Goodreads Doesn't Have It, Data Migration: Perversion of Justice
STOP TRYING TO GET YOURS ON VICTIMS OF CRIME BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE THE JUSTICE THEY NEED. This journalism smells way too strongly of corruption. Especially the last chapter. "A voice that could have only been her mother's" tells her not to shoot. A Texas town near the New Mexico border. I just can't. I just cannot. Holy demented. I just can't. It was bad enough with her pretending to care about the victims but literally every last breath is her work competition and her getting a prize. But that last chapter was vomitable. A voice that could only had been her mother’s says something and she concludes ‘I’m not the victim, I’m the victor’”. Holy disgusting. Literal victim shaming, literally making people feel ashamed of identifying as victims of an ongoing crime (they attack the victims well after coming forward because the legal infrastructure is just that pathetically weak with these people) when the literal literature on human trafficking says that is NOT OK. Literally ends her book against the very research on this material. It wasn't inspiring. It was rapey, cringey, narcissistic, disgustingly corrupt. I just can't with this Julie Brown person. I can't with people like this. Who interfere with things they're not involved in to make it about themselves. I just can't. I really needed this information but not from this narcissist. Please. Get control of yourself and one time, just one time, don’t make it about yourself. I can’t. It’s too disgusting. These women are too disgusting.
And the whole thing is creating this huge reaction from this Russian Orthodox pedophile faction involved with actual pedophilia, like what is coming out about Putin and little boys. And how they treat their girls. They're now trying to pedophile cry in retaliation now that Epstein had these consequences, to the point they're trying to say all gay people are pedophiles from sheer weak brain logic that because Putin had a repressed gay problem that looks like it expressed itself on little boys now the two are always tied up. It's just disgusting. How weak would your logic have to be that you can't tell the difference between conflation, association, etc. The weak logic coming out of Russia these days is just profoundly embarrassing. And the narcissistic journalism like this that got that infiltrated is part of it. We really needed that information without all the pretending to care when it's really about beating up the competition at her work where she's supposed to be cooperating. If you hear this kind of pedophilia crying from any Putin faction now scared crapless post Epstein that that can happen to them even when Trump is president, who was literally involved in all of this, it’s to out-scream the revelations of these Russian Orthodox Putin faction people that are that heavily involved with pedophilia, to the point it looks like Putin was part of a gang where he raped little boys.
Chapters 28 and 29 are killing me. I get that she interviews a lot of men that think everything that happens is about them. Those are a dime a dozen. Narcissists are a dime a dozen yet she is mind blown by every one to the point it ruins her journalism and leaves you feeling so poisoned by her sour grapes that somehow your excruciating depression is even worse than it already was because now you can't even expect journalists who usually just carry information that help you resolve the issue to not smear everything with self-congratulation and insecurity. That's literally the last thing readers like me need who are reading this book for a concise source of critical information on the Epstein case, which is horrifically depressing on its own without any help (the sexual trafficking of girls as young as 14, selected precisely for their poverty and inability to say no, the precise definition of what rape is defined to be). The journalist is complaining that one of the people she interviewed didn't seem to know that other people knew about the story, and that other people had been covering it for awhile. Since when does a professional gloat about this and smear the source who agreed to talk to her, instead of saying, "We've talked to a few people on this?" I have definitely done that when people didn't seem to know the full scope of the issue or coverage. What really disgusts me is she then goes on to say that she won't read the book of the source who agreed to talk to her. Since when do you take information from a source and then disparage them? She then goes on to do that to two more people at an expedient rate for two chapters. One is an individual who thinks mostly everything is about him who she says was trying to distract from the Epstein case, and the other is someone who tries to discredit her using unidirectional New York recorded conversation laws. In fact, most of these chapters are spent in sour grapes for sources who agreed to go on the record for her. Since when do you just betray, disparage, and chide your sources all day? I don't know what's worse; being bought out by Bill Gates and doing no coverage (peak corruption) or doing coverage but you just disparage every source, have a deeply insecure and self-centered style, and talk more crap than do journalism at the tail end of your work. Most of her hatred at the narcissism of these people comes off as a projected attempt to distract from her own narcissism and even that attempt to distract itself being a projection (she projects this intention on one of the vainer pro-Epstein individuals she spoke to. I get people are incredibly vain but narcissists are as common as dirt. Why is that a big mind-blow, especially for a journalist. She seems mind-blown by every one. I personally just assume most of them are vain and do my own independent research on how it got that bad with that many instead of being mind-blown by individuals); I have never read a journalistic piece that self-referencing and self-congratulatory. It's just an embarrassing amount of narcissism, trying to pin it on other people isn't working. The whole thing left me feeling negative, not interested in reading any more of her books, and baffled how this even got published given how many times she just disparages sources. From what I've been told journalists like that don't get their work published because they don't want to lose the chance of getting more information in the future. I expected to come out of it with strong journalism, a strong understanding of Epstein and how it got that bad, and clear theories of the system at work. All I got was individual resentments of individual sources, no bigger theory or picture drawn about how or why those individual issues came to be, and overall just left with a profound sense of negativity and bafflement at the journalist's hypocrisy one doesn't commonly have reading upon journalistic work. Basically, if you are depressed or struggle with it this book is going to make it worse, not better and it's not the content where answers can make you feel better. It's the insecure, self-congratulatory way it's written.