The Times 'New' Review of Clinton's Book--Weird...

[Robert Murphy]

Any of you happen to read the Time's 'new' review of My Life? (I forget by whom--a Clinton admiring novelist of note it was... Tip of my tongue...) As many of you know, the earlier review was less than flattering, to put it mildly. (And a review the Times managed to spew out two days before the book's release; Ms. Kakutani must have a Phd. in Evelyn Wood...) Now this new review...

...Which is, er, I mean I'm glad to see an instance where the press isn't pounding its second favorite* punching bag, but... The 'new' review is a rambling, adoring (almost 'warm and fuzzy') tribute to Clinton, with the details and merits of the book being just a starting point. Oh! Did you also know that, in addition to being a stellar president and great guy, Clinton is also a gifted writer who wrote this great book?

Don't get me wrong--I remain an 'unreconstructed' fan of Clinton. I haven't read his memoirs; who knows, maybe the book deserves its largely unfavorable reviews, but this would not change my high regard for him. (Although I hardly trust the American media's opinions on this matter...)

Anyway, to conclude a bit of rambling of my own, what interests me here is what this may mean in regards to the state of the U.S. press, as the Time's influence upon the rest of the media is hard to overstate; the cable and broadcast news networks often take their cues from what's in its pages. Here we have the NY Times--often scathingly critical (even grossly unfair) to Clinton during his presidency, doing something so transparently flakey and PR-motivated. What gives? Are they 'sorry?' Has the Judith Miller fiasco (re: Chalabi and the lead-up to Iraq) so chastened them? First a bitingly caustic but professionally written review, followed soon after by an obviously shake-and-bake fawning review, written in the style not too unlike a letter to teen fan club. Who are the Times trying to appease? Their consciences? It's not like they lost any advertisers or (very many) readers bashing Clinton all through the 90s...

Go figure...

Robert

* Gore being their most favorite.

[girl gone mad]

1. Considering that..

Kakutani was caught essentially recycling her review of Hilary Clinton's book, it must have been an enormous embarrassment for the Times.

[shrdlu]

2. Larry McMurtry...

...is the novelist of note. http://www.cars101.com/McMurtry.html bibliography.

As noted by Robert Murphy, the NYTimes has a vested interest in maintaining the Clinton-contempt it fostered for years, beginning with the initial scandalously misleading reports of Timesman Jeff Gerth on the totally phony Whitewater "scandal." Gerth bought, and the Times printed, the jealously-driven assertions of Clinton-haters and the lies of politically-driven GOP disinformation operatives hook-line-and-sinker. They never backed off and rode the tragi-comic farce to a Pulitzer.