Sometimes you have to get out of the cocoon to see what reporting actually is. Here's Stephen Amidon on McGinniss's book, from an email forwarded by Joe to me:

I knew that I would react differently to it from the way Maslin et al would have had me, but I wasn't prepared for just how different that reaction would be.  First of all, as a writer, I admire the book immensely for its craft.  The prose is pitched exactly right.  I love your tone, the sense that you don't for a minute take this clown seriously but are willing to be serious about getting to the heart of the phenomenon.  It can be very funny.  The passages all feel right and add up to an overwhelmingly convincing portrait.  People who call it 'gossipy' are dolts.  To write ponderously about this person would be dishonest and foolish.  Instead, you write intelligently, incisively, playfully.  

That's important.  I think inserting yourself into the narrative was not only a good authorial choice, but essential from an epistemological point of view.  Unlike Tallyrand, Kissinger or JFK, Palin relies on the perceiver to exist.   She has no weight in the world of ideas or policy, but rather serves only as a presence in the imagination.  To write about her 'objectively' is to miss the point.  Her reaction to your presence next door was also so hysterical, so bizarrely over the top that it spoke volumes about how she would handle pressure.   And it is not a pretty picture. 

This leads to my other big difference with the Maslin Crew - the idea that you focus on 'personal' or 'private' stuff to the detriment of .... what, exactly?