Shop Auto Winter Products Beauty Magazine Deals Black Friday Deals Week nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch New album by Tim and Faith STEM Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Gift Shop Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Prime member deal on Amazon Video: 50% off select Pixar movie rentals Prime member deal on Amazon Video: 50% off select Pixar movie rentals Prime member deal on Amazon Video: 50% off select Pixar movie rentals  Three new members of the Echo family Save $50 on All-New Fire HD 10. Limited-time offer. $30 off Kindle Paperwhite GNO Shop Now HTL17_gno



on September 23, 2010
I see all the negative reviews about buying this book because of the author. I agree that the review should be about a book. However, in reality, there are other reasons for not buying any trash about these 2 individuals. They get the royalties. I used the name "Just down the road" for a reason. I happen to live just down the road from the Salahi's. Off the top of my head:
--The bankruptcy is Tareq's doing as he ran his parents company(Oasis)into the ground.
--Attempted to get his parents commited when he tried to gain control of Oasis.
--The Oasis property is a disaster, can't produce anymore.
--They cannot walk into a local establishment and pay by credit card (most likely can't get one now) as he always complained to the credit card companies that these were bogus charges.
--Can't write a check in our county for the same reason.
--Has not paid most of the county that has worked for them time and time.
--Has attempted to get folks fired from their other jobs (most worked part time for Oasis).
--Sues just about everyone.
The list goes on and on. Nothing more than a spoiled brat who did not get his way. Buy a book so they can make money? Watch a show so they can make money? I would have to say no on both accounts.....
162 helpful votes
163 helpful votes
|
77 comments|Report abuse
on September 29, 2010
If the author's reputation is sullied and has been built upon questionable ethics, then, anything that author writes becomes suspect. Diane Dimond built her career alongside the tabloid reporters who, in essence, invented all the lies about the people they reported on and circulated to the public, in the interest of sensationalism, ratings, and profit.

For her to now say that she is an exception to media's practice of supporting lies for profit is a slap in the face for all of us who have been tracking her record with its deceitfulness.

The following is a post that I submitted in response to an article that she wrote, discussing her new book. My post wasn't accepted at the site, so I will submit it here:

In your article, it appears that you highlight an example of how a responsible journalist would approach a story, in order to substantiate the facts from rumors.

Personally interviewing the Salahis has provided you with a rare opportunity to consider the content of their self-disclosure, as well as verifying their story, through access to primary sources, in the form of e-mails. And, yet, as you say, they are still, labeled the "crashers", sometime after the incident occurred.

So, is it safe to assume that I should only trust a journalist, or someone who refers to herself as a journalist, only when that person has personally interviewed the subject, and/or has access to primary sources in order to verify the facts?

Also, is the practice of verifying your story a recent development in your career? How do I know that you are someone I can trust compared to another person who refers to oneself as a journalist?

Would it be your consistent and unrelenting discipline of only reporting facts that have been verified? Honestly, I do not recall you as being someone who is trained in the journalistic profession. And, my experience with your reporting on subjects hasn't substantiated, for me, that you are someone I can trust to only report the facts.

In fact, you are among the reporters who have tarnished journalism's lofty reputation, by jumping on the bandwagon and reporting half-truths, in a maddening race for the ratings. Shame on you.
26 helpful votes
27 helpful votes
|
11 comment|Report abuse
on September 17, 2010
Diane Dimond proudly describes herself as an 'investigative reporter'. The term conjures up images of brave journalists often putting their very lives at risk to uncover wrongdoing that affects millions of people. Watergate, Big Pharma, Election Fraud, Genetic Engineering, Enron, and Wall Street come to mind. So, what does Ms Dimond contribute to the proud history of investigative journalism? A practical joke called Cirque Du Salahi, a sorry little story of pathetic wannabees in fancy dress desperate for 15-minutes with Barak and Michelle at the White House party. Protocol breached, a head rolled, and security was tightened. No terrorist threat. No secrets stolen. No danger to the children. The national silver, crystal, and knick-knacks are secure. It's a story perhaps suitable for a comic book, but Diane has penned a paperback for $15.99 complete with references to the illness du jour, Real Housewives of Who Cares?, and scantily-clad cheerleaders. This latest offering reconfirms Diane's place not as investigative reporter but as another Tabloid Proctologist obsessed with peering into the world's back passage, clearly the only area she feels comfortable exploring.

There are many reasons to critique a book other than whether or not the facts are correct. I personally don't like this type of empty tabloid junk food and I criticize it accordingly whoever writes it. If you put yourself out in the marketplace to sell your wares in public, criticism comes with the territory. Those who don't want to hear from the public are free to create for themselves alone and enjoy their work privately. Diane Dimond and her work are ONE. Her books and articles reflect her particular view of the world and what she believes is important enough to focus on and "investigate" (as she calls it). So, an evaluation of Dimond's work is also an evaluation of her.
16 helpful votes
17 helpful votes
|
11 comment|Report abuse
on September 16, 2010
My favorite gem in the book: After Michaela Salahi responded to being caught in a lie, by telling more lies, the author writes, "What else might she have been less than truthful about?" Humm...

The Salahis' melodramatic tale is a sad attempt of seeking publicity and profit from interviews, TV shows and books that they hoped would come as a result. Does anyone remember that they arrived at the WH dinner with a camera crew filming them for an upcoming reality show? It is too bad that they found an author willing to cooperate with them to produce this book and help them achieve their PR and financial goals.

The subtitle of this book is Be Careful Who You Trust. No doubt the author gave the use of this phrase careful thought, as it cunningly links the reader back to the title of her previous book. In other words, she is still attempting to make money off of Michael Jackson.

If this were not such an utterly sad sell, it would almost be funny. A TV tabloid celebrity reporter is now warning us about the dangers of pack journalism and blindly trusting media sources? The author's resume mainstays are Court TV, Extra, Hard Copy, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition, True Slant and Fox News. Her investigative journalistic techniques have included quoting unnamed sources from The Daily Mirror in the reporting of her "facts," as well as the unsubstantiated stories from her paid sources. This information can be found on her website.

I chose not to support the fundraising efforts of either the Salahis or the author. In order to give an informed review, I sat down with the book, over a cup of tea, at my local bookstore. The tea was great.
16 helpful votes
17 helpful votes
|
11 comment|Report abuse
on October 8, 2010
I am shocked and amazed that Ms Dimond would have the temerity to write about such a subject.

She is renowned for being a hypocrite who advises us to beware of hypocrites. She has been blatantly dishonest (it was revealed that she gave false information to the public); unprofessional (she did not research the information or check it was genuine in the past); She lacks integrity - does not care that the information she was publishing was false.

She is well known to have been blatantly biased and unethical, especially with regard to her relationship with the D.A. whilst she was supposedly 'covering' the same trial.

At all times, she has shown herself to be in pursuit of money and fame at the expense of others. She has abused the public trust in the past and cannot be trusted to report professionally or fairly.

Unfortunately, you could not be confident that there is a single word of truth in this book - unless it is the 'truth according to Diane Dimond'
17 helpful votes
18 helpful votes
|
0Comment|Report abuse
on September 17, 2010
The Salahis made a big mistake trying to salvage their trashed reputations with tabloid writer Diane Dimond. Dimond is just an opportunistic tabloid writer extraordinaire who used to work for Hard Copy, a show discredited for its practice of paying subjects to fabricate stories for TV audience consumption and ratings. Dimond publicly lied about the practice herself, and was exposed. Ambition and greed appear to be her primary motivations--not truth in reporting. Why would any thinking person find her "investigation" of her fellow liars, the Salahis, credible?

People have to EARN trust to receive it. The Salahis and Dimond have earned anything but. They should be censured, or better yet, silenced.
21 helpful votes
22 helpful votes
|
0Comment|Report abuse
on September 30, 2010
I hope I am not the only person to see the irony in the title of this book, "Be Careful Who You Trust", when I see that it has been penned by the tabloid journalist Diane Dimond. This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Ms Dimond famously spearheaded a media witch-hunt against Michael Jackson at the time of his trial for child molestation, eagerly gathering her own "evidence" and presenting it to the public without bothering to do the appropriate research in her haste to damn her subject. It later came to light that her witnesses were liars and her evidence the fabrication of either her own or someone else's imagination. She was indeed a part of the "Cirque" using half-truths and lies as a foundation for a "scoop" in an attempt to make a name for herself and further her career. Unfortunately this backfired when her controversial methods came under scrutiny and her contract was not renewed. It looks as though this book is an attempt to point the finger at others in the media, when she should really be examining her own past misdemeanours as regards ingegrity.

This woman is not a credible professional journalist and I am amazed at her hypocrisy in publishing a book warning us of the dangers of believing what we read in the press. Given her penchant for fantasy rather than fact, it makes me wonder if this book regarding the Salahis is a work of fiction. I very much doubt it can be taken as a serious piece of work, and given the subject matter, one questions her motives for writing it.
22 helpful votes
23 helpful votes
|
11 comment|Report abuse
on October 7, 2010
Diane Dimond's title for this book is right on target -"Be careful who you trust". Please be careful not to trust anything this author says or writes. This author deserves zero trust, because she has zero integrity. She has said things in the past that, when researched, could easily be repudiated, as they were not based on facts. If you know nothing about this author, can I advise you, before you waste your money on her word that this is an honest book, to please take a few minutes to take a look at her past work, and judge for yourself.

Worst of all, evidence suggests that this "journalist" conspired with certain law enforcement officials to portray an innocent man as guilty. This was all for her own personal gain in that she was trying to further her career. I say, if she was willing do that, there's no limit to how low she will go. She's trying to play us, again."
17 helpful votes
18 helpful votes
|
0Comment|Report abuse
on September 23, 2010
Like the other reviewers, I too wanted to hear the Salahi's side of the story with the facts verified by a journalist. I figured there would be an added bonus as Diane Dimond promises in the Introduction that the Salahi's had no editorial control of the content. Well, Ms. Diamond apparently had a hard time getting anyone but the Salahi's to comment on any of the facts. Over and over again you read how this or that person refused to contribute to the book leaving only the Salahi's side of things. It turns out that this fact alone gave the Salahi's total editorial control as their crazy stories couldn't be verified!

This book is a complete waste of time and you will learn absolutely nothing more than what you have already heard in the press. If you want to read Ms. Dimond's beautiful account about how light glints off of Michaele's platinum locks then by all means spend 15.99! I'm mad at myself for even purchasing this!
91 helpful votes
92 helpful votes
|
11 comment|Report abuse
on September 18, 2010
Bottom line: it's practically a vanity piece for the Salahis, so if you were looking for an investigative report into their activities, you'll need to wait for a different book or just go online to catch up on the Washington Post's longstanding coverage.

But if you'd like to understand how the Salahis perceived themselves throughout all this drama, this is the book to read. I thought it was fascinating.

Because I live in DC, I am well familiar with their exaggerations, lies, and victimhood stories. The book is full of them, reported practically straight from their mouths. It skips over the out-and-out fraud in their charity work and their use of fake persons and organizations to promote themselves and attack their enemies (his mom in particular).

But it's still a great read if, like me, you find these people interesting.

Be sure to read the final chapter on narcissistic personality disorder. Dimond never mentions the Salahis here by name, but this was how she chose to end her book. It took me a week or two to grasp the significance of that choice.

My grade: 1 star if you're looking for an expose; 5 stars if you're interested in an insider's view on how the Salahis perceive themselves.
25 helpful votes
26 helpful votes
|
1111 comments|Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here