As a freelancer and investigative journalist, Alexander Zaitchik has held editorial roles at the Prague Pill, New York Press, and Russia’s infamous rabble-rousing rag, The eXile. He’s covered everything from mass murder sprees and radioactive contamination in central Russia, to the plight of small farming communities fighting Shell Oil in northwestern Ireland.
Yet, during talks with Wiley & Sons for possible book ideas, Zaitchik settled on one that was strangely foreign to him: an in-depth investigation on the rise of Fox News and conservative talk radio megastar Glenn Beck. Because Beck was just on his way to becoming a media sensation, Zatichik first gauged reader interest with an article for AlterNet.org, asking, “Is Glenn Beck the Orson Welles of Our Time?” Zaitchik recalled, “I wasn’t expecting much response, but the piece went gangbusters; it was the most popular article on the site for the week, had the most forwards, etc. I sent Wiley the numbers, and my editor, Eric Nelson, said, ‘Let’s do this.'” A three-part series for Salon followed, and now the forthcoming tome Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance (Wiley, May 2010) promises to be the first serious examination of the burgeoning media titan and his roots.
Also on Mediabistro
Zaitchik spoke with mediabistro.com about convincing Beck’s colleagues and friends to open up on the record, which controversial subject he’s tackling next, and how someone who has primarily covered foreign subjects suddenly found himself neck-deep in a project that — for good or ill — is entirely American.
You sold this book in March 2009, just a couple of months after Beck’s launch on Fox News. How did you get the idea to write a book about him so early?
I was having lunch with an editor at Wiley & Sons, discussing another proposal that couldn’t have been more different, something about India. At some point, we started talking about American politics. This was around the time of Beck’s famous “We Surround Them” special on Fox, the one where he opened by crying and mumbling about how much he loved his country, and feared for it, et cetera. It was already a YouTube classic, and we laughed about how weird it all was. But that was it. I went home that day thinking I was headed back to India. That night I started looking into Beck and saw that there was this subculture developing — Beck viewing parties, Beck meet-ups, stuff like that, all across the country. And this was a full month before Rick Santelli got the Tea Party thing going. It was obvious that something was bubbling underneath Beck’s demo that was unique, more Palin than Hannity.
| “If I held myself to Beck’s standards, I’d never work in journalism again.” |
How did you get Beck’s former colleagues to open up, and how did you ensure that they wouldn’t have their own personal agendas?
People are going to have agendas even if your subject is, “Kittens: Just How Cute Are They?” You just have to trust your instincts and sometimes investigate your sources as well as your subject. If someone has an obvious axe to grind and a reputation as unreliable, you employ extreme caution. There are some stories I encountered about Beck’s past that would have made great copy, but I decided not to use [them]. Lucky for Beck, I take facts seriously. Beck had months, not to mention an entire research team, to get the basics of Van Jones’ biography correct, and failed miserably, if not intentionally. If I held myself to Beck’s standards, I’d never work in journalism again.
Who was the first to agree to go on the record?
The first thing I did was fly to Tampa. That’s where Beck launched his talk radio career in 1999. Pretty much everyone down there talked. The only interview I wanted but never got was with one of Beck’s old producers, because they’re still close friends. I cornered him in the Clear Channel parking lot and we chatted, but he never sat down with me. I know from his colleagues that he agrees with the basic thesis of the book — that Beck is a business-minded egomaniac, and everything flows from that — but he wouldn’t go on record with it. Most everyone else did. The trail only really started running dry once I got back to New York, where everyone knows everyone, and the only thing media pros fear more than hurting their career prospects is their own shadows.
| “There are very few anonymous sources in the book. Considering what people get away with these days, the number is negligible. I imagine I sleep better than the guys who wrote Game Change.” |
Who required the most convincing?
There was one guy who worked with Beck in Baltimore in the early 1990s. He was a former music programmer who knew Beck very, very well. He’s the only important anonymous source in the book, and was a tough nut to crack. Before I contacted him, the last time he said or wrote something about Beck, he was hit within a week by a nasty case of identity theft. He had no proof that Beck was behind it, but it spooked him. There were also some people that didn’t return my calls or emails until I published a series in Salon that made the rounds and won plaudits in the radio world. All of a sudden these people started writing back, sometimes after months. They were like, “Oh, I didn’t realize you were for real. Let’s talk.”
Do you have a methodology for getting sources to open up?
One of the nicest things about doing a book is being able to take your time getting to know sources. Before doing this, I don’t think I’d ever spent more than six weeks on a story. When you’re writing an article on short deadline, new sources are mostly just cagey strangers. You get what you can out of an interview or two. But when you have months to get to know people and develop trust, to fly out to their cities and establish a dialogue, you can sort of peel the onion one layer at a time, at whatever speed they’re comfortable with. This was my first experience with that, and I really enjoyed it.
How much of the detail in the book, especially some of the more salacious ones about Beck’s darker years, was based on recollections from past associates that went on the record, and how much was based on anonymous sources?
There are very few anonymous sources in the book. Considering what people get away with these days, the number is negligible. I imagine I sleep better than the guys who wrote Game Change. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it shocks me how slimy journalism is getting. Last week, John Avlon of The Daily Beast ripped off some of my research [on Beck and white nationalists] and tried to pass it off as his own. Shameless, brazen bullshit I haven’t done since my teenage ‘zine days. But this guy has a staff gig and benefits.
| “It was tempting to try and chronicle every little controversy — and with Beck they never stop coming — at the expense of the big picture.” |
Any advice for others contemplating investigating high-profile subjects, especially one as incendiary as Beck? Where should someone start?
On the biography side of things, start at an accessible point in the story. In Beck’s case, this meant getting on the first plane out of New York. On the analysis side of things, I think it’s important not to fixate on little events that may occur during the writing. Sometimes it was tempting to try and chronicle every little controversy — and with Beck they never stop coming — at the expense of the big picture and a few representative test cases that hold real explanatory power.
What do you say to those people who will say that you set out to write a “hate book,” and never had an open mind when dealing with Beck?
I was never interested in writing a slash-and-burn liberal screed, and didn’t set out to write one. My pitch, and my sustaining interest, was not, “Why I Hate Glenn Beck.” It was, “Who is Glenn Beck?” I think I answered that question. People can decide for themselves what they think of him. Nobody cares what I think of anybody.
Now that the book is done, “Who is Glenn Beck?”
I needed about 90,000 words to fully answer that question. Beck is both more complex and more loathsome than I ever expected. For the full portrait, buy the book, but I can say that I stand in slack-jawed awe of his inability to feel shame. There is just no way to overstate the guy’s regret-proof audacity. “Oceanic” is the only word that comes close.
Before this, you spent a lot of time bouncing around the world, writing about foreign subjects, yet it’s hard to imagine a topic more American than Glenn Beck.
No doubt. Listening to talk radio, watching Fox News, and going to the Tea Parties around the country — it threw me into the American marrow in way I hadn’t really experienced as an adult. Other than a few years working at New York Press [2003-2005] I’ve basically lived abroad since college. Until I started this project, I had seen maybe a few hours of Fox News, and had zilch exposure to talk radio. It was a hell of an education.
What’s next?
I’m working on another book for Wiley that’s sort of a logical extension of the Beck book. It looks at the development of conservative conspiracy culture over the last 20 years or so, and tries to untangle its roots in the American psyche. The working title is Bonkers: From Clinton’s Body Count to Obama’s Birth Certificate. I’m co-writing it with Jan Frel, my longtime editor at AlterNet.
So no India book?
It’s still on the boards. After another year of this sort of thing, I’m going to need to get out of the country for a while. There’s nothing like a stretch in India to refresh and get back to basics.
Zaitchik’s tips for covering high-profile subjects
1. Write fast. “Controversial subjects like Beck are volatile moving targets. You can’t really spend two or three years on a subject like this and release it as a current affairs title.”
2. Anticipate the curve. “Try and figure out who is early on the rise, and get there before the herd.”
3. Don’t have an agenda. “If sources sense that you are just out to get someone, or find grist for a hatchet-job, they won’t talk to you. Keep a genuinely open mind and people will pick up on it.”
Daniel McCarthy is a freelance writer based in Boston, Mass., and the editor of the Boston edition of UrbanDaddy.com.
Topics:
Mediabistro Archive