Washington Post opinion writer Erik Wemple criticized a New York Times review of Media Matters Chairman David Brock's latest book, Killing the Messenger, for largely omitting “the book's broadside against the New York Times.”
Despite writing that the review was “well-reasoned,” Wemple took issue with it for “gloss[ing] over Brock's colossal slam against the New York Times” (emphasis added):
[T]he review wrongly omits the book's broadside against the New York Times. Almost omits, we should say. “It doesn't even seem to matter to Brock if the criticism was made on Glenn Beck's show or in The New York Times; it's always 'sloppy' and 'innuendo-laden,' as Brock complained to The Times about an early article on the email scandal,” writes Rosin.
Okay, but Brock's book actually draws a distinction between the sources of anti-Hillaryism. “I'm less concerned with the Glenn Becks of the world and more concerned with the Maureen Dowds -- less worried about some idiot with a talk show crossing the line and more worried about some widely-read columnist with a prominent position at a reputable outlet using it maliciously,” writes Brock. And this: “It bothers me, of course, when I see Hillary's enemies parroting lies about her,” he writes. “But it bothers me even more when I see her supporters falling prey to the doubts that conservatives are hoping to sow by filtering their attacks through dupes like the New York Times.”
And that is among the milder of Brock's New York Times criticism. He writes that the newspaper will find a “special place in journalism hell” over its long history with both Hillary and former president Bill Clinton. Brock cycles through the editorials of Howell Raines, the columns of Dowd and, most nastily, the recent New York Times exclusives on Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as secretary of state and the subsequent bogus story -- later amended -- that she was the subject of criminal probe referrals over those e-mails. As Nate Silver pointed out in FiveThirtyEight, that “criminal story” kicked off a whole bunch of negative media attention that helps explain the candidate's late-summer “poll-deflating feedback loop.”
[...]
A review in the Wall Street Journal or the Guardian or The Post or the Nation could plausibly gloss over Brock's colossal slam against the New York Times. But a review in the New York Times cannot plausibly gloss over Brock's colossal slam against the New York Times.
Wemple later updated his piece to include a statement from the New York Times:
* Update: From New York Times Book Review Editor Pamela Paul: “We generally give our reviewers free rein in terms of what to focus on in a book in their reviews, and, as you noted, Rosin did mention the criticism. Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, reviewers often use the opportunity to criticize the Times within a book review or to write about books that are critical of the Times!”