All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Foreign press shames U.S. media for crying, "Wolff!"

In January, the American media was all fire and fury in praising Michael Wolff's book which was touted as a tell-all expose of behind-the-scenes at the White House.

A month later, even the Washington Post has thrown the towel in on the guy, with its Erik Wemple writing, "Michael Wolff should just apologize," after a BBC host called Wolff out.

PolitiFact and others in the American press should apologize for promoting this fabulist's fairy tales.

His stories about the White House and President Trump were too good to be true.

The American media failed to check it out.

The Vanity Fair headline read:
“I Was the Most Non-threatening Person in the Trump Universe”: Michael Wolff Takes a Fire and Fury Victory Lap.
At a Manhattan house party, Wolff and his publisher recount the genesis of the book that rocked the White House.
The story was a disappointing story about a cocktail party for the book. Do they still hold cocktail parties? I thought they died before disco.

President Trump, however, tweeted, "I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book."

PolitiFact once again called the president a liar, despite the fact that the president indeed authorized no access. While the White House admitted to 16 "interactions" with Wolff, that was a far cry from Wolff's claim that he interviewed more than 200 people in the Trump White House.

PolitiFact is considered the gold standard of American journalism. The bogus logic and reasoning used by PolitiFact shows why more and more Americans each day scorn the press.

But Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone was suspicious, leading his January 11 account of the book, "A quick note about Michael Wolff's 'Fire and Fury,' which upon a second pass still has, to put it mildly, some serious issues: As any art historian can pick out a forgery, veteran journalists reading this book will quickly spot an oversold narrative and perhaps unprecedented sourcing issues."

What happened to when in doubt, leave it out?

He said, "Fire and Fury is really two books rolled into one. The first is a compelling nonfiction book about the intellectual divide in the modern right, as candidly hashed out to Wolff by influential figures like Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes and (seemingly?) Rupert Murdoch.

"The second is a Primary Colors-style novel about what goes on behind various closed doors in the Trump White House, based on a few bits and pieces of fact, which are offset by mountains of eye-rollingly insupportable supposition, spiced with occasional stretches of believable analysis.

"There is considerable debate in the media world, on both the left and the right, about the value of this book (even I've gone back and forth on it). In the end, I think it's like a piece of moldy rye bread – you have to cut around the hairily sourced parts to keep from getting poisoned. But on a broad level, there is something to dig into."

Moldy rye bread. Why was the media bothering with moldy rye bread.

Oh yes, Trump.

The American media's Trumpophobia has left it too addicted to say no to a book whose author has mistaken the voices in his head for anonymous sources.

But a month later after none of the outrageous lies proved valuable, the media now shuns him. Tony Blair turned on Wolff. What would a former British prime minister possibly gain politically by defending Donald Trump.

And yet, there it is.

Wolff is flogging his book overseas, and discovering the foreign press does not have fantasies of impeaching Trump.

"The author of the explosive White House expose 'Fire and Fury' abruptly walked out of an interview on Australian television Sunday, after being asked if he owes President Donald Trump an apology," Newsweek reported.

"Michael Wolff said that he could no longer hear host Ben Fordham’s questions during an appearance on the breakfast hour The Today Show."

And Christian Fraser, a host with the BBC program “Beyond 100 Days,” said Wolff canceled on him as well.

The American press might note how this is done. If a guy is telling you everything you want to hear, maybe he is lying his ass off.


The media chose to go to war with Donald John Trump in 2017 rather than accept him as president.

The media chose poorly.

From Leslie Eastman's review at Legal Insurrection:
Surber, a recovering journalist with over 30 years of experience, has been cataloging the #FakeNews that has been regularly offered as serious analysis of President Donald Trump’s actions, policies, and opinions. He has brought his enormous collection together in the longest, most serious book he has yet written: Fake News Follies of 2017.
Fake News Follies of 2017 is available on Kindle and in paperback.

Autographed copies are available. Email me at for details. I am including a "director's cut." I will give you the original Chapter 1 that I cut because while the chapter was amusing, it really had nothing to do with the Fake News Follies of 2017.


  1. Not maybe: He IS lying to you. -- BJ54

  2. But our enemedia just love juicy lies about Trump and have no intention or interest in whether they're true or not.

  3. "I want to Believe!"

    X-Files or the MSM?

    -Mikey NTH

  4. I was going to say that this was The DaVinci Code, for Democrats, but remembered that it was, too. This is the same thing. They'll end up using it for a movie, because it is the best they've got. There's probably a stand-in for the creepy conspiratorial religious order, as well.