It sounds to me as if they SHOULD review the book, but good grief, they gave it a front page story. Which would most authors rather have, do you suppose? A front page story reaches such a larger audience. The “usual” reader of political histories is going to read the book anyway, but I would tghink that a front-page story hugely increases the potential reader pool.
What I don’t know is how critical of the book the front page story
was.
From PowerLine’s original posting:
The reason the Post gave Feith is that the book was already the subject of a front-page news story. But that story does not purport to be an attempt to engage the book, nor could it have been. Tom Ricks, one of the authors of the article, confirmed that he and co-author Karen DeYoung read the approximately 500 pages of not-yet-edited type-set, interviewed Feith and Paul Bremer, and wrote the article all on a one-day deadline. They used that time, understandably, to unearth newsworthy nuggets. That’s a far cry from serious consideration of the work as whole.
500 pages in one day. Doesn’t leave a lot of time for in-depth analysis, follow-up quotes from other principals mentioned in the book, or much other research. Not to mention the “not-yet-edited” part…
Unfortunately, the likes of Nick Coleman leave me skeptical that “reporters” are pulling all-nighters when they already seem to have their minds made up on most of the topics they cover.
The sound you hear is William Randolph Hearst scratching on the inside of his coffin--trying to get out and make the most of the current “journalistic” climate.
