Eight years ago, I returned to journalism after a 20-year hiatus that included a stint in Washington politics. One day, a Times Free Press employee asked me if “West Wing,” the White House through a Hollywood lens, was an accurate snapshot.

For context, between 1987 and 1988, I had a bit part in the real version of the White House as a member of President Reagan’s staff.

Thirty minutes of “West Wing” was enough to know the television White House did not pass the reality test.

As an example, the press secretary for the “acting” president stood at the podium in the White House briefing room and, without missing a syllable, committed two faux pas that would have brought the media out of the comfort of their stadium chairs.

Spokespersons for a president walk a fine line of credibility, bordering on being truthful but perhaps not fulsome. Timing is everything. Balance is critical. Orchestrating the story is the daily duel that occurs between the messenger (press secretary) and the message receivers (the media).

The White House crucible is an intense mixing bowl where words are scrutinized for nuances as much as for facts.

Information and access to it are the lifeblood inside a White House. Many an aide preens to take credit even if not warranted or deflect blame when a policy goes awry.

White House insiders are exposed to wide-ranging opinions, heated debates and strong champions during the formation of policy decisions. There are times when the media is used to float trial balloons, trying to influence outwardly what has not been argued successfully internally.

The players in this game of national policymaking serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. Sometimes, that gets lost in the egos.

No contract or nondisclosure form is required of White House staff. There may be a security clearance for some and conflict-of-interest requirements for most. Everyone has the same option: If asked to support a policy that you believe is wrong, either through sworn testimony or through statements to the media or public groups, the way to say no is to resign.

But the aura of the White House and the prestige that comes with having leaders in government and business a phone call away become intoxicating for some. The stupor that surrounds some who have power for the first time, if only due to location, blinds perspective, common sense and at times pronouncements of the truth.

The cleansing process is the one-hit wonder, produced by those who feasted on the White House

meal and then walked out the iron gates to trash those who gave them a position with authority.

Scott McClellan is the latest and will not be the last White House aide who will seek revenge through the published word.

It was a political rough patch at the White House in 1987 when former Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker became chief of staff for President Reagan.

Larry Speakes, a Reagan press secretary, published his memoirs, saying he was out of the loop on the Grenada invasion. Don Regan, the defrocked chief-of-staff, was waiting in the wings to share the blame for his misfortunes. He participated in the Reagan administration for six years before becoming disillusioned.

The issues surrounding one-hit-wonder books are not free speech or depriving history of the inner-workings of government via the White House lens. The door entered to join the White House staff is equally open for someone to exit, particularly if personal integrity is being challenged. Too few take that advice. Instead, the choice is to forego wrestling with the ethical dilemma, profit off colleagues who are skewered unknowingly and bask in 15 minutes of fame.

Mr. McClellan joins the ranks of those defrocked White House aides turned overnight best-sellers.

If his words were not credible as a presidential spokesman, are they more credible as a former presidential spokesman?

The First Amendment gives Mr. McClellan, as well as all Americans, the right to their opinions. That is to be preserved at all cost. But there is nothing that excludes putting words in context, and that is the test of credibility.

Assessing motives is an interesting Washington sport, but if you are inclined to read the McClellan book, do so with two questions in mind:

First, did the author/White House aide disagree with the decisions at the time? If not, why not?

Second, is the author giving to charity the profits from book sales so his mind is cleansed of having been part of the problem?

This is a nonpartisan test that will apply to the next White House aide, Republican or Democrat, who decides to tell all — after the fact.