This week, another explosive book on the royal family made its way on the front page of newspapers. Apart from the usual disgruntled royalist coverage, “Endgame” by journalist Omid Scobie was criticised after it appeared that the Dutch version had published the identity of a member of the family who allegedly made comments in regards to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s child’s race – even though UK libel laws forbid this. While Scobie vehemently denies his involvement in this particular fiasco, it brings up a pertinent question about books in general, and whether or not they are being adequately fact checked before being exposed to the world.

Read: Omid Scobie: Endgame Dutch version pulled over race comment error

It is of course not the first time such a thing has happened. Social commentator Naomi Klein addresses the case of conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf’s work being retracted in her latest book “Doppelganger.” She has fallen quite some distance from her seminal third-wave feminist book “The Beauty Myth,” published in 1990, even though that has also since faced comparable claims.

Notable instances of factually inaccurate books raise concerns

During a BBC radio interview in 2019, it appeared that “Outrages: Sex, Censorship and the Criminalisation of Love,” which detailed the persecution of homosexuality in Victorian Britain, had incorrect misinterpretations of 19th Century English legal terms within the book. Host Matthew Sweet had hastily pointed out that Wolf based much of her thesis on a misapprehension of the phrase “death recorded,” which she took to signify “execution” when in fact it meant the exact opposite thing — that the prisoner had been pardoned. “I don’t think any of the executions you’ve identified here actually happened,” Sweet informed her. He added that in the UK’s Old Bailey court records, “sodomy” referred to both homosexuality and to child abuse as well.

As a result, the US publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, said it had parted ways with her amicably. By the time the interview aired, her UK publisher, Virago, had already published the book, but said it would make “necessary corrections” to future editions.

Read: Doppelganger by Naomi Klein rethinks self amid mirrored reality – review

And the theme continues in 2019, with American author Michael Wolff having to defend his 2019 Donald Trump book, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” from allegations of factual inaccuracies during a heated interview with Yahoo! News. Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, who penned the 2018 Trump book “Russian Roulette,” called out Wolff’s glaring error on the Skullduggery podcast.

When asked about his mistake in alleging that ex-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand was nominated by former US President Barack Obama, when she was actually nominated by his successor Donald Trump, Wolff said: “Even if I was wrong, I’m not going to admit it to you.” Having read both books, there is a clear tonal distinction, where Wolff often sensationalises, Isikoff allows the facts to speak for themselves.

Navigating the fine line between fact and fiction: the Elon Musk controversy

Another controversial figure in the firing line was Elon Musk’s biographer Walter Isaacson, who penned a book of the same name. It doesn’t help that the controversial Twitter / X CEO has a penchant for the hyperbolic, hence at times it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, Isaacson walked right into it. 

The writer claimed Musk had shut down SpaceX’s satellite network, Starlink, to prevent a “Ukrainian sneak attack” on the Russian navy. In his book, he actually writes:

"Throughout the evening and into the night, he [Musk] personally took charge of the situation. Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within a hundred kilometers of the Crimean coast. As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly."

Now to the (sort of) untrained eye, it seems fairly straightforward. Except the Financial Times reported that there were some Starlink outages during a Ukrainian push against the Russians, but it says nothing about drone subs or washing ashore harmlessly. While the New York Times said Musk doesn’t want Starlink running drones, subs are a different category.

Read: Michael Wolff predicts ‘The Fall’ of Fox News in new book

And though I’m reluctant to acknowledge anything correct from Musk, he immediately clarified that “SpaceX did not deactivate anything.” 

“There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” he went on, though he did not specify which government’s authorities. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”

Isaacson then responded “Based on my conversations with Musk, I mistakenly thought the policy to not allow Starlink to be used for an attack on Crimea had been first decided on the night of the Ukrainian attempted sneak attack that night,” he wrote on Twitter. “He now says that the policy had been implemented earlier, but the Ukrainians did not know it, and that night he simply reaffirmed the policy.” We will never really know.

So who is responsible for fact checking books and what do fact checkers do?

I worked in news verification for a long period of time, hence misinformation actually irks me to no end. However, it is important to note that it is the job of authors to make sure their work is accurate and not the publisher. Fact checking is a comprehensive process, according to “The Fact Checker’s Bible” written by the authority on the subject, Sarah Harrison Smith. She says a trained checker does the following:

• Read for accuracy
• Research the facts
• Assess sources: people, newspapers and magazines, books, the Internet, etc
• Check quotations
• Look out for and avoid plagiarism.

Now, we know that red flags have been raised across the board regarding these areas. Lynn Neary, an NPR arts correspondent and guest host of their podcast on books, chatted about this very issue, saying that accuracy is actually written into authors’ contracts. Science and health writer Maryn McKenna told her that she had paid $10,000 to have someone check the facts in her last book “Big Chicken.” McKenna says for big names such as Wolf, who can get paid large sums in advance, the cost is a drop in the ocean.

Unfortunately, many journalists, let alone other writers, have been caught up in this type of transgression, which only exacerbates the suspicion of readers that believe everything is fake, and nothing can be trusted. Hence it is always better to be painstakingly methodical, and err on the side of caution.

What authors told us: traditional vs self-publishing

Brittany Ann, a prolific author known for her bestselling books on Amazon and her contributions to the Christian publishing world through her platform Equipping Godly Women and Monetize My Ministry, shared her unique perspective on the rigorous fact checking process in the publishing industry. She told How To Be Books: “One thing I love about the publishing industry is that my traditionally published books went through a much more extensive fact checking process than my self-published books did.”

Ann provided a specific example of the thoroughness involved in traditional publishing, stating, “My book, ‘Fall in Love with God’s Word,’ for example, underwent a thorough theological review that I wasn’t expecting in addition to the standard review.” She further explained that this theological review proved to be an invaluable step in ensuring the quality and accuracy of her work, saying, “This was incredibly helpful in making sure that all of my facts were adequately supported and expressed clearly, since we specifically looked for areas of bias or facts that could lead to unnecessary dispute.”

While recognising that such comprehensive verification may not be the norm in the industry, Ann underscored the immense value it brought to her writing process. Her experience highlights the commitment of traditional publishers to upholding the highest standards of accuracy and integrity in their publications, ultimately benefiting both authors and readers alike.

The verdict

In an age of fake news and mistrust, fact checking books should be a mandatory requirement, as stated in contracts. Whether the author is required to hire external fact checkers or not, there needs to be a process put in place alongside the usual procedures of editing and marketing to avoid getting into legal hot water. Each time we hear about another writer being criticised for their lack of due diligence, it chips away at people’s faith and ultimately turns readers off from the genre altogether. As a nonfiction dilettante, I find each instance rather disappointing—so much so that I actually refused to read Isaacson’s book as a result. A sea change is required for these biographies to survive; otherwise, they will fall down the same rabbit hole as the media industry.

More from our Friday opinion pieces: Are memoirs still important? Top books and why we love them