The Journalist and the Murderer, initially unveiled to readers of the New Yorker, delves into the tangled web between journalists and their subjects. Janet Malcolm paints this relationship as one fraught with allure and double-dealing, anchoring her discourse with the knotty case of MacDonald versus McGinniss. MacDonald, once a respected Green Beret doctor, faced conviction for the brutal murders of his wife and two innocent children. McGinniss, a writer who wormed his way into MacDonald's inner circle, appeared to be a friend and ally. Yet, he penned Fatal Vision, a damning portrayal casting MacDonald as a deceitful and ruthless killer. Feeling betrayed, MacDonald retaliated with a lawsuit against McGinniss, accusing him of fraud and contract breach.

When McGinniss, a celebrated non-fiction author, crossed paths with MacDonald in 1979, he found himself entwined in a compelling narrative. MacDonald, whose family was slain in 1970, pointed fingers at a group of intruding hippies. Though initially exonerated by an army tribunal, new evidence surfaced, leading to his murder indictment. As the trial loomed, MacDonald extended an invitation to McGinniss to chronicle the defense's perspective. Tempted by this insider access, McGinniss joined the defense in North Carolina, embedding himself with the legal team in their fraternity house haven, becoming an official member to preserve legal confidentiality. In exchange for this privilege, MacDonald was promised a cut of the book's royalties and agreed to a no-libel suit clause against McGinniss.

Following a grueling seven-week trial, MacDonald was found guilty and incarcerated. McGinniss then devoted four years to his book project, maintaining regular contact with MacDonald, yet withholding his belief in MacDonald's guilt and the book's intent to expose it.

Upon the release of Fatal Vision in 1983, MacDonald took legal action against his erstwhile confidant. Courtroom drama unfolded as cross-examination compelled McGinniss to confront his duplicitous conduct. Malcolm's book captures these moments, portraying McGinniss as a mere opportunist. Even the testimonies of fellow writers attempting to justify deceit in pursuit of truth highlighted McGinniss's ethical missteps. The trial concluded in a hung jury with a 6–1 split; eventually, McGinniss settled without admitting fault, compensating MacDonald with $325,000.

Malcolm's intrigue in the affair was piqued by a letter from McGinniss’s attorney, Daniel Kornstein, warning of the lawsuit's threat to journalistic liberty. This prompted Malcolm to initiate contact and interview McGinniss, though he soon ceased communication. Unfazed, Malcolm plunged into the case, poring over trial transcripts and interviewing pivotal figures such as lawyers, witnesses, private investigators, and jurors. Her methodical investigation led her to profound insights into the precarious bonds between journalists and their subjects.

Interestingly, Malcolm omitted a significant detail from her book's main narrative: she herself faced a libel lawsuit from a previous subject, although the case was eventually dismissed. Her journalistic peers critiqued her work, suggesting she leveraged McGinniss’s predicament to assuage her own conscience. In a revealing afterword, Malcolm refuted these claims, confessing that the journalist-subject relationship had long troubled her, while also acknowledging the inevitable reflection of a writer’s inner self within their characters.