and therefore irrelevant to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It was published 6 months before the second impeachment and *2* of its 44 chapters address the first impeachment trial.
Proof of Corruption is a book about Russia, Ukraine, and Trump that takes single-chapter diversions—9 of 44 chapters—into other Trump scandals with similar themes. It’s because it’s an urgent Russia-Ukraine book that I gave away so much of it for free pre- *and* post-publication.
We don’t realize how often publications lie in the belief their lies won’t be noticed. I *certainly* know these outlets don’t correct their lies when caught, even when they’ve insisted—to make a false point—a book is about something it isn’t and was published a year after it was.
A pretty good rule of thumb is this: if you haven’t read a book—or even a *summary* of a book—and don’t even know *when it was published*, don’t make falsely denigrating it the *kicker* of your article. And if you do those things and you’re an *editor*, fire yourself immediately.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
