Author Michael Wolff-
Wiki-
In its review of Wolff’s book Burn Rate, Brill’s Content criticized Wolff for “apparent factual errors” and said that more than a dozen of the subjects he mentioned complained that Wolff had “invented or changed quotes” that he attributed to them.[20]
In a 2004 cover story for The New Republic, Michelle Cottle wrote that Wolff was “uninterested in the working press,” preferring to focus on “the power players—the moguls” and was “fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money.” She also noted that “the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” Calling his writing “a whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you begin to wonder whether there is a central point”, she quoted one daily New York columnist as saying “I find it nearly impossible to read his columns. They’re flabby. I don’t know what the fuck he’s trying to say.” One journalist who knew Wolff told Cottle, “He can’t write. He doesn’t report.”[21] Cottle subsequently called Wolff “possibly the bitchiest media big foot writing today.”[22]
“Wolff’s prose is difficult to hack through,” wrote Erik Wemple in The Washington Post, adding that Wolff “is the Foxconn of the pointless, comma-laden aside.” [23]
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized Wolff in 2010 when he suggested that The New York Times was aggressively covering the breaking News International phone hacking scandal as a way of attacking News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch. CJR called Wolff’s analysis “pathetic”, “disgusting”, “twisted”, and based on “zero evidence”.[24]
His former employer, New York Magazine, has called him an “angry man for pay” and a “media provocateur”.[25] Howard Kurtz once said, “Michael is rarely impressed by anyone other than himself.” [26]
In November 2016, Wolff evoked criticism for stating that journalists should serve as “stenographers.” [27] Charlie Pierce called Wolff’s comment “an incredible pile of bullshit.”[27]
!snip!
In other words, the guy is a hack extraordinaire.
Bannon says the guy’s quotes on him are a pant load-
This is total Fake News and taken out of context, don’t believe the liberal propaganda Machine! #MAGA https://t.co/illS95L5Br
— Steven Bannon (@SteveKBannon) January 3, 2018
When even Maggie Haberman is calling you a fraud, you know it must be bad.
It won’t matter to the media who will be quoting non-stop for weeks.
That’s fine, but what did Trump mean in his tweet about Bannon leaking phony info to the press while at the white house?
All too confusing for me. I can’t keep up with this crapola.
LOL, me too, Moe Tom.
Say what you will, the man has an honest face.
The headlines on Drudge have been off the wall today. First they claim Bannon said some crazy shit about Trump jr.; now they’re claiming Trump is talking smack against Bannon. When things get weird like this, my first thought is a leak hunt is going on. Still no reason to think differently yet.
LOL Cliche. His mouth also looks like it was sexually harassed by bee stings.
Wheels within wheels.
an “angry man for pay”. Like Michelle 0bama.
Oh shit, I thought it said, “Angry man for gay.” my bad.
“…a whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides…possibly the bitchiest media big foot writing today…”
So he’s gay, too. I love the code-talking leftists employ when they need to be coy.
If “Pay for Gay” had a face.
I said this in the previous post but why would Bannon work with Wolff at all??? He’s a known turd or “hack extraordinaire”! Something smells!
Rule 101 when you are going to lie to smear someone don’t source real people just fall back on anonymous sources.