Liberal Newspaper Bias...Part XIV

[Fairweather]

Not that we're gonna' change any minds here, but....

 

Sunday, November 16, 2003

 

The New York Times Book Review is considered the industry bible of what’s hot and what’s not in books. But the publication is coming under increasing fire for what some authors are calling a liberal bias.

 

“I think a paper that says ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print’ has a responsibility of covering most things,” said Doug Dutton, manager of Dutton’s bookstore in Los Angeles. “But I think it would be disingenuous to say that the New York Times doesn’t have a leftist slant.”

 

Critics charge that writers like Michael Moore and Joe Klein get reviewed, while others like Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and radio host Laura Ingraham are ignored.

 

Others, however, defend the Times.

 

“I don’t think it’s a matter of shunning them because of their political slant,” said John Baker of Publisher's Weekly . “I think it sees itself as having the responsibility to pursue the intellectual zeitgeist as it were, and … not in things that it regards as comparatively transient in terms of political whims and currents of the moment."

 

But just what is behind the selectivity?

 

While the Times did not respond to repeated requests for comment, the paper did offer an explanation to author William McGowan’s letter asking why his best seller "Coloring the News" was never reviewed.

 

The Book Review’s editor said the paper cannot review every book and, like any business, tries to provide coverage that appeals to its readers.

 

However, some of the most talked-about political nonfiction of the past few years has been left out of the Times.

 

Joe Conason's “Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth” received a glowing review from the Times, while David Limbaugh's “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians” was ignored.

 

Ann Coulter's “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a best-selling book critical of President Clinton, was overlooked, while pro-Clinton books like Sidney Blumenthal’s “The Clinton Wars” and Joe Klein’s “The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton” were both reviewed.

 

The Times loved “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century” by columnist Paul Krugman, but ignored McGowan’s National Press Club-winner “Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism,” which attacks affirmative action in media.

 

“I don’t care if their standards are 'we won’t review anyone who’s just putting out, you know, a pop book that we consider not an intellectually serious book,'” said Coulter. “But, come on, are you telling me that Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, James Carville, Al Franken are putting out deep, weighty, intellectual books?”

 

Michael Savage's “The Savage Nation,” which spent 18 weeks on the bestseller list and topped out at number one, was also ignored by the Times, while Ivins’ collection of essays that were critical of President Bush was reviewed twice, after only spending six weeks on the list.

 

Coulter’s “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism” spent 13 weeks as a bestseller, but was not reviewed by the Times, while Moore’s “Dude, Where’s My Country?” was reviewed after spending four weeks on the bestseller list.

 

Franken’s best seller “Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” was reviewed the week it was published, while O'Reilly's “The O’Reilly Factor” was never reviewed.

 

But, with 11 weeks on the bestseller list, O’Reilly recently remarked to Ingraham, “We don’t need them to review our books.”

[olyclimber]

[j_b]

apparently reviews by the fox network of o'reilly and coulter's books did not boost them to the top of best-sellers list. shall we really wonder why?

 

shall we also explain why book reviewers, academics, intellectuals, etc ... have a progressive bias too?

 

anyhow, considering the news, it seems that you should have more serious concern than a supposed liberal bias in the media (which every thinking person knows is not real)

[Metalhead_Mojo]

j_b said:

which every thinking person knows is not real

 

keep telling yourself that over and over, and someday you may start to believe yourself.

[AlpineK]

Hey Fairweather

 

How bout that war in Iraq...going real good huh.

[Dan_Harris]

Is this the transcript from the story on Fox News I saw while channel surfing? Reads just like it.

[Jason_Martin]

What do you think would happen if Fox New reviewed Al Franken or Michael Moore's books? Do you think they would be fair and balanced reviews? If so you haven't been paying attention to Fox News.

 

The liberal bias thing is a myth. The New York Times is a mainstream newspaper. And to attack the newspaper because of who their book reviewer chooses to review is just plain stupid. It is not evidence of a political slant, but evidence of the fact that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of books published each year. And there is ample evidence that Bill O'Reily and Ann Coulter are idiots... Why review them?

 

On the other hand, I wonder if they have reviewed the Colin Powell book, "My American Journey." I wonder if they have reviewed any one of a number of books on the Regan years.

 

Conservatives (in particular those like Coulter and O'Reilly) who cry unfair because the newspaper didn't review their books are the same ones who blame liberals if anything goes wrong. "Oh my toilets clogged, blame the liberals." "Oh the economy's falling apart and we're in a terrible debt, it was clearly Clinton's fault even though he had a surplus."

 

My favorite Coulter line of all time was when she said that "liberals can't have good sex." Clearly something that has nothing to do with politics whatsoever, but the type of thing that makes a person look stupid for saying. O'Reilly contradicts himself and puts people down on a regular basis for confronting him on his views, something that makes him look stupid.

 

There is clearly a right wing media machine with Fox news and talk radio. These media outlets verbally attack the left on a regular basis. If the New York Times is a liberal wing of the media and the best that they can do to show how left wing they are is to not review some books, they aren't doing a very good job at being a liberal media outlet.

 

Jason

[lummox]

Jason_Martin said:

My favorite Coulter line of all time was when she said that "liberals can't have good sex."

dude. where did you find that quote? that is funny as all hell. question: how can you make ann colter scream twice?

There is clearly a right wing media machine with Fox news and talk radio.

humor through extreme understatement?

[Jason_Martin]

She said it on "Real Time with Bill Mhare(sp?)". Of course he and the other liberal guest ripped her apart on that one while a conservative senator just sat there with a little child molestor smile on his face and watched it happen.

 

Jason

[lummox]

Jason_Martin said:

while a little child molestor just sat there with a conservative senator smile on his face and watched it happen.

i would do ann coulter minute for as long as it takes to crawl a country mile even if she is silly: 'Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.'

[scott_harpell]

The liberal bias thing is a myth. The New York Times is a mainstream newspaper.

 

[EWolfe]

lummox said:

i would do ann coulter minute for as long as it takes to crawl a country mile even if she is silly: 'Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.'

 

Yeah, that sexy talk sure gets me hot and bothered.