![]() But what’s wrong with 100%? To illustrate the difficulty, the book contains a claim that Musk chastised an employee for taking time off for a childbirth. That’s not bad, I suppose, if it wasn’t fact-checked. I see a claim by the author that Musk says the book is 95% correct. But why should a biography written with access to a living, breathing subject not be rigorously fact-checked? I get that he wouldn’t want the subject to dictate the content. So when I read Ashlee Vance’s Elon Musk (new updated edition, HarperCollins), I had to ask myself: Why do journalists tackle the biography task like an extension of journalism? In particular, the author insists that it protects his professional integrity if he didn’t allow Musk access to the text prior to publication. Stuff anyone who bought a computer should know, let alone someone close to the industry. ![]() ![]() ![]() I know little of their personal history but the author, a Pulitzer-winning tech journalist, made cringe-worthy errors on the basics of technology. What is it with journalists and biographies? A while back I read Michael Malone’s The Intel Trinity about Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |