3 ms·
I think you're kind of cherry-picking examples here. My gloss of the OP's point was "be skeptical of books by journalists on technically complex subjects in whi
by cfmcdonald 8y ago
I think you're kind of cherry-picking examples here. My gloss of the OP's point was "be skeptical of books by journalists on technically complex subjects in which they have no direct expertise". e.g. it's common for journalists who have never worked in a scientific field to write popular science books.
A book about investigative journalism by investigative journalists is rather different.
- tptacek 8y agoHow is blood lab technology not a technically complex subject? Are you saying Carreyrou had direct expertise with it, or that _Bad Blood_ is an untrustworthy account?
- davidivadavid 8y agoDoes Bad Blood cover the tech aspects of Theranos? My impression was that it was more about the psychological and legal stuff. Edit: ... which obviously doesn't make the book any less interesting.
- tptacek 8y agoIt does indeed. The question you are asking leads me to believe you haven't read it. As a favor to the thread I will make this plain: drop everything else you're reading long-form and buy a copy of _Bad Blood_; it is fantastic. I didn't give a shit about Theranos. Until I got a couple pages into Carreyrou's book, that is.
- x0x0 8y agoThere is at least one "holy shit" moment in every single chapter in that book.
- davidivadavid 8y agoHaven't read it. It's been sitting on a pile somewhere. Time to reprioritize!