Dear Ellen,
A book reviewer once told me an amusing story about how she lost out on a review assignment when the book editor found out that she once had met the author of the book in question at a book festival. “The author wasn’t a friend,” the reviewer explained. “I just had a chance to talk with him a bit.” But the book editor had strict rules when it came to any hint of conflict of interest. In fact, the reviewer was told that if she so much as shared an elevator with the author, she would be disqualified to review that author’s books.
Conflicts of interest are obviously an important consideration in choosing reviewers. But where do we draw the line? The chance that a potential reviewer has met an author are high, particularly in specialized fields. Would you really want someone to review a science book who has never met a scientist? There are, of course, some obvious limits. I ask people I know to review books (Note: Ellen is one of my reviewers), but I would never review a book written by someone with whom I work or who is a friend of mine and I wouldn’t expect them to review one of mine. A British reviewer was surprised when I killed his review after finding out that he was thanked by the author in the acknowledgements. In Britain, he explained, the fact that a reviewer is friends with an author or has has previously collaborated with an author does not exclude him from reviewing that person’s work. In fact, he added, friends (and enemies, for that matter) are constantly reviewing each other’s books.
Here in America, television journalists seem particularly oblivious to the concerns of conflict of interest when it comes to flakking books. Cokie Roberts and Tim Russert have been all over the tube, talking about their latest books: “Founding Mothers” and “Big Russ & Me,” respectively. No one seemed to mind that these television stars were getting an enormous boost for their books from their fellow television journalists, who were, in effect, letting their friends review their own books.
In an article about Russert in the May 24 New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann points out that “Big Russ & Me” “is not so much a self-examination, or even a dad-examination — very little in it could be honestly described as interesting — as it is a highly effective extension of the Russert brand.” The book isn’t even written by Russert, but by celebrity ghostwriter Bill Novak. No wonder lawyer Robert Barnett is such a good deal for those with star power, be they politicians or journalists: Their books, no matter how good or bad, are guaranteed bestsellers, thanks to their authors’ access to the mass media. But with Barnett, the authors play a flat fee and don’t have to share a percentage of their bounty.
Understand, I have nothing against Russert’s dad nor his accomplished son, who is one of the best-prepared journalists on television. His book is quite charming, in fact. But I do think its saturation coverage raises a serious question: When does the use of your access to the airwaves (or newsprint) for personal gain become a conflict of interest?
Hi Margo,
Conflict of interest is sort of like porn — we all know it when we see it, but we see different things. (Aly Colon’s column on “Rules and Their Limits” applies here: Being a guest on someone’s talk show is a far more substantial “gift” than signing a petition, so why wouldn’t hosts be queasy about featuring their friends?)
But let’s look at it from a slightly different angle, the issue of what’s being covered and what’s left out when book flakking becomes common practice. I know — because I have my copy of “Media Law” sitting in my lap — that the fairness doctrine allows news directors wide latitude for editorial judgments. That’s the law.
But ethics and good taste are a different matter. Given that the public owns the air waves, why can’t we viewers expect more from programming than thinly-veiled infomercials? Why shouldn’t the guardians of the Fourth Estate be expected to hold the line against celebrity journalism? These seem like simple requests until cast against the realities of ratings, which set the tune, leaving print journalism to follow the lead of its more dominant brethren.
That said, I am an advocate of putting more authors on TV and in the news pages, not fewer. There’s so much blather out there while so much worthy work goes by, barely noticed except in the pages of magazines and newspapers that make a special effort to cover books. This ghettoization leaves book sections with the leftovers after main news and features have stolen the more scintillating and less talked about stuff, when it should be the other way around: The news and features people should use the book world as a hunting ground.
Want a cuppla examples of what I’m talking about? A sweep of recent arrivals on my desk came up with the following story ideas: “The Outlaw Sea — A World of Freedom, Chaos, and Crime,” by William Langewiesche, an A-plus author whose book takes a look at the maritime industry as the representation of free trade and capitalism unfettered; “An Air That Kills: How the Asbestos Poisoning of Libby, Montana, Uncovered a National Scandal,” by two other enterprising journalists, Andrew Schneider and David McCumber.
But don’t stop there: In the features department, there’s room for “The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan,” by Ben Macintyre (get the news peg?), and in travel, Harriet Rubin’s “Dante in Love: The World’s Greatest Poem and How It Made History.” In other words, instead of focusing on the obvious and most media-friendly candidates, let’s get off our duffs and not become the branding arm for celebrities, whether journalists or not.
Now that I’ve worked myself up, I’ll cool down with mention of a piece I wish I’d known about for last weeks “War Stories” column: Operation Homecoming, a joint effort of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Boeing Company. It’s an attempt to foster the written record about the war in Iraq, starting with workshops given for returning soldiers by writers such as Tobias Wolff and Tom Clancy, and ending with an anthology to be published in late 2005.
Boeing has committed $200,000 already and, according to the NEA, is expected to give $200,000 more. The NEA (that is, us) is kicking in $50,000. This will be a project to watch — an unusual union between disparate elements that could produce pap, or, perhaps, an astounding archive. The judges who will decide which writers go to print have yet to be chosen. For all that NEA head Dana Gioia declares that the evaluation process won’t be tainted by politics, choosing them and the anthology selections can’t be an objective process. In the meantime, alert the grunts and put this site in the tickler file: www.operationhomecoming.org.
Hey Ellen,
Book editors often lament, “Too many books, not enough space,” and that is, I think, why seeing one author — who already has high visibility — get all the attention on television is so galling. But you are right. I shouldn’t begrudge Russert his book moments. It just would be great to see MORE authors on television, and especially those who don’t already have such high visibility. I don’t understand why these 24/7 cable channels, which have all the space, er I mean, time in the world, don’t feature more books. To see people like William Langewiesche on television, you have to tune into Book TV on C-SPAN.
TV producers may argue that not all authors can talk articulately about their books, but plenty of them can. They may also insist that TV needs name recognition to draw audiences, but I’m not convinced that’s always the case. In 2002 Sandra Mackey wrote “The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein.” That summer I saw her on C-SPAN Book TV. She was a fascinating speaker who was able to explain in the simplest of terms the huge complexities of Iraq and the dangers of upsetting the power balance in that volatile region. I decided to invite Mackey to our annual Times Festival of Reading that fall. She drew a huge crowd. Everyone was hungry for good information about that part of the world. Now I see Mackey from time to time on cable television, brought in as a commentator on the war. Wouldn’t it have been helpful if television audiences could have heard from her earlier?
Final note: In response to last week’s column, Bill Shea wrote, asking me to clarify what I meant when I wrote that I wanted to see more war books that ask “why” battles are fought. Yes, I do mean why ANY battle is fought — even the battles of World War II. It’s not a logistical question (why we chose one tactic or stategy over another), but a moral one. Taking a hard look at why battles and ultimately wars are fought and measuring that against the price that is paid — in lives and treasure — leads us to an understanding of the true nature of wars and an appreciation of those who are asked to fight them. Was it a just war? Was it worth fighting? By asking for the “why” question, I’m not in any way implying that war never is justified.
So yes, it will be interesting to see just what kinds of stories emerge from Operation Homecoming — or, more importantly, which ones manage to make their way into print.
