|
 | | ||
Rebuttals • WASHINGTON MONTHLY
January/February 2002 To the Editors: Seth Mnookin's review of my book COLORING THE NEWS in the January/February 2002 Washington Monthly is filled with mistakes, misrepresentations and malice. He writes that “McGowan acknowledges that the Free Press was willing to publish his book; it was the author who balked,” before going to a new publisher, Encounter Books. Completely untrue, flipping both what I told Mnookin and the truth of the matter on its head. I never acknowledged in the least that the Free Press was willing to publish my book because they were in fact not willing to do so, for reasons which were entirely political and in no way connected to the manuscript's quality. My comment, which he quotes, about the Free Press not supporting the book had I stayed, was entirely hypothetical, and wrenched completely out of context. I told Mnookin that shortly before I delivered my manuscript, in November 1998, the Free Press had a change in editorial director who initiated a substantial shift in editorial vision. I gave the Free Press exactly the book they had contracted for, but they no longer wanted it. Two different literary agents, a publishing industry consultant and a prominent Manhattan literary attorney reviewed this matter for me. Although the Free Press was being legally coy in their handling of my book, these advisors concluded that if I wanted Coloring the News to see daylight I should take it elsewhere. I did this, reluctantly. Why would any author willingly leave such an established place as the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, and go to a then-fledgling like Encounter Books? And to leave with the Free Press still owing me the second half of my advance? It makes no sense. (For the record, Encounter has done quite well by my book.) I urged Mnookin to contact former Free Press editorial director Adam Bellow, who clearly believes COLORING THE NEWS was purged for "ideological" reasons. But instead Mnookin relied on the sole opinion of the former second-string editor, Mitch Horowitz, who said it was a “complete fabrication” that the Free Press had backed out. Mnookin makes no mention that Horowitz had left the Free Press many months before I delivered, had never laid his eyes on my manuscript, and had absolutely no awareness of what had transpired in the editorial back and forth between me and the new regime, which Horowitz confirmed in a phone call. Horowitz also maintains that what he said to Mnookin was said in completely hypothetical terms---speculation, if you will---reflecting “what would have been the [the Free Press’s] response based on the time I was there”--ie before the Bellow regime was purged and before he got another job. Hardly an authoritative source and an authoritative account. As to Mnookin’s disparaging charges about the accuracy and truthfulness of my analyses, I should point out that a lot of the material in my book was first published in numerous publications--the Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, Forbes Media Critic, American Journalism Review, City Journal, the Forward. None of these publications---all of some prestige and reputation---called my analyses into question. None of them felt any of it had “only the flimsiest connections to reality.” None of them felt there was deception in any way shape or form, much less deception that was “purposeful.” Additionally, I should point out that none of the many publications that have reviewed or written about COLORING THE NEWS, and responded to it well, such as the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, Columbia Journalism Review, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, have raised similar concerns. Mnookin also writes that "McGowan seems to have done little research since the mid-90s, when he initially signed on to write his book." He adds: "A humorous example of how out-of-date this book is: Anna Quindlen is the most frequently cited New York Times columnist, and she hasn't worked for the paper since 1994." Not true, again. Six of the book’s eight chapters open with substantial anecdotes from 1996 and beyond. I examine a few dozen stories from after February 1995 (when I signed my book contract), including the UNITY Convention of 1999; the controversy over Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby alleged “homophobia” in 1998; the Miami Herald’s coverage of Elian Gonzalez case in 1999 and 2000; the New York Times coverage of the Amadou Diallo case in 1999 and subsequent trial in 2000; and miscoverage of the running battle between the courts and the Boy Scouts over gay issues in 1999 and 2000. As for the Anna Quindlen jab, the joke is on him. Bob Herbert is the most frequently cited New York Times columnist---seven citations in the index to Quindlen’s four--- and he’s still at the Times. Additionally, every reference to Herbert relates to news stories that occurred after I signed on to do the book, well after in most instances. All Mnookin needed to do was to read the index and count the references. Why didn’t he do so? Why didn’t the editors double check? You gave Mnookin’s review the headline, “Yellow Journalism.” In terms of Mnookin’s dubious sense of honesty and accuracy, you got at least one thing right. Book reviewing is in many ways an exercise in trust. Readers are at the mercy of the reviewer’s sense of integrity and truthfulness. In this case that trust was egregiously betrayed by Mnookin’s own purposeful deception and malicious misrepresentations as well as by the Washington Monthly’s own editorial irresponsibility. William McGowan
January/February 2002 To The Editors: Although Peter Schrag says my book COLORING THE NEWS is an “important” book that makes “a powerful case” about political correctness in major American news organizations, he does say it is a “tendentious book.” To make this charge of partisanship, he cites the fact that I am a research fellow at “the conservative Manhattan Institute" and that my book “is published by Encounter, a conservative house that is underwritten by the very conservative Bradley Foundation.” This is a regrettable charge, reflecting unexamined notions of guilt-by-association and a somewhat simple-minded journalistic obsession with ideological labels, shot through with double standards. As Bernard Goldberg has noted, “The only time we journalists use the term ‘left-wing’ is if we’re talking about a part on an airplane.” But Schrag also reports only half the facts here, encouraging the very tendency to dismiss a book he says potential readers should avoid dismissing. Had he asked me, and he should have, I would have told him that I had tried for many years to get research funding from a variety of liberal organizations, including the Gannett-backed Freedom Forum, only to be turned down, largely for political reasons I came to understand. (As you know, Gannett likes diversity programs, big time.) I would have also told him that I had first contracted to do the book with The Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, only to see the Free Press back away from the book when I delivered it. This move on the part of the Free Press had nothing to do with editorial quality and everything to do with politics, in this case the liberal politics of the New York publishing world that no longer wanted to endorse a book that challenged liberal orthodoxy, as COLORING THE NEWS does. Even if Encounter Books is a conservative house, and for the record I think it is far more heterodox than that pat label allows whatever the funding it gets from the Bradley Foundation, it at least had the guts to publish a book like mine. The more liberal Simon & Schuster imprint did not. Schrag’s ideological labeling game does raise an interesting question though. Had I been named a research fellow at a liberal organization and was published by a house known for producing more liberal books, would he have made the same charge of tendentiousness? Somehow twenty years in journalism tells me to doubt it. William McGowan
| |||
Home | About the Author | Preface | Media Contact
| |||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||
|