A new Lincoln book, The Broken Constitution

[David Lockmiller]

(11-21-2021 08:18 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:What the NYTimes recommendation today left out was the very next sentence that Sean Wilentz actually wrote in his New York Times book review regarding Professor Feldman's book: "What it lacks is historical soundness."

I wonder if that was a purposeful mistake.

Quote:I don't think it was a mistake at all.

So what? The title of the book contains a hyperlink to Wilentz's entire review that someone could read if they are interested. You guys seem to think there is some grand conspiracy here spearheaded by the Times to somehow change the way America looks at and studies history (and Gene, with all due respect, when you provide a link from Fox that is a sure way to show what point you want to make).

What you need to understand is the purpose of a review, at least in a popular outlet. It's a marketing tool first and foremost to sell books. Look at how many books are published and what books are selected by any outlet to be reviewed. Very few newspapers today even offer book reviews, let alone a whole section. Tarbell's books were reviewed in dozens of newspapers throughout the US, including the major outlets as well as some small publications that don't even exist today. To be sure, many of the small papers published syndicated reviews, but the point is they provided valuable space for it, all for the purpose of selling the book to their readers.

The nine books selected (and clearly marked as "editor's choice") are books that the newspaper is offering to its readers as a suggestion. Wilentz, or any reviewer for that matter, has no control over what part of his/her review that is featured or used in a quote. I've never seen a contract that the NYT uses for its reviewers, but I wouldn't be surprised that there is a clause outlining that very point. Wilentz had his say in the published review. If Wilentz feels that somehow his quote was taken out of context, or used inappropriately, he is free to write the editors either publicly or privately and complain, or to refuse any further commissions by the paper. I doubt he will, because he is seasoned enough to know the score.

Sorry gentlemen, but there is neither smoke nor fire here.

Best
Rob

Rob, I don't think that you are sorry.

The point is that the New York Times is supposedly providing an unbiased opinion as to whether or not its readers should purchase the book.

I think that there is both smoke and fire here.

David