I thought McGinnis did an incredible job with some very, very touch subject matter. I read "Blood Games" as well, and while both had their advantages, "Cruel Doubt" was far and away the better book. Like other readers, I was shocked that Moog was convicted without physical evidence, and while I'm sure he was involved, I feel confident that others -- including Henderson and Pritchard -- were also involved. Unlike Bledsoe, McGinnis took the time after the trial to gauge those involved on what THEY thought really happened, and that is where the book really gets great. I, too, am hoping for another book on this crime.
Along those lines, does anyone know of a site or message board that addresses this particular crime? Thanks.

I read Joe McGinniss' Fatal Vision on Jan 5, 1985, and found it a well-done account. This book is just as good, and I found that I kept wanting to get back to reading it. It is very well-done, and a lawyer can read it without cringing, since the author handles the legal issues--fascinating ones so far as attorny-client relations go--intelligently. Anyone reading the book will want to read the opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court which is State v. Upchurch, 421 S.E. 2d 577 (N.C. 1992). The book does not cover the retrial and I have found out how the retrial came out, but to tell you might be in the nature of a spoiler, so I won't.

This book thrilled me and annoyed me at the same time. I was blown away by the family dynamics that led to the murder of the main character's husband. And the insane world of drugs and Dungeons and Dragons that her son (who the reader suspects is involved from the beginning) inhabits is a glimpse into a real person's dark side.

But don't expect the story to end like a fictional murder mystery. You'll be left with many unanswered questions, unexplainable evidence, and a sinking suspicion that there's more to the story than what was revealed. But it's just this ambiguity that makes this such a compelling read.

Joe McGinniss joined the Nixon campaign as an observer, and wrote this book of connected stories. Nixon's team had a number of advertising and TV professionals. The book lacks and index and a table of contents. The cover shows Nixon's face on a pack of cigarettes - an apt metaphor. They are heavily advertised, and bad for you in the short and long run. People know this, but they buy them anyway!

Chapter 1 shows Nixon taping commercials for varied markets. "I pledge an all-out war against organized crime in this country." But investigations into organized crime was later halted. Chapter 2 tells us that politics, like advertising, is a con game! Both promise more than they deliver. McGinniss says Nixon lost in 1960 because the camera portrayed him clearly (p.32). I think the TV audience judge he was lying, the radio audience took him at his word. By 1968 Nixon learned how to act sincere. He would appear mellow, not intense; respected, if not loved (p.34). Page 36 explains how this works: saturated TV advertising showing the candidate and giving the desired impression, followed by public appearances where he doesn't say anything. TV would be controlled to transmit the best images (p.38). Chapter 3 tells about Harry Treleaven, who worked on the 1966 campaign for George Bush; he was elected because he was likeable, and none knew his stand on the issues. More people vote for emotional than logical reasons (p.45). Chapter 4 explains the power of TV. "The press doesn't matter anymore: (p.59). Painting Nixon as mellow was their way to overcome the old Nixon. Chapter 5 tells how the TV shows were staged for each region. Page 64 explains the politics for a panel of questioners. The selected audience applauded every answer. Chapter 6 says that if Nixon could not act warmer they would produce commercials that made him so!

Chapter 7 tells how a commercial would "create a Nixon image that was entirely independent of the words" (p.85). "The secret is in the juxtaposition" (p.88). (Was this parodied in that scene in "The Parallax View"?) Once complaint was of a picture of a soldier who had scrawled "LOVE" on his helmet; a new picture was found with a plain helmet. Later they received a letter from that soldier's mother - Mrs William Love (p.92)! Page 99 tells why you never saw a farmer on this show. Or a psychiatrist (p.100)! Chapter 9 gives an insider's view to the commercial images and what they meant. Chapter 10 tells of seeking Wallace voters with a ballad. Another trick was to be seen as a friend of Billy Graham. Chapter 11 tells of Nixon's shrinking lead. How could a slick production lose to a rough-edged show? Chapter 12 rates a Humphrey commercial as "contrived and tasteless" (p.138), but also "most effective" since it showed HHH as a real person in open air, not being kept in a TV studio. Chapter 13 explains how a TV show worked. People would call in with questions; these would be passed to the staff. They would be scrapped, and prepared questions and their answers used (p.149).

The Appendix contains various memos from the campaign; relevant extracts from "Understanding Media" and its analysis. Page 187 notes the good appeal of "reagan". Reagan's personal charisma is noted on plage 189. Pages 218-220 explain the benefits of print advertising over TV. Page 233 mentions the strategy of a challenger: the candidate stands for change (you assume what that means). These memos concern Nixon's run, but are applicable to other candidates today. How much has changed since 1968?

Somewhere in the second chapter of this splendid book, Leonard Hall, national Republican chairman said; "You sell your candidates and your programs the way a business sells its products." This succinct message captures the essence of Joe McGinniss and his book, "The Selling of the President."
The author explains how Richard Nixon is packaged and distributed to the American people by clever television professionals.

The marriage of politicians and advertising men first took place in 1956 when Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election and selected the agency of Batton, Barto, Durstine and Osborn. McGinniss explains that the basic advertising concepts remained unchanged right up to 1968 but that Richard Nixon made every use of all the sophisticated technical advances of the day. Moreover, the author details how slick New York advertising men seduced voters which elevated them from the smoky parlors to the expensive suites with the political big shots.

Advertising executives allowed Nixon to dominate the airwaves. To this end, the television campaign allowed Nixon to get through the campaign with a dozen or so carefully worded responses that would cover all the problems of America in 1968. After a while it is rather clear that Richard Nixon is basically a boring man. However, with proper packaging Nixon soon represented competence, respect for tradition, serenity, faith that the American people were better than people anywhere else, and that all these problems others shouted about meant nothing in a land blessed with the tallest buildings, strongest armies, biggest factories, cutest children, and rosiest sunsets in the world.

I found the marriage of political and advertising minds fascinating. Of particular interest is how certain keywords such as conscientiousness, vigorous, party unifier, newness, glamour, humor, warmth could create a television facade to hide a candidate's blemishes. This is a great book and should be used in the classroom to show how television altered how politics and campaigns are orchestrated in the United States.

Bert Ruiz

First off, let's get one thing straight: McGinniss infiltrated the Nixon Campaign, pure and simple. Not exactly what you'd call honorable journalism.

That said, "The Selling of the President" remains the definitive case study of the first sophisticated use of television in American Presidential Politics. Having worked in political public relations for three years, the characterizations and quotes ring completely true. While the public was dismayed by the widening morass in Vietnam, there's no denying the fact that Nixon's very astute use of the tube helped catapult him into the office he ultimately disgraced.

Yes, mass media image-building is now the politician's stock in trade: Willy talking boxers versus briefs, the Veep doing the Macarena, and George The Elder fumbling at the checkout counter.

"The Selling of the President 1968" is written in tough, punchy prose, and chillingly accurate. I'm certain The Founding Fathers would flinch.

Highly recommended as a continuing reality check.

Many years ago, I read "Fatal Vision" with an open mind on the subject. The key elements in this book are keenly subjective, wavering in favor and disfavor of the author's client: Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. Much has been made of the current effort to free MacDonald on DNA technicalities, with a cadre of trial lawyers, laboring under the altruistic term "Pro Bono", meaning "without charge"...(As if a trillion dollar civil damage suit won't be filed nanoseconds after MacDonald is sprung) presenting their "newly discovered" evidence, which is thoroughly outlined in the book "Fatal Justice". What HAS come to light in the wake of this tragedy is the fallability of military justice, which the book clearly exposes in paragraphs devoted to errors and prosecutorial misconduct made by Army investigative authorities, security personnel, hospital forensic evidence technicians, and command level jurists. There is no doubt in my mind that the prima facia evidence refutes MacDonald's sworn testimony. Blood type evidence, in addition to the pajama top theory, clearly shows MacDonald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What irks me is the fact that the Army's investigation errors were instrumental in delaying justice for two young girls, and their pregnant mother.

FATAL VISION provides a gripping account of the 1970 MacDonald murders. Did Army doctor Jeff MacDonald murder his wife and daughters (as much evidence suggests), or was he beaten unconscious by late-night intruders who committed this brutal crime? When the case finally went to trial after nine years of legal wrangling, Dr. MacDonald hired author Joe McGinnis to cover what doctor hoped would be his acquittal - but the jury (and separately, McGinnis) concluded that he was guilty. McGinnis then wrote this page-turning account of the crime, investigations, six-week trial, legal maneuvers, plus additional facts the jury never saw. The author concludes with a shaky psychological conviction based on MacDonald's arrogant, self-absorbed personality. Seemingly more persuasive is evidence suggesting MacDonald abused a dangerous amphetamine for weeks leading up to the crime. Whatever your take, this compelling true-crime drama leaves many convinced of MacDonald's guilt, but others harboring enough doubt to stimulate debate.

MacDonald's supporters attack this book as inaccurate and unfair. They point to investigative errors, [substance abuser] Helena Stoeckley, and disturbing claims of suppressed evidence from a book of similar title (FATAL JUSTICE) that requests a new trial. But MacDonald secretly flunked two polygraphs in 1970 - after refusing an army polygraph to clear his name - and the absence of blood, splinters, and pajama fibers in the suspiciously tidy living room appear to refute MacDonald's claim that he battled several intruders in there. FATAL VISION doesn't prove MacDonald guilty, but it's a compelling read.

Unlike other readers and the person who recommended this book, I was convinced of MacDonald's guilt from the first chapter. Having personal (and dreadful) experience with a pathological narcissist, Jeff MacDonald struck me as a liar, a cad, and an amoral narcissist with no conscience whatsoever. I don't necessarily buy the idea that he was psychotic as the result of amphetemines, but he had (has) the personality to snap and do something incredibly stupid and then try to cover it up. His gradiosity, sense of entitlement, lack of grief and ability to cry on cue was so eerie, it gave me the creeps just reading the things he said. This book kept me up for three or four nights until the wee hours and anyone interested in well-written true crime stories should not miss this book.

Regardless of any "new" evidence, and the fact that the investigation was clearly fouled up, there is no doubt in my mind that Jeff was the killer. Maybe he didn't intend to kill anyone, but he did, nevertheless. I hope he never gets out.

This book was a fun read for me, since I am from Alaska. Indeed, many of his characterizations about the people here are accurate--this state is full of quirky characters looking to escape one thing or another in their lives! It was also interesting to read about the places he visited, since I have been lucky enough to visit many of them.

However, I found his blatant bias against development and the oil industry disturbing. I found myself contstantly wanting to remind him that without those planes and automobiles, which require oil in one form or another, he never would have been able to visit all the places in Alaska he wrote about. The first oil was just going through the pipeline when he was here, yet he had already made up his mind that oil development was "bad."

I hope Mr. McGinnis doesn't drive a car or heat his home with oil--ditto for all the other environmentalists that want to lock up Alaska.

I read this book in the early 90's, just before I moved to Alaska. After spending 9 years in the Last Frontier, I still loved this book. One of the things I like best about it is that McGinnis doesn't romanticize the state and its people, as so many seem wont to do. His characterization is right on, and his descriptions are accurate...a number of folks ARE quirky, eccentric, social misfits looking to escape the trappings of "down south", and not everything works the way it's supposed to. You never know what to expect in Alaska, and I think McGinniss paints a humorous and accurate story of our 49th state.

McGinniss' picture of the Last Frontier definitely squares with the descriptions my wife (a sourdough, 32 years in Alaska) shares with me. Between her and Mr. Bane, below, I'm pretty confident in its accuracy.

But that isn't very important, because as you will see, telling tall tales to chichoccos (tenderfeet) is so Alaskan that if McGinniss had fabricated a good portion of the material, it would still retain its Alaskan character. What's most important is the close-up view you get of the people, the land, the weather, and the wildlife and the ways they all interact. I don't think McGinniss ate mucktuck in the book (smart man), but he immersed himself in Alaska pretty deeply nonetheless. A very easy read; that rare book that is light and deep at the same time.

This book has a hilarious beginning and I was all set to enjoy the book until the author's character started to seep through the pages of the story. The author's behavior was just like the stereotype of the "Ugly American" and I was embarrassed at his actions. The book was an interesting portrayal of a small town in Italy, and the antidotes of the town's citizens and the soccer players were interesting and well written. I do not know anything about soccer and I found the descriptions of the games tedious and boring. I would not recommend this book to anyone who is not a soccer fan. The author recounted conversations in Italian, and then translated the Italian into English. A small dose of this is ok for effect, but when most of the conversations are presented in this manner, it becomes monotonous.

A truly great story of a small city, their soccer team and how they pulled off the impossible dream of playing in Serie B. The author seemed to stretch his story with all the translations of Italian. While I speak Italian, I found the translations detracted from the reading. The passages should have been in English to begin with. McGinnis steps over the line as an observer when he begins to believe he is a soccer expert and starts to advise the coach on line-ups. And then he ruins the book by playing GOD by using his morals and beliefs to judge a situation all too common in Italy. He turns a year of hard-won friendship into ashes in the mouth. He goes from being a reporter to a pariah - not only in the eyes of the town of Castel di Sangro and the soccer team, but in mine also. Another American trying to dictate behavior all over the world. Will we ever stop?

As a literary method, it has been done several times - pick a club, follow it through the season - but never with such intensity (the author swallows valiums before a crucial match!) and luck as Joe McGinnis. It is a great story, a good read, a fine portrait of a country and its passion - and it may even be dragged into court, according to recent rumours from Italy.

The author's luck was that incredible things actually happened during the season. It could very easily have been a depressing and eventless drag towards relegation, which would not have saved McGinnis whatever his strengths as an author.

The book does stretch the reader's capacity for belief. Were the coach and the manager really that incredibly stupid? Were all the players really that nice? But, in the end, this does not matter: McGinnis has succumbed to the madness of calcio, where rational thoughts and actions are often beside the point. The mad dream IS the story, and it sets the stage for the controversial ending.

"Miracle" is close to 5 stars, imho, but the double usage of Italian and English in dialogue all through the book becomes irritating, and the suspicion that McGinnis has cut some corners lingers on.

"Blind Faith" is a good true crime book and an interesting read. Nothing outstanding or spectacular, though.

But there is something rather strange at the biginning of this book that people seem not to notice. Author Joe McGinniss put an "Explanatory Note" at the beginning of the book. It basically states that most of the names and identies have been changed for privacy sake. Ok that no big deal. But this note also states, " . . . certain scenes have been dramatically re-created . . . " The passage explains that this was done to better portray the people and atmosphere of the scenes on which the story is based. I found this rather odd. To me this seems to say that certain parts of the story were fictionalized. So this book may not be 100% accurate to what actually happened.

And by the way, one reviewer asked about what happened to the Marshall boys. I have no idea about Chris and John. But I know that Roby Marshall married and had a child with actress Tracy Gold, who used to be on the sitcom "Growing Pains". He was working in Hollywood for awhile in some kind of behind the cameras job. I do not know if they are still together or if he still works in Hollywood.

I found this book inferior to Fatal Vision (which I read with much appreciation on 5 Jan 1985) and to Cruel Doubt (which I read 11 Nov 2002). Many of the names of the people involved in this case have been changed. One can get the actual names of the people, including the girlfriend, by reading the legal opinions concerning the case. The conviction was affirmed in a 175-page opinion by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Marshall, 586 A. 2nd 85 (1991). The most recent decision in the case is Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F. 3rd 36, decided Sept 11, 2002, which ordered a further hearing in regard to effectiveness of counsel in the penalty phase of the trial, which readers will remember was handled somewhat lackadaisically according to the book. The book spends a lot of time repeating the whining of the murderer, which surely grew old and tiresome. I think the book deviated too much from the truth and made up a lot of stuff and I prefer true crime accounts to be as accurate and factual as possible. This one flunks the veracity test.

Joe McGinniss's excellent follow up to "Fatal Vision" is one of his best yet. "Blind Faith" takes us into the home of Rob and Maria Marshall and their 3 sons, a family in the "Leave It To Beaver" mould whose idyllic life was the envy of all who knew them. But the tragic murder of Maria in September 1984 revealed a twisted underbelly of asociality where the life of a beloved daughter and loving mother could be traded for a sum as measly and paltry as 1.5 million dollars. Joe McGinniss slowly draws the reader in to the complicated investigation which is littered with people who seem to be direct from the central casting of an Alfred Hitchcock film as the police and the district attorney quietly and resolutely hunt down their quarry - Maria's "loving" husband, Rob Marshall, who in court was finally revealed for the avaricious and cunning sociopath that he is. Although this tragic, cautionary tale transports the reader on a journey into the dark side of the American dream which will haunt us long after the last page is finished, the true success of this book lies with McGinniss's depiction of 3 grieving boys who went from initially believing totally in their father's innocence to finally angrily acknowledging his guilt.

'Heroes' was Joe McGinniss's return to the publishing fray after 'The Selling Of The President 1968' made him bestselling sensation in his twenties. It was panned at the time, viewed as self-indulgent and narcissistic. Well, it sure ain't 'Selling 2', and it's easy to understand why many readers didn't like it. But this is actually a masterpiece of confessional journalism. Joe, knocked sideways by the success of his first book, goes on a search for America to find out what a hero is, and whether the hero still exists. His journey turns into a journey into himself. Yeah, I know it sounds like it's going to be cornball self-discovery time. Er, no. The picture McGinniss paints of himself is of a man realising who he is and despising what he has become: a philandering, abusive, egocentric, drinker. He conceals none of this: he offers up the facts about his life, and about what he is trying to do, as if in a confessional. He offers the reader a chance to judge (and how many authors, really, are honest enough to do that? Put it this way: Dave Eggers would never have dared bare so much of his soul in 'A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius') and does not flinch from the verdict you return. It's criminal this book is out of print.

Joe McGinniss joined the Nixon campaign as an observer, and wrote this book of connected stories. Nixon's team had a number of advertising and TV professionals. The book lacks and index and a table of contents. The cover shows Nixon's face on a pack of cigarettes - an apt metaphor. They are heavily advertised, and bad for you in the short and long run. People know this, but they buy them anyway!

Chapter 1 shows Nixon taping commercials for varied markets. "I pledge an all-out war against organized crime in this country." But investigations into organized crime was later halted. Chapter 2 tells us that politics, like advertising, is a con game! Both promise more than they deliver. McGinniss says Nixon lost in 1960 because the camera portrayed him clearly (p.32). I think the TV audience judge he was lying, the radio audience took him at his word. By 1968 Nixon learned how to act sincere. He would appear mellow, not intense; respected, if not loved (p.34). Page 36 explains how this works: saturated TV advertising showing the candidate and giving the desired impression, followed by public appearances where he doesn't say anything. TV would be controlled to transmit the best images (p.38). Chapter 3 tells about Harry Treleaven, who worked on the 1966 campaign for George Bush; he was elected because he was likeable, and none knew his stand on the issues. More people vote for emotional than logical reasons (p.45). Chapter 4 explains the power of TV. "The press doesn't matter anymore: (p.59). Painting Nixon as mellow was their way to overcome the old Nixon. Chapter 5 tells how the TV shows were staged for each region. Page 64 explains the politics for a panel of questioners. The selected audience applauded every answer. Chapter 6 says that if Nixon could not act warmer they would produce commercials that made him so!

Chapter 7 tells how a commercial would "create a Nixon image that was entirely independent of the words" (p.85). "The secret is in the juxtaposition" (p.88). (Was this parodied in that scene in "The Parallax View"?) Once complaint was of a picture of a soldier who had scrawled "LOVE" on his helmet; a new picture was found with a plain helmet. Later they received a letter from that soldier's mother - Mrs William Love (p.92)! Page 99 tells why you never saw a farmer on this show. Or a psychiatrist (p.100)! Chapter 9 gives an insider's view to the commercial images and what they meant. Chapter 10 tells of seeking Wallace voters with a ballad. Another trick was to be seen as a friend of Billy Graham. Chapter 11 tells of Nixon's shrinking lead. How could a slick production lose to a rough-edged show? Chapter 12 rates a Humphrey commercial as "contrived and tasteless" (p.138), but also "most effective" since it showed HHH as a real person in open air, not being kept in a TV studio. Chapter 13 explains how a TV show worked. People would call in with questions; these would be passed to the staff. They would be scrapped, and prepared questions and their answers used (p.149).

The Appendix contains various memos from the campaign; relevant extracts from "Understanding Media" and its analysis. Page 187 notes the good appeal of "reagan". Reagan's personal charisma is noted on plage 189. Pages 218-220 explain the benefits of print advertising over TV. Page 233 mentions the strategy of a challenger: the candidate stands for change (you assume what that means). These memos concern Nixon's run, but are applicable to other candidates today. How much has changed since 1968?

In 1970, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald's pregnant wife and two daughters were brutally murdered in the family's apartment in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. MacDonald was a respected army physician at the time, and his story was that four strangers broke into the MacDonald residence and committed the murders. He was tried by an Army tribunal and cleared. Years later the case was reopened, and MacDonald was convicted of the murders. He is still serving his jail sentence.

Janet Malcolm does not reopen the MacDonald case in her book, "The Journalist and the Murderer." Rather, she examines the issues behind a libel case that MacDonald brought in 1984 against his supposed friend, Joe McGinnis, author of "Fatal Vision." Joe McGinniss posed as a friend of Jeffrey MacDonald for years. McGinnis lived with MacDonald for a while and even joined his defense team. McGinniss sent MacDonald many sympathetic letters in support of his cause; in his letters, he frequently expressed his belief in MacDonald's innocence.

It was only after "Fatal Vision" was published that MacDonald discovered the truth. McGinniss did not believe in MacDonald's innocence. On the contrary, in "Fatal Vision," McGinniss portrays MacDonald as a psychopathic murderer. McGinniss posed as a friend for the sole purpose of keeping MacDonald in the dark about the nature of the book that McGinniss was writing. McGinniss's main motive was to continue to have access to MacDonald until the book went to press. "Fatal Vision" became a best seller and it was eventually made into a miniseries.

Malcolm's book, written in 1990, takes on added significance in 2003, when the ethics of journalists are under fire as never before. Time and again, journalists have been accused of plagiarism and of making up stories that they later presented as fact. The public is beginning to see journalists as fallible people who suffer from the same pressures, ambitions and even psychological disorders as other ordinary mortals. Journalists will sometimes lie and cheat to get their stories in print, and we must take what we read with a huge grain of salt.

Malcolm's book is not merely a condemnation of McGinniss's behavior towards MacDonald. Her premise is that the journalist's relationship to his subject is, in its very essence, a perilous one. The gullible subject babbles away to his "sympathetic" listener, revealing more of himself than he realizes. When all is said and done, the subject has no control over the final product of these interviews. The subject may very well be shocked when he sees that his words have been distorted and that the journalist has made him look bad in print. How will the subject get his reputation back now?

Malcolm portrays the journalist as a con man, who preys on people's loneliness, credibility and narcissism to get a good story. What is the lesson in all of this? Beware of placing your faith in the ethics of journalists. They have their own agendas and the "truth," which is elusive at best, is not always a priority. Malcolm's book is an important one, since it serves as a warning for those naïve people who are only too eager to believe everything that they read in a newspaper or a magazine. What you read is only one person's version of the truth.

In The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm examines the transactional relationship between a journalist and her subject, especially the dynamic of what happens during an interview. (Why do so many people repeatedly and voluntarily blabber stupidly to the media? Why is it so difficult to refuse a microphone?) And what moral obligation does a journalist have to her subject?

Malcolm answers these questions (as much as she's able to) in the context of a murder trail that journalist Joe McGinniss wrote about, after being given unlimited access to accused murderer Jeffrey MacDonald and his defense team. McGinniss, originally sympathetic to MacDonald, comes to believe that he is guilty of the murder (the jury agreed), but does not reveal his change of heart to MacDonald, in order to maintain access to him. Once McGinniss's book, Fatal Vision, is published, MacDonald is horrified by the portrait presented to him and sues McGinniss for fraud.

Malcolm raises issues that I, a constant reader of journalism, had never considered. Her book gave me insight into what a writer must do to get the story. She's made me a less naïve reader. Those long articles in The New Yorker will never seem the same.

I read this book several years ago. I found it to be extremely intelligent and interesting. It is a book that clearly portrays the relationship between a journalist and a subject. Both sides are manipulative and selfish but only the journalist has the power in this relationship. What McGinnis did in Fatal Vision was grossly unfair regardless of Macdonald's guilt or innocence. I think that is why it made such a huge splash with other writers. In the age of new journalism, most writers will do and say anything for a good story.