5/ Watergate was the most complex scandal of that time—the most moving parts of any 1950-1999 political scandal—but we realize even *that* scandal could be sufficiently covered by just two dudes writing about it for 2 years. Sure, some others helped but we’ve been *told* it was two guys, one source.
6/ My point—and I write this as a former journalism professor— is that when Trump was elected, political journalism had to change completely. Forever. Incontrovertibly. And not small changes but systemic ones. But none of that happened. So he was covered poorly or—worse—in a way that aided his lies.
7/ That also means that political books had to change. Forever. Incontrovertibly. No more 300-page books seeking a quick payday that take a topic that’s not worth a book and spread 3 pieces of sizzle (surprising new facts) over 300 pages...like Bilbo’s too much butter spread over too little bread.
8/ Trump scandals were categorically different because *he’s* a categorically different POTUS—a career criminal running a nation. A sociopath. Pathological liar. Clinical narcissist. Serial sexual predator. A con man. But his scandals were also different because of the internet—it changed politics.
9/ In 2018 I explained this to Simon & Schuster. It’s part of how my first trade-press book deal happened. I made clear that I wasn’t going to do what Woodward did and create scenes, make up fake conversations, sprinkle minor news across way too many pages, publish mostly filler with 3-4 big scoops.
10/ This is why every book of the Proof Series is not like any other political book today—and I *admit* that that is for better *and* worse. For instance, they really can only be read in small bites. And they are recursive (out of *necessity*) in ways that make people with *really* good memories...
11/ ...sometimes find them repetitive. But what they do is curate a *very* large number of sources on a *large* number of connected topics with a connective tissue that’s not fake conversations, boring metaphors or weirdly stilted ready-for-TV scenes but contextual analysis showing where pieces fit.
12/ The books are also investigative vehicles—they ask questions; they analyze scenarios; they map out how one key fact simultaneously touches 5-10 subtopics. They’re in a sense trying to mirror the internet rather than—like most political books pre-internet—set up the author for a film option deal.
13/ I do not claim to have the formula for being a journalist in the Trump era down pat. I do not. But I am trying. My books are trying. The frustrations they cause—the ice cream headaches—are a sign of that trying, as are the health problems even trying to *write* books like these have caused me.
14/ I know this much—this much I’m sure of—that the Proof Series is *closer* to what the moment requires *structurally* in journalism (as a matter of process and concept) than the shelf of political nonfiction I have in my bedroom full of otherwise decent books that follow a now out-of-date model.
15/ That isn’t a knock on those authors. In conventional terms I deem most of them to be better than me. My asset has always been more in the realm of process and concept than writing style; that was true of my 6 books of published poetry, true of my one reference guide, and true of the Proof books.
The challenge of making sense of these complex webs of crime, corruption, and lies is immense. And then to construct a compelling and impeccably sourced narrative around it? Your work is invaluable. Thank you.
I just wish a filmmaker would transform them into film for wider consumption and uptake. Sadly, so many don’t read.