But Hoyt focuses on a phony conflict issue and relegates the real issue to one paragraph:
On Thursday, he came under attack from a blogger for The Atlantic for not mentioning in his book that his wife had twice filed for bankruptcy — the second time while they were married, though Andrews said it involved an old loan from a family member. He said he had wanted to spare his wife any more embarrassment. The blogger said the omission undercut Andrews’s story, but I think it was clear that he and his wife could not manage their finances, bankruptcies or no. Still, he should have revealed the second one, if only to head off the criticism.
Look, Andrews and Clark are both right that there’s plenty of information available for readers to know that Andrews and his wife couldn’t manage their money. This lapse is no high crime.
But that doesn’t excuse it. The bankruptcies are simply part of the story, and there’s no way around that. It’s not even a close call.
Just say so.
I guess the test would be if he were writing the same kind of story about someone else, someone of similar prominence, would he omit the wife's bankruptcies? I think he would not, and I think that if he did, some blogger would call him on it.
#1 Posted by edward ericson, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 04:12 PM
Your coverage should have gotten more media play, I'm sorry that it didn't, it was excellent and balanced reportage on the subject.
#2 Posted by nobody, CJR on Mon 22 Jun 2009 at 08:10 PM