NYT public editor: Kinsley's review of Greenwald 'unworthy of the Book Review's high standards'

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times
By Margaret Sullivan, NYT Public Editor

... I asked the Book Review editor, Pamela Paul, why Mr. Kinsley was chosen to review the book. The intention, she said, was not to produce a particular point of view or to somehow exact revenge for Mr. Greenwald’s criticism of The Times.

... Here’s my take: Book reviews are opinion pieces and — thanks to the principles of the First Amendment — Mr. Kinsley is certainly entitled to freely air his views. But there’s a lot about this piece that is unworthy of the Book Review’s high standards, the sneering tone about Mr. Greenwald, for example; he is called a “go-between” instead of a journalist and is described as a “self-righteous sourpuss.” (I’ve never met Mr. Greenwald, though I’ve written about his work, as Mr. Kinsley notes.)

But worse, Mr. Kinsley’s central argument ignores important tenets of American governance. There clearly is a special role for the press in America’s democracy; the Founders explicitly intended the press to be a crucial check on the power of the federal government, and the United States courts have consistently backed up that role. It’s wrong to deny that role, and editors should not have allowed such a denial to stand. Mr. Kinsley’s argument is particularly strange to see advanced in the paper that heroically published the Pentagon Papers, and many of the Snowden revelations as well. What if his views were taken to their logical conclusion? Picture Daniel Ellsberg and perhaps the Times reporter Neil Sheehan in jail; and think of all that Americans would still be in the dark about — from the C.I.A.’s black sites to the abuses of the Vietnam War to the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the widespread spying on ordinary Americans.

... A Times review ought to be a fair, accurate and well-argued consideration of the merits of a book. Mr. Kinsley’s piece didn’t meet that bar.

Read more: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/kinsley-greenwald-and-government-secrets

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Oh, dear. Isn't Kinsley the latest hero of a certain faction?

For exactly the hatchet job in question?

[frazzled]

2. The Times Book Review has no standards, high or otherwise

So what are they apologizing for in this case?

Honestly, I think I can comment fairly on this, having been a NY Times subscriber for more than 25 years. The Book Review section, imo, has been one of the diciest sections of that paper for decades. I honestly rarely read it because it's usually just soppy praise for second-rate titles, reviewed by people often oddly unsuited to the task.

If you want to read interesting reviews of interesting books, the Times is not the place to go. So I don't know why they're apologizing about this one: they should have been apologizing every week for all the shitty reviews they run. (I actually liked the snarkiness of Kinsley as opposed to the usual fawning, yawning fare that is published there.)

[ucrdem]

4. +1

So true. Sunday book review supplements have taken a hit in the last few years just like bookstores. You can find a few gems now and then like Kinsley's review -- pretty tame compared to what he could have said -- but usually the few reviews they run aren't very exciting.

[woo me with science]

3. Perhaps there is some shame left at the NYT. Kudos to Ms. Sullivan.

for defending what used to be considered basic journalistic standards.

Please watch out for your job.

It is a shame that the review was so prominent, while this admission that it was a hatchet job unworthy of a major newspaper will probably be read by very few.

[LittleBlue]

5. Professional book reviews are obsolete

I get better book reviews at Amazon. They are just more informative than publications like the NYT.