CBR Bingo – Scandal (The Journalist and the Murderer)/ Questions (How to Be Perfect)(and a Bingo!)
I finished How to be Perfect on audiobook, listening most of the time with a car full of children (with only a few cringing moments at the mention of some notable sex scandals). It seemed apt for the beginning of the school year – a sort of shallow deep-dive into the field of moral philosophy, as they begin to form their new classroom communities. It’s such a great question to consider as we form any sort of new community – what do we owe each other? How should we treat each other? How can we go through this life making not only ourselves but also others happy? What would it even mean to live a moral life? Like most books about philosophy, this book was about the questions more than the answers – but because it’s written by a non-academic fan of moral philosophy (and someone who understands how to write for entertainment) it is also refreshingly full of practical advice. Just my favorite Schur show, The Good Place, this book treats moral philosophy as both a serious topic and still manages to recognize the humor inherent in our human tendency towards failure. The title is in on the joke – we can’t ever be perfect, and that’s probably not even a good goal. We can only do our very best to decide what we owe to one another, and try to fail better the next time we have an opportunity.
Questions about what we owe to one another were also a large part of The Journalist and the Murderer. Janet Malcom is investigating not just one particular case involving a fellow writer, but really deeper questions about the nature of journalism itself. Malcolm was solicited by Jeffrey MacDonald’s lawyer to focus her attention on MacDonald’s then-impending court case – which, his lawyer suggested, would have massive implications for the work of journalists such as Malcolm. She was intrigued and pursued more information. MacDonald was accused of overstepping the boundaries of a journalist and their subject. He was being sued by a convicted murderer, Joe McGinniss, based on his behavior as he wrote about the case for his book, Fatal Vision. Malcolm plays both for both the defense and prosecution as she explains the case – MacDonald befriended McGinniss in the early days of his trial, becoming not just a journalist but acting as a true friend to McGinniss. In written correspondence, as well as several corroborating witness interviews, we see how MacDonald deftly wove his way into McGinniss’ inner circle, earning his complete trust. Ultimately, MacDonald became convinced of McGinniss’ guilt, and yet remained steadfast in his apparent loyalty to McGinniss in his letters. At issue seems to be whether it should be allowed for someone to perform in this way – is it okay to pretend to be someone’s friend in order to coerce them to share with you? Is it an even more complex or ethically wrong situation if that person is also in a financial relationship that depends on you spilling your secrets to them? Just what, if anything, do journalists owe their subjects (and their audience)? The book itself is a bit dated but the questions remain fascinating.