When The Washington Post ran a review of Zev Chafet's book, 'Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One' in its May 25 edition, Book World Editor Rachel Hartigan Shea chose conservative David Frum to review it because of his ideological background.

“We knew in general it would be interesting given he is a conservative,” Shea told me. “That would make it more interesting.”

But after the review ran, the Post was slammed with criticism by those who claimed Frum was biased against Limbaugh, having penned a critical Newsweek cover story last year titled: 'Why Rush is Wrong.'

It eventually prompted Ombudsman Andy Alexander to blog about the incident the same day the review appeared: “Limbaugh is a fascinating figure to many readers, regardless of their ideological orientation. Not everyone is aware of the feuds within the conservative movement. In this case, transparency is important for those coming to the review without prior knowledge of the Frum-Limbaugh clash.”

Shea says Frum's alleged past conflict should have been known. “I didn't deal with him directly and he probably should have been pressed directly,” she admits now. “That just happens sometimes. We should always push our reviewers to say if they have a conflict. Sometimes we forget or our people do not check.”

The Frum incident raises the issue of how book review editors choose reviewers, how much they check potential conflicts and how much they can really vet them for each book. Several editors admit they are often at the mercy of reviewers disclosing conflicts upfront.

“We state that you have to tell us, we have to rely on our reviewers to tell us about things,” said Shea. Asked about background checks on reviewers, Shea said: “we don't really have the staff to do that.”

With cutbacks in resources and newspapers turning more toward freelancers, the potential for a conflict to occur is increased, editors admit. Many say they use a pool of reviewers they know, but also like to bring in new names to mix things up. There a conflict can result.

Post Ombudsman Alexander weighed in on another conflict last November when the Post reviewed Jon Krakauer's “Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.”

He noted in a column on the review that the book looked at the death of former pro football player Pat Tillman and “the military's original concealment that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire and suggests that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, was part of a coverup.”

Alexander stated that the Post chose Andrew M. Exum, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, to review the book: “What was not disclosed in the review was that Exum has a close relationship with McChrystal, whom he recently described in his blog as 'one of the finest men I have ever known.' In June and July [2009], he served as an unpaid civilian adviser to McChrystal in Afghanistan. While the Post review noted that Exum had been a 'civilian adviser' there this year, it didn't say he was advising the general.”

Nicole Lamy, books editor at The Boston Globe, offered several examples of conflicts, and potential conflicts, that have come up for her paper. Some with the most limited connections.

She cited a review by Kate Tuttle of “America and The Pill,” by Elaine Tyler May that ran May 9. While no known conflict existed when the review was written, Lamy said she later found out Tuttle's father had been noted in the acknowledgements of a previous May book.

“I had to go to the editors with it,” Lamy said. “It was considered okay, but it seemed to me something to check out.”

Lamy also noted two instances in which she had trouble finding a reviewer because so many of her usual reviewers knew the authors involved.

In one case, seeking a local reviewer for “Father of the Rain” by Lilly King, a local author, Lamy said she had to go through five would-be reviewers before she found a local scribe who did not know King.

The same thing occurred for the book, “What Darwin Got Wrong” by Jerry Foder. Lamy wanted to find an evolutionary biologist to review it, but most of the ones she contacted also knew that author.

“It is hard to find because there are not that many in that field,” she said.

David L. Ulin, who has edited the Los Angeles Times book reviews since 2005, says he sticks with a core group of reviewers he knows and never uses reviews pitched by unknown writers.

“The real question is can the reviewer review the book fairly, on its merits without a conflict arising?” he asked. “There is only so much you can actually do. I ask if they know the writer or have any personal relationship.”

Ulin, who is leaving the editing post this year to become a book critic for the paper, said he has four staff critics and reviews 800 to 900 books each year: “That is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of books we get. We get that many books in a week.”

Ulin cited a recent example of a writer who considered reviewing a book published by Knopf, but disclosed that he had recently had a novel rejected by Knopf.

“You have to rely on a good faith business,” he said. “You ask questions and you hope people respond honestly.”

“My big fear is that people won't disclose their friends, that people won't disclose their enemies and can hold grudges,” said Elizabeth Taylor, literary editor at the Chicago Tribune, who has overseen book reviews since 1996. “I like to try new people, but I have to figure out their subtle connections that might not be apparent.”

Taylor also noted the conflicts that arise when she lets an author review a book while he or she has their own book coming out soon after.

She cited an author who had agreed to review a book for her, but canceled after her newspaper gave his own book a negative review.

“I try not to use reviewers who have books coming out in the same season,” she said.

At the Dallas Morning News, Editor Robert Mong said his paper focuses mostly on local and regional authors and subjects, requiring a different scrutiny of reviewers. “I ask that they just use common sense,” he says.

Suzanne Van Atten, external content editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, said the paper has a clear conflict of interest policy that also applies to reviewers, requiring them to disclose conflicts: “We have a blanket policy that applies to all authors.”

Karen Long, book editor at The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, insists on interviewing each reviewer, especially if they are new to the paper, and making sure conflicts are disclosed. “You don't want someone reviewing their brother-in-law's book or having a conflict others might not see.”

Long, who runs 13-14 reviews each week, said she also does Google background checks and other searches to find hidden connections: “I ask people point blank why they asked for a particular book.”

The king of the newspaper book reviews, of course, is The New York Times, which publishes a free-standing Sunday book review. But even there, checking conflicts can be difficult.

Given the newspaper's continued clout in the industry, if a conflict is discovered after the fact the paper will be hit hard by criticism.

“We research as much as we can and we ask them to come clean,” said Sam Tanenhaus, book editor since 2003, who adds that he only uses freelancers. “Most reviewers will disclose a conflict. But there are no hard and fast rules. It is on a case-by-case basis and each case is different.”

He said the newspaper publishes 15 to 20 reviews each week, about 1,000 each year. That is about 2% of the books published in a year.

But Tanenhaus adds that the Times newsroom has three of its own book reviewers on staff who review books separate and apart from the book section. He said this can lead to double reviews.

“We don't know what they will be reviewing and what they will say,” Tanenhaus says. “Often they review books we do not, but some get reviewed twice.”

Then there is the question of choosing a reviewer because they have a connection to the author or subject, even if it is a potential conflict. Editors say disclosing the link makes it ethical and often brings a better element to the review.

“It is better to have an author who engages with the subject, pro or con, not just summarizes it,” Tanenhaus said. “It would serve the reader to have someone that is knowledgeable on the subject.”

Shea of the Post agreed, noting, “sometimes it is better to go with a reviewer whose opinion everyone knows. Conflict is in the eye of the beholder.”

Adds Long in Cleveland, “You can look for a reviewer who is ideal or you can look for a reviewer who sparks a good conversation. Sometimes that means it is critical.”

Ulin at the Los Angeles Times said political books are almost always reviewed by staff writers because they usually need a quick turn around. Also, knowing the reviewer better likely helps avoid political bias claims.

“I want to be careful with assigning a book to someone with an ideology,” Ulin says.

The line can be difficult to walk between a reviewer being an expert on a subject because of his or her inside connections and being too close to the topic or the subject.

“There are a finite number of authors who really know China,” Shea said, citing an example. “You want to know if they have a connection to each other.”

There is also the trickiness of reviewing books written by newspaper staffers, an issue that often comes up at The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.

“Some get reviewed, some don't,” said Tanenhaus. “We would never not review a book by someone at the Times because of that, that is unfair to readers.”

Shea stated: “We are careful about who we assign those to.” She noted a recent book on the Chandra Levy case that several Post writers authored. She said it was reviewed by a Columbia Journalism School professor, Steve Weinberg, who also writes true crime books. The Post staffers had also done a lengthy series last year on the Levy case for the paper.

“We figured he knew the reviewing business and true crime,” she said.