HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Andrew Sullivan asks if he has a "James Frey" problem. And he frames Obama's reaction to the story this way:

I like Obama, but you've got to worry when a campaign dismisses something as a "non-story."

For god's sake, did he even read the article? Here, for the record, is the relevant part:

"I was dismayed," wrote Sweet, "at what I found when I read Dreams from My Father. Composite characters. Changed names...Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not."

"Colorful characters populate the Chicago chapters: Smitty the barber, LaTisha, the part-time manicurist, Angela, Ruby, Mrs. Turner and one Rafiq al Shabazz. Who they really are, or if they are composites, you would not know from reading the book."

Sounds serious, right?

It is. Until you read the next paragraph, that is:

As Sweet noted in her article, in the introduction of the book, Obama does disclose to his readers the use of composite characters "for the sake of compression" and also says that other than his family and public figures, other characters' "names have been changed to protect their privacy."

So Obama admits in the introduction to the book that he has changed names and created composites, but somehow it is supposed to be a scandal nonetheless? A "James Frey" problem, in Andrew's words? You're kidding, right?

As bad as Andrew's reaction is, the explanation of the journalist breaking the "story" is even worse:

"That's reassuring," wrote Sweet, "but most readers do not have the ability to call around to try to sort out the fictional characters from real people."

Most readers do not have the ability to verify anything they read. Nor do they have the inclination. Nor, for that matter, should they. So long as the author is honest, what precisely is the problem?

C'mon Andrew.... you can do better than this.