question: Why does ANNthrax's book "Treason" have good reviews from NYT

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 08:45 PM
Original message

question: Why does ANNthrax's book "Treason" have good reviews from NYT

and Wash Post on the dust cover??

I was at the bookstore yesterday and was curious what idiots would review it. I was expecting stuff like Splotchy and Sham Hammity cooing and oogling, but to see high praise from NYT and Wash Post..... what the hell? :wtf: ????

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrMonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 08:56 PM
Response to Original message

1. Phrases taken out of context?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. that would be the only explanation I could think of, but

the quotes were sooo full of praise. I couldn't think how one could take them out of context ..I mean if the review were actually bad, quotes like those couldn't possibly be there.

Unless they all started with "She WISHES she were...."

I can't remember what the comments actually said now...I just gagged on some puke, put the book back and washed my hands with Lysol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GiovanniC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:15 PM
Response to Original message

3. And Meanwhile She's Saying She Wished The Terrorists Had Blown Up NYT

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

miss_kitty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:17 PM
Response to Original message

4. not really 'Liberal Media' after all, is it?

Edited on Mon Oct-11-04 09:17 PM by mlle_chatte

Unless by 'liberal' those that use it mean 'right leaning' which the NYT is. Same with the WA Post...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sir_captain

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. You realize that most book reviews

are not written by employees of the NYT or the WP and that the individual reviewer is solely responsible for its content, right? I'm astounded by the number of DUers who seem to think that media organizations seem to work using some kind of hive mind.

Probably, no liberal was willing to review it, so it got left to someone who more agreed with the freeper point of view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. No I didn't realize! That makes sense of what I saw

I really thought that a review with the NYT name on it would be by a NYT staff person would reflect NYT level of journalism (yes not fabulous I know but for mainstream, better than alot of others, like our local paper. barf. but I digress....)

I know there are movie reviewing shills; usually I look at reviews to see what the source is. If its some bozo source, or a specific name I remember as a shill, I laugh it off. But I didn't know about what you're saying.

Gee, plenty of times I'll see excellent reviews from NYT on high quality liberal or progressive writing that I feel are trustworthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sir_captain

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. Movie reviews are different

they have a staff of a few people who review all the films--but there are a lot more books on a much more wide variety of subjects than there are films.

Most of the time, the reviewer of a book in the NYT Book Review or the New York Review of Books (the two most prominent book reviews in this country) are written by experts in the field of the particular book. So excepting opinion (in this case, Ann Coulter's book being reviewed by those with a conservative slant) you can generally be pretty sure that the reviewer at least knows what they're talking about.

In terms of journalistic standards, I'd generally suggest that the book review has much higher standards...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. thank you for explaining

those reviews I saw--it just said "so-and-so, NYT." Didn't say NYT Book Review...I wonder if there's a dept within NYT just for reviews that were "bought" by the author or author's publishing house, or whoever the sponsor would be....? hmmmm.

Always seemed that the Book REview held very high standards; I can't imagine what I saw came from there.

Unfortunately, its kind of hard to get the NYT where we are. Pretty much have to drive into the city, about an hour. rats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sir_captain

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #11

14. no reviews are bought

that would be unethical. The Times does have a few in-house reviewers, but that simply can't cover everything that is published and review-worthy.

The NYT Book Review is a once a week section which is devoted entirely to reviews of books. Sometimes, books are also reviewed separately in the daily paper, usually by someone else. But let's be clear here: no review is bought by the publisher or author--they are all comepletely independent. Sometimes, the person reviewing the book will be a conservative, but it really doesn't reflect on anyone other than the author of the review.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

miss_kitty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5

15. well since I don't read either of those substandard rags

I would be less than interested in their book reviewing standards and policies. The fact that they would grant space to a review of that lying sack of shit's banshee wailing-filled screed about people and things of which she chooses to know nothing, speaks volumes about their standards and practices.The fact that they would pick quote whores to do the reviewing acts to further my low estimation of them. Like they care.

I am astounded the number of people in general who waste time on the Times, outside the crossword puzzles and acrostics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. hmmmm, that helps. I didn't realize NYT and WP were right leaning

especially not enough to favorably review miss "hairy-smelly-democratic-women-at-the-DNC-I-had-to-look-for-my-people-undercover-the-ones-with-crosses-and-the-pretty-women/let's-kill-muslims"

it really weirded me out. And so, now what is one to think of positive reviews for good Liberal work? Or Krugman's writing? Or or or...ugh; the cognitive dissonance is getting to me.

Were the reviewers fooled by her use of biiigg words? I dunno :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

miss_kitty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #6

12. Don't take my word for it

I will always be able to back up my claims with sourcing. The NYT is particularly egregious in its 'Hey we LOOK liberal, but we're not when it counts' facade. Shameful for the 'Paper of Record' see Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

Also Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is a good source for picking up the subtle weasel crap and cover ups those bastards do.
On the NYT
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/nyt.html

Judith Miller, embedded �reporter� case in point. The Jayson Blair, Rick Bragg cases (lying sacks who were lionised well past their sell-by date, due to shoddy fact checking-not a chore valued on the �right� as we well know, and due to the 'Cover my ass' syndrome)
On the Washington Post
http://www.fair.org/search/search.cgi?Match=0&Realm=All&Terms=Washington+Post

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-12-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #12

16. Thanks mlle_Chatte! I already have FAIR in my bookmarks, but these

specific pages will be good to find. Thanks again.

Boy, its hard to shed assumptions about "respectable" sources, even when one ..err..knows better. Or thought she knew better. Or something like that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynneSin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:29 PM
Response to Original message

7. Treason was probably the best of the books she wrote...

Edited on Mon Oct-11-04 09:40 PM by LynneSin

then again picking the best book she wrote is like choosing the best dictator from Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin or Stalin

:crazy:

More than likely they had an ok review of the book and found a few amusing parts. Ms. Mannthrax is notorious for taking everything out of context for her own personal use. The reviews on the back I am not suprised

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. I suppose I really should READ something of hers, just to be fair

and balanced (*ahem*) but after reading Al's meticulous description of her "integrity", I just can't be bothered. ;)

lol-best of her writing/like picking the best dictator. LOL

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WilliamPitt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-11-04 10:36 PM
Response to Original message

13. Every paper has its wingnuts in the book review department

for just this reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-12-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #13

17. makes sense...I know I had been according some cachet to a NYT

label. "Had been"---- past tense now. I'll be looking more critically after this thread. Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WilliamPitt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-12-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #17

18. Read 'Blinded by the Right'

Edited on Tue Oct-12-04 03:36 PM by WilliamPitt

He knew all the moves, and made a few of them himself. Ditto 'What Liberal Media?'

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FizzFuzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-12-04 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. yes, read it already--Blinded By the Right, I mean

that and Best Democracy Money can buy are the ones that started opening my eyes. I mean, I knew something was damn smelly, but those two books clarified alot. Unbelievable. But undeniable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 11:45 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.