Scan barcode
josh_paul's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed Dish but thought that it had the potential to be more than it was if Walls had taken things in a slightly different direction.
At the center of this story are supermarket tabloids, most famously the National Enquirer. These publications were hugely popular from the 60-80s, then steadily lost readers over the ensuing decades. Wells argues that much of this was due to more mainstream publications getting in on the game. She claims that public obsession with a couple of major stories in the 90s accelerated this trend.
The O.J. Simpson murder trial was a turning point, she thinks. A mini-city of reporters emerged outside the L.A. county courthouse to dissect everything even remotely related to the trial. As the editor of the National Enquirer put it, "fifteen years ago we would have been alone out there[...] now we're elbowing The New York Times and The Washington Post out of the way."
Walls also makes the interesting, and plausible claim that there's a strong tension in journalism between accuracy and access. When it started People magazine was known largely for its sympathetic coverage of celebrities. That is, People covered them in the way they wanted to be covered. E.g. "Truman Capote, fresh out of an alcohol rehab center, invited People to accompany him to a gym to do an article on his new healthy lifestyle. During the interview, Capote downed two glasses of vodka and kept falling over, but the People reporter helped prop the writer up on a Nautilus machine long enough to get pictures."
The reason for this was simple: If people had published a story about Capote falling down drunk right after exiting rehab then they'd be no different from the supermarket tabloids. Celebrities would stop talking to them, or at least be far more guarded. In other words, People prioritized access.
But, as Walls points out, the "respectable" press also often prioritized access. One particularly disturbing example: A Times contributor was staying in the same hotel as J.F.K. at a conference in 1961. Kennedy came into his room after a meeting with Nikita Khrushchev and how Nikitta Kruscheve didn’t respect him because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. “I have to show him we’re not gutless [...] the only way to do it is to send troops into Vietnam…. I’ve got to do it”
The contributor told this story later at a dinner party attended by several other Times writers. The other Times reporters generally agreed that he shouldn't publish it. In other words, the President of the U.S. said he was going to start a war because he was having some kind of weird masculinity showdown with the Soviet Premier. But journalists at the most respectable newspaper in the country didn't think that was among the news that was fit to print.
The reason they didn't publish it was almost certain that they feared losing access. The Times contributor was friends with J.F.K. and he didn't want to betray him by publishing something so embarrassing.
The biggest thing that distinguished the Enquirer in its heyday was that it focused on publishing stuff that would sell papers. They didn't worry about whether the stuff would be considered news or gossip, or whether it would upset the people it was published about. They also didn't worry that much about accuracy.
I think where the book falls short is that the later chapters are focused purely on celebrity gossip, setting aside other areas of questionable newsworthiness that were once the (primarily) domain of tabloids, things like true crime and uplifting "human interest stories." Of course, the entire ecosystem that Walls was writing about has been upended again in the last 20 years by the growth of online media but that's a separate book.
At the center of this story are supermarket tabloids, most famously the National Enquirer. These publications were hugely popular from the 60-80s, then steadily lost readers over the ensuing decades. Wells argues that much of this was due to more mainstream publications getting in on the game. She claims that public obsession with a couple of major stories in the 90s accelerated this trend.
The O.J. Simpson murder trial was a turning point, she thinks. A mini-city of reporters emerged outside the L.A. county courthouse to dissect everything even remotely related to the trial. As the editor of the National Enquirer put it, "fifteen years ago we would have been alone out there[...] now we're elbowing The New York Times and The Washington Post out of the way."
Walls also makes the interesting, and plausible claim that there's a strong tension in journalism between accuracy and access. When it started People magazine was known largely for its sympathetic coverage of celebrities. That is, People covered them in the way they wanted to be covered. E.g. "Truman Capote, fresh out of an alcohol rehab center, invited People to accompany him to a gym to do an article on his new healthy lifestyle. During the interview, Capote downed two glasses of vodka and kept falling over, but the People reporter helped prop the writer up on a Nautilus machine long enough to get pictures."
The reason for this was simple: If people had published a story about Capote falling down drunk right after exiting rehab then they'd be no different from the supermarket tabloids. Celebrities would stop talking to them, or at least be far more guarded. In other words, People prioritized access.
But, as Walls points out, the "respectable" press also often prioritized access. One particularly disturbing example: A Times contributor was staying in the same hotel as J.F.K. at a conference in 1961. Kennedy came into his room after a meeting with Nikita Khrushchev and how Nikitta Kruscheve didn’t respect him because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. “I have to show him we’re not gutless [...] the only way to do it is to send troops into Vietnam…. I’ve got to do it”
The contributor told this story later at a dinner party attended by several other Times writers. The other Times reporters generally agreed that he shouldn't publish it. In other words, the President of the U.S. said he was going to start a war because he was having some kind of weird masculinity showdown with the Soviet Premier. But journalists at the most respectable newspaper in the country didn't think that was among the news that was fit to print.
The reason they didn't publish it was almost certain that they feared losing access. The Times contributor was friends with J.F.K. and he didn't want to betray him by publishing something so embarrassing.
The biggest thing that distinguished the Enquirer in its heyday was that it focused on publishing stuff that would sell papers. They didn't worry about whether the stuff would be considered news or gossip, or whether it would upset the people it was published about. They also didn't worry that much about accuracy.
I think where the book falls short is that the later chapters are focused purely on celebrity gossip, setting aside other areas of questionable newsworthiness that were once the (primarily) domain of tabloids, things like true crime and uplifting "human interest stories." Of course, the entire ecosystem that Walls was writing about has been upended again in the last 20 years by the growth of online media but that's a separate book.
annie_stevo's review against another edition
5.0
Fascinating Look at the "News"
Scandal sells, as they say. This book chronicles exactly when and how many news outlets figured that out.
From Monroe to Diana to Monica, the scandals if their time outsold almost anything else on both print and screen. I couldn't put this book down.
Scandal sells, as they say. This book chronicles exactly when and how many news outlets figured that out.
From Monroe to Diana to Monica, the scandals if their time outsold almost anything else on both print and screen. I couldn't put this book down.
corgigirl02's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting details about the history of gossip & how it has morphed into Daily Network news. While I MUCH prefer Jeanette Wall's personal history books, Half Broke Horses & The Glass Palace, this is a timely read. Since I have lived thru most of the timeline of the story, I was fascinated to learn about the inside scoop. It was a little walk back thru history from a different point of view. I prefer fiction, but I think everyone should read non-fiction regularly as well for educational purposes. This is a good book to start if you're a fellow fiction lover like me. Every chapter you learn the back stories surrounding media icons like Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Jackson, the Kennedys, Clinton, Elvis, OJ & Princess Diana. Super interesting stuff!
nanajo's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting history but as I try to avoid gossip , the insight into people's private lives was less intriguing.
pghbekka's review against another edition
4.0
Truly fascinating.
I also highly recommend following this with Donald Westlake's Trust Me On This, based on anecdotes from a friend's time at the Enquirer.
I also highly recommend following this with Donald Westlake's Trust Me On This, based on anecdotes from a friend's time at the Enquirer.
stestroete's review against another edition
3.0
It was ok, I am a big Jeanette Walls fan, but frnkly this book could have been written by anyone. The topic was entertaining, but it was very redundant. The book was wrought with combersome detail, that almost seemed repetitive at times.
marisahowardkarp's review
1.0
I just couldn't get into this. I love the topic and I love Jeannette Walls, but finally I put the book down and never went back to it. Disappointing.