Has NYT Book Review done it again? Clark book hit-piece

[DeepModem Mom]

On the front of his austere black-and-white book jacket, Gen. Wesley K. Clark is presented as the former supreme allied commander in Europe and the author of what purports to be an expert analysis of the war in Iraq. But on the book's back side, you will find a colorful full-page poster of a handsome civilian with a winning smile and the unmistakable ambition to commit more than military history.

''Winning Modern Wars'' turns out to be aptly wrapped. For its 200 pages, many of them updated just a month ago, are obviously designed to abet the swift transformation of a once embittered warrior and armchair television analyst into a hard-driving, platitudinous candidate for president.

That jacket speaks louder than the coy words with which Clark denies any partisan purpose. He allows that while writing he heard ''continuing speculation about whether I might engage in some manner'' -- sic! -- ''in the 2004 election.'' But that ''looming decision had no bearing on my analysis.'' His only aim, he insists, is to give voice to the soldiers ''far from home, in an uncertain mission,'' because they ''cannot and should not speak for themselves.''

Well, those soldiers and their fellow citizens can vote. And the general cannot camouflage the partisan thrust of his polemic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/books/review/26FRANKET.html?8hpib

The reviewer is Max Frankel.

[FlemingsGhost]

1. How is that a "hit-piece"?

Please explain.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Like Sahale Arm below....

I thought the review had a "bitter tone," and was more a "personal attack" on the author than a review of the book.

And I hope this thread will adhere to the spirit of your great name here, Dems Unite, and not become another Clark/Dean battleground. I support Clark, but think Dean is also a great candidate. I don't like to see any of our Dem candidates broadsided.

[mikehiggins]

4. the general cannot camouflage the partisan thrust of his polemic

It is easy to see how encountering a phrase like this in the first few paragraphs of a review could lead someone to suspect the possibility of an unfavorable point of view regarding the work at hand, or its author, on the part of the individual reviewing it.

Or, in other words, Frankel's heart is on his sleeve from the outset.

A negative review within the pages of the NYT, particularly of a book being reviewed primarily because it was written by a man now standing for election to the Presidency, can be almost automatically considered a "hit" piece, just as a glowing review can be seen as a "puff" piece. Otherwise, why bother reviewing the book?

[SahaleArm]

2. Surprising.

> are obviously designed to abet the swift transformation of a once
> embittered warrior and armchair television analyst into a hard-
> driving, platitudinous candidate for president

When a review starts with a personal attack on the writer it loses much credability. After reading the review I'm not sure what to make of it's bitter tone. Max Frankel is stating that the book's only intent is to further Clark's campaign; giving a token review that frankly is not worthy of a Pulitzer prize winner. Maybe something happened in his years as the Times executive-editor. Of course the Times also employs William Safire, not exactly known for dispassionate analysis.

[regnaD kciN]

6. But...but...

...isn't the New York Times the very epitome of The Liberal Media?

:eyes:

[SahaleArm]

7. I still read the NY-Times.

It's still better than 99% of the daily newspapers, at least the ones I can get my hands on in Seattle.

[ShaneGR]

5. Well, since I'm reading the book right now

I would say it's actually a good analysis of what happened before, during, and after major combat as well as what he feels should happen in the future.

It's a smooth read, with lots of juicy stuff on what DOD has been planning since BEFORE 9/11.