As the coauthor of the first how-to book ever published about investigative reporting - "Investigative Reporting" by David Anderson and Peter Benjaminson, Indiana University Press 1976 and Iowa State University Press 1979 - and eight other books, I'm astounded after reading this column at how helpful, intelligent and valuable all of Gerald's suggestions are. Good work, Gerald!
Hi, this is Steven Saint Thomas. I teach classes at Cal-Poly Humboldt on applying journalistic methods to conspiracy theories. I'm curious if you have updated "Case Closed" in light of disclosures since the book was published - especially in the past year as the JFK Act kicked in (again)? Thanks!
I did an update a decade after publication, it is the Afterword in the paperback and the ebooks, titled, A Note About the Past Decade. I hope to publish a small book after the last release that looks back and judges how the released files have changed the view of the case (spoiler: Oswald alone remains the conclusion, the documents have not changed that, but they have further established the degree to which the Warren Commission was poorly served by the FBI and the CIA in investigating the case). No publisher has yet been interested in that book, they want something a bit more spectacular. Hard for that to happen unless a quite unexpected file becomes public and turns everything upside down. Not very likely.
Thanks for the speedy response! I often wonder what is the best way for reporters with books to update as time goes by and facts emerge. I'm writing a Substack piece on Seymour Hersh, who I met briefly when we were both dogging Korean Airlines 007 back in the day. Maybe Substack is a good platform for updates... kinda like what Jeff Morley does with JFK Facts. Best, SST
BTW, as for Zubaydah, I asked from day one for the interrogation tapes to be made public. Then, everyone would know if the account I was given was right or not. Of course, that is not possible because the CIA destroyed the Zubaydah tapes of his initial interrogations, precisely the ones I write about. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-cias-destroyed-interr_b_75850
No doubt that every good reporter wants a source on the record, and even then, wants more than one credible source in a position to know what transpired. That’s the ideal. Then, you have to work with what you uncover. I don’t know Hersh personally, I know him only through his reporting for years and our mutual book editor. But I know enough about his relentless reporting style to know that if he delivered only a single anonymous source, it was not for lack of trying to get others.
The difficult part of judging a story on a single source is ‘how good is that source?’ It’s not just a matter of determining if the source was in a position to know what transpired, but then any journalist has to weigh their credibility against whatever motivation they might have for speaking to a reporter. A source might have an ax to grind. That does not mean they are not telling the truth, it just means you need to be especially wary.
Whenever I have had a primary anonymous source for a story - as in the case of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation reported in ‘Why America Slept’ - I disclosed that to the attorney in the publishing house as part of the legal review of the book. Somebody else had to know and judge the quality of that source (in my case, 3, but I identified only one key person). With Substack, of course, there is no legal review. So, we, as journalists, have all the responsibility for getting it right, as always.
In the case of Sy, his remarkable track record means I always give him the benefit of the doubt.
There is no easy ‘best way’ to update for authors to update their books. Substack can be a good platform for updates but the major ones can get lost in a deluge of minor updates.
It is great that Sy Hersh is on Substack. We shared the same editor at Random House, Bob Loomis.
Oh and speaking of Hersh, he's getting a lot of flack for using a single anonymous source. This is always problematic. The story might be corroborated at some time in the future - or not. Brings to mind "Why America Slept" and your version of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation (naming possible complicit Saudis, etc.) Has this been corroborated since 2003? Ali Soufan and John Kiriakou have since published versions that differ somewhat. What became of that source/story? -SST
As the coauthor of the first how-to book ever published about investigative reporting - "Investigative Reporting" by David Anderson and Peter Benjaminson, Indiana University Press 1976 and Iowa State University Press 1979 - and eight other books, I'm astounded after reading this column at how helpful, intelligent and valuable all of Gerald's suggestions are. Good work, Gerald!
If I had read your book early on, I'm sure I would have saved a lot of mistakes and heartache
Thanks a lot, Gerald, but I've merely been trying to catch up with you for years now.
:-))
As author of my own nonfiction book, I think Gerald has given valuable advice.
Thanks Sandy - keep up the great work
Hi, this is Steven Saint Thomas. I teach classes at Cal-Poly Humboldt on applying journalistic methods to conspiracy theories. I'm curious if you have updated "Case Closed" in light of disclosures since the book was published - especially in the past year as the JFK Act kicked in (again)? Thanks!
Steven, Nice to make the cyber connection.
I did an update a decade after publication, it is the Afterword in the paperback and the ebooks, titled, A Note About the Past Decade. I hope to publish a small book after the last release that looks back and judges how the released files have changed the view of the case (spoiler: Oswald alone remains the conclusion, the documents have not changed that, but they have further established the degree to which the Warren Commission was poorly served by the FBI and the CIA in investigating the case). No publisher has yet been interested in that book, they want something a bit more spectacular. Hard for that to happen unless a quite unexpected file becomes public and turns everything upside down. Not very likely.
Thanks for the speedy response! I often wonder what is the best way for reporters with books to update as time goes by and facts emerge. I'm writing a Substack piece on Seymour Hersh, who I met briefly when we were both dogging Korean Airlines 007 back in the day. Maybe Substack is a good platform for updates... kinda like what Jeff Morley does with JFK Facts. Best, SST
BTW, as for Zubaydah, I asked from day one for the interrogation tapes to be made public. Then, everyone would know if the account I was given was right or not. Of course, that is not possible because the CIA destroyed the Zubaydah tapes of his initial interrogations, precisely the ones I write about. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-cias-destroyed-interr_b_75850
No doubt that every good reporter wants a source on the record, and even then, wants more than one credible source in a position to know what transpired. That’s the ideal. Then, you have to work with what you uncover. I don’t know Hersh personally, I know him only through his reporting for years and our mutual book editor. But I know enough about his relentless reporting style to know that if he delivered only a single anonymous source, it was not for lack of trying to get others.
The difficult part of judging a story on a single source is ‘how good is that source?’ It’s not just a matter of determining if the source was in a position to know what transpired, but then any journalist has to weigh their credibility against whatever motivation they might have for speaking to a reporter. A source might have an ax to grind. That does not mean they are not telling the truth, it just means you need to be especially wary.
Whenever I have had a primary anonymous source for a story - as in the case of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation reported in ‘Why America Slept’ - I disclosed that to the attorney in the publishing house as part of the legal review of the book. Somebody else had to know and judge the quality of that source (in my case, 3, but I identified only one key person). With Substack, of course, there is no legal review. So, we, as journalists, have all the responsibility for getting it right, as always.
In the case of Sy, his remarkable track record means I always give him the benefit of the doubt.
There is no easy ‘best way’ to update for authors to update their books. Substack can be a good platform for updates but the major ones can get lost in a deluge of minor updates.
It is great that Sy Hersh is on Substack. We shared the same editor at Random House, Bob Loomis.
Best, gp
Oh and speaking of Hersh, he's getting a lot of flack for using a single anonymous source. This is always problematic. The story might be corroborated at some time in the future - or not. Brings to mind "Why America Slept" and your version of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation (naming possible complicit Saudis, etc.) Has this been corroborated since 2003? Ali Soufan and John Kiriakou have since published versions that differ somewhat. What became of that source/story? -SST