Ha Ha, Dave Brock catches NY book reviewer recycling anti-Clinton review

Read the whole piece because it's a hoot how he caught Michiko Kakutani recycling her review of both Clintons....

"Compare New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani's June 10, 2003, review of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir, Living History, with Kakutani's June 20, 2004, review of former President Bill Clinton's memoir, My Life:

Living History

"'Living History' is a mishmash..."

My Life

"In fact, 'My Life' reads like a messy pastiche..."

<snip>
Living History

"The book struggles to turn the author's many contradictions..."

My Life

"... someone riven by contradictions..."

<snip>
"... for all its roller-coaster drama -- all the political scandals, marital woes and startling comebacks and reinventions..."

My Life

"... a harrowing roller-coaster ride of precocious achievements, self-inflicted slip-ups and even more startling comebacks..."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406200001

copyright violation.

Good catch, Mr. Brock!!

She's recycling from her own previous review.

The point is that it would be unlikely that both books would be "off" in the same way. The notions that the reviewer is using to describe the books seem not related to the books at all, but rather to an idea fixe of the reviewer.

Most writers sell the North American rights along with
the articles.

They gonna sue their own writer for copyright violations of their own paper?

I just wish it were possible. Something to make this
woman pay for being a hack.

and I wouldn't be surprised if she uses a similar template for many of her reviews. Does she only review political nonfiction? It might be fun to compare more of her reviews.

fiction, non-fiction, doesn't matter.

I also see that she's won a Puliter.

Tell me again why people believee the NYT is liberal? Or credible?

I don't understand this?

Hillary wrote a book called Living History and this reviewer
wrote a negative review for it.

Bill write a book called My Life and this reviewer copied and
pasted parts of her negative review of Hillary's book and
used them in her negative review of Bill's book.

Kind of reveals the reviewer to be an anti-Clinton hack,
don't you think?

I now understand. Like I said I was having a brain fart!

:hi:

(I just wasn't sure what you were asking.)

Living History

"Yet the book skates over the problems the Clinton administration faced in its rocky debut and in the impeachment crisis and skims over details of matters like Whitewater and 'travelgate'..."

My Life

"... but the failure of his health care initiative, overseen by Mrs. Clinton, is glossed over..."



More lazy journalism from the Right. Color me unsurprised.

Edit: I should add that I find the comparison above funny and ironic, because Ms. Kakutani elsewhere mentions that Living History goes in-depth on the failure of the health-care initiative and that My life covers all of the events Kakutani criticized Hilary for leaving out of Living History.

:toast:

until I'd read the thread. I was wondering when I had crossed over into Bizarro universe.

It's vacuous.

I mean, this is the paper that summed up the 9/11 report by saying, essentially, "it was a pretty quick read."

New York Times' Kakutani twice failed to note Clintons' criticisms of the Times

In her New York Times review of Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir, Living History, Michiko Kakutani failed to inform readers that the book contained information contending that The New York Times' reporting on the so-called Clinton scandals was false and wrong. Kakutani made similar egregious omissions in her June 20 New York Times review of President Bill Clinton's memoir, My Life.

Unlike The New York Times, Media Matters for America does not yet have a copy of My Life; but we have learned that the former president, in his new book, is critical of The New York Times' coverage of Whitewater -- a fact that Kakutani withheld in her review of My Life, while simultaneously accusing Clinton of lacking candor.

In fact, Bill Clinton is on record in a November 30, 2000, Oval Office interview with The New York Times saying the following about the newspaper: "You guys were wrong about Whitewater. I wish we had the -- that Gertz piece was ridiculous, absurd on its face. I wish we could have had the great New York Times without that."

...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406200002