The New York Times and Partisan Book Reviewers

Ed Lasky
If one were to turn to The New York Times Sunday Book Review section today, the front page features a long indictment of the Bush Administration and the way it is conducting the War on Terror by Samantha Power. It is a curious article because there is no single book "reviewed" in the piece but rather it offers a tour d'horizon of books on the conflict that Power thinks we should all be reading.

Power is identified as "the Anna Lindh professor of the practice of global leadership at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard." That's fine as far as it goes. But what the Times doesn't mention is a travesty.

Samantha Power served last year as an adviser for the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama .Apparently, she still serves in some capacity as an adviser on his foreign policy team The fact that the New York Times chose her to deliver a harsh attack on the Bush Administration was a journalistic failing and reveals an agenda at work at the paper that has nothing to do with the journalism. The fact that the Times failed to disclose this campaign tie is a sin of omission-and a deliberate one at that, no doubt.

This has not been the first tim e that the Times has selected people to deliver purportedly unbiased "expert" views who, in reality, have partisan ties and goals.
If one were to turn to The New York Times Sunday Book Review section today, the front page features a long indictment of the Bush Administration and the way it is conducting the War on Terror by Samantha Power. It is a curious article because there is no single book "reviewed" in the piece but rather it offers a tour d'horizon of books on the conflict that Power thinks we should all be reading.

Power is identified as "the Anna Lindh professor of the practice of global leadership at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard." That's fine as far as it goes. But what the Times doesn't mention is a travesty.

Samantha Power served last year as an adviser for the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama .Apparently, she still serves in some capacity as an adviser on his foreign policy team The fact that the New York Times chose her to deliver a harsh attack on the Bush Administration was a journalistic failing and reveals an agenda at work at the paper that has nothing to do with the journalism. The fact that the Times failed to disclose this campaign tie is a sin of omission-and a deliberate one at that, no doubt.

This has not been the first tim e that the Times has selected people to deliver purportedly unbiased "expert" views who, in reality, have partisan ties and goals.