Could it also be the case that if you looked closely enough at any prolific and successful (both conditions) non-fiction writer, you would discover pretty much

Could it also be the case that if you looked closely enough at any prolific and successful (both conditions) non-fiction writer, you would discover pretty much the same thing? I see this akin to Doping in upper echelon Bicycling - it's not the case that you found the guilty one, it's just the case that you paid close attention to one, and they are all (at the highest echelons) pretty much guilty of the same thing, so of course the one you paid attention to was guilty. Even the cleanest of the clean, Lance Armstrong, turns out to have been guilty. The writers who never plagarize, never tweak their quotes, never make up a few memorable and interesting (and perhaps somewhat fictional) might be those you never read because it's by doing those things that a writer comes up with interesting material. (At least those who write a substantial volume - it might be easier to be a highly successful completely clean non-fiction writer who only generates a smallish volume) Long ago I basically decided that everything written down is almost guaranteed to be completely false, so I look to it for entertainment, and I'm never disappointed when it turns out be fraudulent. That's why I never understood the excitement over Daisey and his, Chinese Factory Monologues - of course they were fictional. All reporting is, to some degree, fiction.