Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America

At last month�s American Society of Newspaper Editors convention, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger made light of the shiner he was wearing after being sucker- punched by a bicycle messenger. "It�s nice to know that at the age of 50 I can still take a punch," he quipped.

Unfortunately, certain editors at the Times don�t seem to be as tough. At least that is the conclusion I draw from your decision not to review my book COLORING THE NEWS: How Crusading For Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. (Encounter Books.) According the San Francisco Chronicle media reporter Dan Fost, you said you did not think the book appealed to the kind of general audience you normally look for. Additionally you were quoted as saying: "I also think there's a question, and I don't know the answer: Is this newspaper . . . the best place to discuss a book that is so critical of this newspaper?"

Since it was published in December, 2001, COLORING THE NEWS has gone into its fifth printing and is expected to sell up to 60,000 hardcover copies before moving into paperback next fall. Please also be aware that I have appeared on several major networks, including NPR, CNN, FOX News, PBS, ABC and C-SPAN, as part of the book�s publicity campaign. In addition I have done more than 150 talk radio interviews, and have spoken to a wide variety of audiences, on different sides of the ideological aisle, ranging from the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, to the Columbia University Students Union in New York City. I mention the strong sales and all of the publicity events to underscore the fact that the book does indeed have appeal for general interest readers and not just for people in the media, as you might be insinuating.

Please note too that many other publications have thought COLORING THE NEWS of general enough interest to review, including the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. You should also be aware that the TBR gave my last book, ONLY MAN IS VILE: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka, (FSG) nearly a full page review and that it named this book---on a somewhat obscure subject--- to your Notable Books of the year list.

More dismaying though is your expressed belief that it is inappropriate for the TBR to review a book that is too critical of the New York Times itself. In fact the book is critical of the Times. But it is just as critical of other news organizations, such as the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times who did see fit to review it---and reviewed it quite well.

Let me add that when I began my research for COLORING THE NEWS some years ago, it was not my intention to bash or blackguard the Times. I went where the material took me, following my research to the conclusions I made in the book in a careful, measured way. The Times is in many ways a metaphor for American journalism. Not to examine its role in the diversity crusade, or to pull punches about that role, would have been journalistically irresponsible and dishonest.

Like it or not, the Times is part of the debate over media bias. And as you know from the best seller status of Bernard Goldberg�s book, BIAS (another book you haven�t reviewed) media bias is a topic of considerable public debate. Refusing to review a book that is critical of the Times only tends to substantiate claims that the bias is real---and that the Times lacks the intellectual and professional integrity to contend with critics.

You should realize that by not reviewing it you are letting stand serious and well substantiated charges of journalistic malpractice, journalistic malfeasance and journalistic favoritism on the part of the Times. You are also violating the paper�s commendable tradition of admitting error when and where such admission is due, as embodied in your "corrections" box and your "editors notes." Occasionally the paper has even devoted front page space for analysis of faults in news coverage, such as the mea culpa printed in July 1993 admitting deficiencies in its coverage of the Crown Heights riots of 1991. The paper also has a tradition of allowing its own media reporters to report on the paper, when the actions of the Times, as an institution, merit it.

The Times very rightly never avoids instructing other institutions in American life---corporations, the clergy, the police---that they need to be more accountable to the public and that they should be more appreciative of critics, both from within and from without. Refusing to review COLORING THE NEWS is in my estimation, the journalistic equivalent to the "blue wall of silence" the Times has often decried. I hope you reverse your decision. Not reviewing COLORING THE NEWs is more than a black eye for the Times. It is a negation of its mission and ill-serves the readers who depend on it.

The tone of your letter, I have to say, reminds me a little of the tone of your book. It verges at times on a kind of polemic. All the same, I understand, or I think I understand, why you're so upset, and I'm sorry to have been the source of your frustration. I don't feel, however, that we are obligated to review any particular book, or to explain the reason for our choices. That way lies madness, and unhappiness all the way around. We make our choices as best we can, with an eye to providing some kind of general coverage and to what we think our readers are interested in. A book that criticizes the Times does not, for that reason, automatically deserve attention, and neither does one that praises us. In the case of "Coloring The news," moreover, I don't believe we have done you quite the degree of injustice that you seem to feel. As you point out yourself, the book has not exactly gone unnoticed, and in fact you have got considerable mileage by repeatedly calling attention to our neglect of it.

As for the San Francisco Chronicle piece, I was thinking out loud, and wish now that I had prepared a statement before talking to the reporter. But what I was thinking was this: We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. A proper review of your book would have to address point by point its criticisms of the Times, but is a freelancer (which is what most of our reviewers are) really in a position to do that? On the other hand, if we had given it to an insider, you would have surely cried foul. If you really want a thoughtful response to your critique of the Times, then it seems to me you should be lobbying the journalism reviews, not the Book Review.

High Resolution Photo

William McGowan is the author of Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka (Farrar, Straus & Giroux) and Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism (Encounter Books), for which he won a National Press Club Award. A former editor at the Washington Monthly, he has reported for Newsweek International and the BBC, and has written for the New York Times Magazine, the Washington Post, the New Republic, National Review, the Columbia Journalism Review, and other national publications. A regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, he has been a frequent commentator on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and NPR, and a media fellow at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. A graduate of Middlebury College, Mr. McGowan lives in New York City.


The 1965 Immigration Reforms and The New York Times: Context, Coverage, and Long-Term Consequences (Backgrounder, Center For Immigration Studies; August, 2008) Fooling the Times: All the Ruses Fit to Print. (NationalReview Online). TimesWatch Q & A Interview with Author Author Complaint to NYT Book Review / NYT Book Review Response to Author NYT Book Review Acknowledges Coloring The News Unfit to Print? (Wall Street Journal / Nieman Reports) Mission Statement: excerpt from the Preface to Gray Lady Down. Author Complaint to NYT Book Review / NYT Book Review Response to Author To: Chip McGrath/ Editor, Times Book Review Fr: William McGowan/ author, COLORING THE NEWS Date: 5-1-02 Dear Mr. McGrath, At last month�s American Society of Newspaper Editors convention, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger made light of the shiner he was wearing after being sucker- punched by a bicycle messenger. "It�s nice to know that at the age of 50 I can still take a punch," he quipped. Unfortunately, certain editors at the Times don�t seem to be as tough. At least that is the conclusion I draw from your decision not to review my book COLORING THE NEWS: How Crusading For Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. (Encounter Books.) According the San Francisco Chronicle media reporter Dan Fost, you said you did not think the book appealed to the kind of general audience you normally look for. Additionally you were quoted as saying: "I also think there's a question, and I don't know the answer: Is this newspaper . . . the best place to discuss a book that is so critical of this newspaper?" Since it was published in December, 2001, COLORING THE NEWS has gone into its fifth printing and is expected to sell up to 60,000 hardcover copies before moving into paperback next fall. Please also be aware that I have appeared on several major networks, including NPR, CNN, FOX News, PBS, ABC and C-SPAN, as part of the book�s publicity campaign. In addition I have done more than 150 talk radio interviews, and have spoken to a wide variety of audiences, on different sides of the ideological aisle, ranging from the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, to the Columbia University Students Union in New York City. I mention the strong sales and all of the publicity events to underscore the fact that the book does indeed have appeal for general interest readers and not just for people in the media, as you might be insinuating. Please note too that many other publications have thought COLORING THE NEWS of general enough interest to review, including the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. You should also be aware that the TBR gave my last book, ONLY MAN IS VILE: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka, (FSG) nearly a full page review and that it named this book---on a somewhat obscure subject--- to your Notable Books of the year list. More dismaying though is your expressed belief that it is inappropriate for the TBR to review a book that is too critical of the New York Times itself. In fact the book is critical of the Times. But it is just as critical of other news organizations, such as the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times who did see fit to review it---and reviewed it quite well. Let me add that when I began my research for COLORING THE NEWS some years ago, it was not my intention to bash or blackguard the Times. I went where the material took me, following my research to the conclusions I made in the book in a careful, measured way. The Times is in many ways a metaphor for American journalism. Not to examine its role in the diversity crusade, or to pull punches about that role, would have been journalistically irresponsible and dishonest. Like it or not, the Times is part of the debate over media bias. And as you know from the best seller status of Bernard Goldberg�s book, BIAS (another book you haven�t reviewed) media bias is a topic of considerable public debate. Refusing to review a book that is critical of the Times only tends to substantiate claims that the bias is real---and that the Times lacks the intellectual and professional integrity to contend with critics. You should realize that by not reviewing it you are letting stand serious and well substantiated charges of journalistic malpractice, journalistic malfeasance and journalistic favoritism on the part of the Times. You are also violating the paper�s commendable tradition of admitting error when and where such admission is due, as embodied in your "corrections" box and your "editors notes." Occasionally the paper has even devoted front page space for analysis of faults in news coverage, such as the mea culpa printed in July 1993 admitting deficiencies in its coverage of the Crown Heights riots of 1991. The paper also has a tradition of allowing its own media reporters to report on the paper, when the actions of the Times, as an institution, merit it. The Times very rightly never avoids instructing other institutions in American life---corporations, the clergy, the police---that they need to be more accountable to the public and that they should be more appreciative of critics, both from within and from without. Refusing to review COLORING THE NEWS is in my estimation, the journalistic equivalent to the "blue wall of silence" the Times has often decried. I hope you reverse your decision. Not reviewing COLORING THE NEWs is more than a black eye for the Times. It is a negation of its mission and ill-serves the readers who depend on it. Sincerely Yours, William McGowan author, COLORING THE NEWS Charles McGrath Editor, New York Times Book Review May 9, 2002 Dear Mr. McGowan, The tone of your letter, I have to say, reminds me a little of the tone of your book. It verges at times on a kind of polemic. All the same, I understand, or I think I understand, why you're so upset, and I'm sorry to have been the source of your frustration. I don't feel, however, that we are obligated to review any particular book, or to explain the reason for our choices. That way lies madness, and unhappiness all the way around. We make our choices as best we can, with an eye to providing some kind of general coverage and to what we think our readers are interested in. A book that criticizes the Times does not, for that reason, automatically deserve attention, and neither does one that praises us. In the case of "Coloring The news," moreover, I don't believe we have done you quite the degree of injustice that you seem to feel. As you point out yourself, the book has not exactly gone unnoticed, and in fact you have got considerable mileage by repeatedly calling attention to our neglect of it. As for the San Francisco Chronicle piece, I was thinking out loud, and wish now that I had prepared a statement before talking to the reporter. But what I was thinking was this: We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. A proper review of your book would have to address point by point its criticisms of the Times, but is a freelancer (which is what most of our reviewers are) really in a position to do that? On the other hand, if we had given it to an insider, you would have surely cried foul. If you really want a thoughtful response to your critique of the Times, then it seems to me you should be lobbying the journalism reviews, not the Book Review. Yours Sincerely, Charles McGrath, Book Review Editor. High Resolution Photo William McGowan is the author of Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka (Farrar, Straus & Giroux) and Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism (Encounter Books), for which he won a National Press Club Award. A former editor at the Washington Monthly, he has reported for Newsweek International and the BBC, and has written for the New York Times Magazine, the Washington Post, the New Republic, National Review, the Columbia Journalism Review, and other national publications. A regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, he has been a frequent commentator on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and NPR, and a media fellow at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. A graduate of Middlebury College, Mr. McGowan lives in New York City.
Also by William McGowan Newsweek.com [pdf] [html]