If you're going to compare your book to another book, you better be really sure that your book measures up. Bad City was advertised as "for fans of Catch and Kill," and it is just not on the same level.
The book, written by LA Times investigative journalist Paul Pringle, follows his investigation into Carmen Puliafito, dean of USC's medical school, who was found to be dealing and using drugs. The first 2/3 of the book follows Pringle's investigation into this story and multiple allegations that his editors at the LA Times tried to block his investigation and slow, if not stop, the publication of his story. The last 1/3 then speeds through the story he worked on that actually won him the Pulitzer - an investigation into George Tyndall, a USC gynecologist who sexually assaulted and harassed hundreds of students. And then the very end throws in the Varsity Blues investigation, mainly as a way to explain Nikias' ultimate resignation rather than out of any desire to investigate the scandal itself.
The "story behind the story" was interesting - seeing how Pringle stumbled onto this story, how he chased down leads and went through records to build a strong case. However, it got extremely repetitive. We already know from the first few pages of the book that Puliafito did some immoral & illegal things, USC did not do anything, and the LA Times editors did not want the story published. Then there's 200 pages of that message being repeated again and again. And again. When Pringle mentioned specific instances - his letter to Nikias being returned unopened, the editors denying knowledge - it strengthened the story. When he just repeated his claims ad nauseum with no new information, it significantly weakened the story. Similarly, his unrelenting insistence in the first half of the book that he needed to publish the story ASAP would have been an effective way to add tension to the storyline...except then months pass, nothing happens, and he never addresses his earlier insistence that time was of the essence.
The comparison to Catch and Kill makes Bad City's weaknesses all the more apparent. Overall, Pringle's insight into his own actions & ability to self-reflect was nonexistent, in stark contrast to Farrow's. His insistence that Soon-Shiong would magically fix everything was bizarre, not at all supported by anything he said in the book, and bordering on sycophancy. The overall level of evidence was weaker as well. Do I believe Puliafito manipulated young people into doing drugs? Yeah, probably. Does the evidence provided in the text support that? Not so much. It's clear he used and sold drugs; there is virtually no evidence provided that he manipulated others into using drugs, with the exception of bringing Sarah drugs in rehab. The remainder of the people who used drugs supplied by Puliafito were young, sure, and likely easy to manipulate, but Pringle does not provide any evidence that these people would not have found other sources to do drugs; many of them were already using and/or dealing, which is how Puliafito was introduced to them in the first place.
Overall, the story was decent but not spectacular. It was an easy, interesting read. It just could have been so much better than it was.
The book, written by LA Times investigative journalist Paul Pringle, follows his investigation into Carmen Puliafito, dean of USC's medical school, who was found to be dealing and using drugs. The first 2/3 of the book follows Pringle's investigation into this story and multiple allegations that his editors at the LA Times tried to block his investigation and slow, if not stop, the publication of his story. The last 1/3 then speeds through the story he worked on that actually won him the Pulitzer - an investigation into George Tyndall, a USC gynecologist who sexually assaulted and harassed hundreds of students. And then the very end throws in the Varsity Blues investigation, mainly as a way to explain Nikias' ultimate resignation rather than out of any desire to investigate the scandal itself.
The "story behind the story" was interesting - seeing how Pringle stumbled onto this story, how he chased down leads and went through records to build a strong case. However, it got extremely repetitive. We already know from the first few pages of the book that Puliafito did some immoral & illegal things, USC did not do anything, and the LA Times editors did not want the story published. Then there's 200 pages of that message being repeated again and again. And again. When Pringle mentioned specific instances - his letter to Nikias being returned unopened, the editors denying knowledge - it strengthened the story. When he just repeated his claims ad nauseum with no new information, it significantly weakened the story. Similarly, his unrelenting insistence in the first half of the book that he needed to publish the story ASAP would have been an effective way to add tension to the storyline...except then months pass, nothing happens, and he never addresses his earlier insistence that time was of the essence.
The comparison to Catch and Kill makes Bad City's weaknesses all the more apparent. Overall, Pringle's insight into his own actions & ability to self-reflect was nonexistent, in stark contrast to Farrow's. His insistence that Soon-Shiong would magically fix everything was bizarre, not at all supported by anything he said in the book, and bordering on sycophancy. The overall level of evidence was weaker as well. Do I believe Puliafito manipulated young people into doing drugs? Yeah, probably. Does the evidence provided in the text support that? Not so much. It's clear he used and sold drugs; there is virtually no evidence provided that he manipulated others into using drugs, with the exception of bringing Sarah drugs in rehab. The remainder of the people who used drugs supplied by Puliafito were young, sure, and likely easy to manipulate, but Pringle does not provide any evidence that these people would not have found other sources to do drugs; many of them were already using and/or dealing, which is how Puliafito was introduced to them in the first place.
Overall, the story was decent but not spectacular. It was an easy, interesting read. It just could have been so much better than it was.