Which is why so much of this stuff turns on the reputation of the biographer. An authorized biography by a hack is unlikely to have much merit. The presumption is that Walter Isaacson (a) cares very much about his reputation and (b) stakes it on this biography.
You can't call this biography "slanted" without suggesting that Isaacson sold himself out. He may have, but that's a serious accusation.
I'm not calling this biography slanted -- how would I know, I haven't even read it yet -- I'm challenging the assertion that a biography written with access to the subject is automatically better than one written without it.
You can't call this biography "slanted" without suggesting that Isaacson sold himself out. He may have, but that's a serious accusation.