New York Times Death Spiral Watch

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps? Matthew Yglesias watches Sam Tanenhaus's book review on Jonah Goldberg:

Matthew Yglesias: If You've Got Nothing Nice to Say: 31 Dec 2007 09:04 a: I just hope The New York Times Book Review is as kind to my book when the time comes as they were to Jonah Goldberg (of course, realistically we're all just desperately hoping to be reviewed at all): "Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars." Yes, that's right, Liberal Fascism is a step away from the nastiness of the culture wars. The reviewer, David Oshinsky, does concede that Goldberg's main thesis is false but that didn't seem to bother him....

Swordsmith writes:

I TA'd for David Oshinsky while doing my grad work at Rutgers, so I may be a little biased (he and I were probably the only two Red Sox fans on campus at the time), but I think MY misses the point a little here. It's pretty standard in writing critiques to point out the things you like about the book first before proceeding on to the problems, and Oshinsky spanks the content of the book pretty thoroughly - basically he says that it's cleverly written and fun to read but completely worthless intellectually.

The ending of the review was puzzling and abruptly shifted tone in a way that was un-Oshinsky-like, though; I suspect it was clumsily edited to soften his ending a bit. Oshinsky himself was an interesting choice for the review, since he's an expert on McCarthyism, and has built a career on the study of people who use terror and bullshit to scare their way into power.

Comments

[John Emerson]

I suspect Swordsmith is onto something. Many of the bad pieces in the Times were initially much better, but they all had to be submitted to the faceless cabal of anonymous editors whom Sulzberger has hire to put his newspaper into its final form. Some of the bylined people write with these editors in mind in the first place, and need less mutilation than than others, whereas I'm sure that some authors work very hard at trying to sneak things by (as Russia under the Czar and the Communists).

[JCN]

I also agree with Swordsmith, and am not sure why it's a sign of the Times' death spiral that a number of bloggers missed the obvious point of the review.

If you only read the blogosphere's response, well, you got played. There's no way a reader could confuse what Oshinsky wrote with the "surprisingly positive" review Instapundit claimed to link to.

[Except that many readers did confuse, did they not? This whole "only the esoteric reading matters" business is very harmful, IMHO...]

[anon]

The review makes the book sound like it is a cribbed representation of the ideas put forward by John T. Flynn in the 1950s. I am guessing (not having read the Goldberg book) that Flynn said it much better and with a stronger argument, especially since he turned against the Cold War with the same gusto as the Second World War. I can't imagine Flynn approving of Reaganism or Goldbergism for that matter.

I am surprised about the level of denial vis a vis the repressive measures of Wilson or the analogue between FDR and fascism. Flynn does a reasonable job of pointing out the parallels of the latter in As We Go Marching, which may or may not still be in print.

[John Emerson]

JCN is an idiot. If you want a sensible review of Goldberg's imbecile production, go to Ackerman. He's written several thousand words explaining that the book has no merit at all. That's the rational, fairminded view of Goldberg.

In the Times' reviews of political books, moral equivalence runs wild -- they treat dishonest, inaccurate, silly Republican books like Goldberg's with the same condescending skepticism as they do well-grounded Democratic books by [whichever author you may care to name.] Some books require an unambiguously harsh review.

[Rob]

Could JCN please explain how making reading the Times more like reading Pravada not a sign of a death spiral?

[Roger Bigod]

Next week: Joyce Carol Oates reviews the latest Harlequin novel.

[mq]

There was a subtle wink and a nod to sophisticated and tuned-in readers, who could read past the amused tone to see that the book is a piece of crap. To the casual reader (who will be most of the people paging through the NYTBR on a Sunday morning), this was a moderate but still effective plug which will serve to sell the book to some. Since this book is in fact jaw-droppingly horrible, the net effect is a truly impressive demonstration of the power of the right in major media institutions.