Wall Street Journal Reviewer Skewers Sean Spicer's New Book and Its Embarrassing Errors in Devastating Detail

He was once a respected and highly regarded Republican spokesman, but working for President Donald Trump changed all that.


Now, Sean Spicer's reputation is in tatters and the Wall Street Journal has printed a devastating review of his new book describing his brief tenure as the White House press secretary.

Reviewer Jonathan Karl writes of The Briefing that it is "short, littered with inaccuracies and offering up one consistent theme: Mr. Trump can do no wrong."

Karl also flays Spicer for his pitiful recounting of the most memorable moment of his time at the White House: his defense of Trump's inauguration crowd size. Karl notes that it doesn't even seem to occur to Spicer that he might have told his boss that claiming that the crowd was bigger than President Barack Obama's was false and mistaken. And when it comes to Spicer's dealings with the press, Karl argues that the book's criticisms of the media are poorly argued and misguided.

But the most devastating portion comes when Karl addresses the factual errors in Spicer's book, which is particularly galling in light of the White House's overuse and abuse of the term "fake news":

Mr. Spicer has not been well served by the book’s fact checkers and copy editors. He refers to the author of the infamous Trump dossier as “Michael Steele, ” who is in truth the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, not the British ex-spy Christopher Steele. He recounts a reporter asking Mr. Obama a question at a White House press conference in 1999, a decade before Mr. Obama was elected. There are also some omissions: He writes about working for Rep. Mark Foley (R., Fla.), who he says “knew how to manage the news cycle. And on top of all that, he was good to staff and fun to be around.” He never gets around to mentioning that Mr. Foley later resigned in disgrace for sending sexually explicit messages to teenage boys working as congressional pages.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple also notes the hypocrisy of Spicer's attacks on the press coverage of palace intrigue when the book itself details behind-the-scenes in-fighting.

As it happens, not too many people will end up having to read the book, if sales figures don't pick up. The Wrap notes that Spicer's book is woefully underperforming — suggesting his days of misinforming the public at large may be coming to an end.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.