• Home
• Articles
• Support
• About
• Links
Times Watch for May 22, 2003
The Book the Times Found Unfit To Review
Q&A with WILLIAM MCGOWAN, author of “COLORING
THE NEWS,” a 2001 book (newly in paperback) which made many direct
criticisms of how the quest for “diversity” was corrupting Times reporting.
Times Watch talked by phone with Mr. McGowan.
Times Watch: Do you feel any vindication in the light of the Jayson Blair revelations?
William McGowan: “Although I feel sad and sorry for journalism as a whole, and for the people I know who work at the Times, I do feel vindicated at some level. Material that was in ‘Coloring the News,’ some of the points that I made with respect to diversity at the Times, seem to have been factors in the Jayson Blair fiasco. One factor involved racial double standards and racial anxiety on the part of editors in coming to grips with a diversity golden boy who was really running amok. But I feel even more vindication in the Times institutional reaction, because the book has a lot of material on the defensiveness, moral sanctimony and moral superiority that tend to go along with this diversity crusade and I think the Times really showed those qualities in its response.”
TW: Why do you think the New York Times didn’t review “Coloring the News?”
WM: “I don’t think, I know. Chip McGrath, editor of the Times book review, went on the record to the San Francisco Chronicle and he said point-blank there was a question of whether it was appropriate for a newspaper like the Times to review a book that was so critical of the Times.”
TW: Meanwhile, Eric Alterman’s book (“What Liberal Media?”) gets two glowing reviews in the Times.
WM: “There’s really a disgraceful double standard. McGrath and I had correspondence about it. He basically served up this really, really lame reasoning for not reviewing the book. He said, if they were going to review it and then assigned it to a freelancer, the freelancer would not be able to verify all the claims, do all the fact-checking. And if the Times assigned a staff reporter, we would cry foul because it would seem too much like an inside job. It was really lame. I have it on the word of friends who have friends at the New York Times Book Review that they were somewhat embarrassed by all the bad publicity they got for not reviewing the book and for what McGrath said on the record to the Chronicle.”
TW: Why do you think the Times published your recent letter to the editor? Guilt feelings toward an ignored author, or a genuine attempt to open up the diversity debate?
WM: “I don’t know. Perhaps part of it was a momentary spasm of institutional candor. I doubt it’s a genuine attempt to open up the diversity debate.”
TW: There’s a new paperback version of “Coloring the News” out which includes new, post 9-11 material. Is there any Times-related material of interest in the new section?
WM: “Yes. One section deals with kind of the propagation of the myth of America as a xenophobic country in the midst of anti-Islamic fervor. I looked at a lot of the stories the Times published since 9-11 about bias against Muslims and report some of them and show this was vastly exaggerated. And there’s very little law enforcement data that backs up this impression of a wave of anti-Muslim fervor. I also go into stories bearing on issues of Muslim loyalty and Muslim assimilation and highlight the anxiety and hypersensitivity with which the Times reports those issues, when they get reported at all. The Times has refused to honor this as a valid journalistic question, that Muslims are the object of a new journalistic solicitude.”
TW: Even non-conservatives (including the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, Howard Kurtz and the New Yorker’s Ken Auletta) have suggested race played a factor in Blair’s hiring. Is this a sign of liberals questioning the quest for “diversity” at all costs—or is this a more narrow instance of journalists concerned about preserving the reputation of journalism?
WM: “I put myself in their camp. I don’t think the Blair case should impose a stigma on all minority journalists. It shouldn’t invalidate all diversity efforts either, especially efforts aimed at casting a wide net, opening doors to talented people, all the while maintaining standards as you are doing so. But I do think you’d be journalistically at fault if you didn’t acknowledge where diversity and race was a factor in the Blair case and the Times institutional response to it. The Times post-mortem tried to deny that race was a factor. I think that’s just wrong—it’s the reverse race card.”
E-mail Times Watch Director, Clay Waters, with Times Watch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org