Jump to content
The Education Forum

New York Times, Washingon Post say no to review of David Talbot's book


Douglas Caddy

Recommended Posts

David Talbot writes on Facebook today:

Well, it's official. Pamela Paul, the book editor of the New York Times, has informed my publisher that the Times will not be reviewing "The Devil's Chessboard" -- no explanation apparently given. This follows word from the Washington Post, as told to my book publicist, that the Post "won't touch" my book. So despite glowing coverage in the book industry press (starred review in Kirkus, Amazon book of the month, etc) and in independent (mostly online) publications, the censorship of my book in the mainstream press is virtually complete.

What can we surmise from this media blackout of "The Devil's Chessboard"? Clearly there are taboo subjects in the American "free press" -- especially when it comes to the national security arena. Among these verboten topics are some of the darkest secrets of the CIA -- as well as the shameful complicity of these very same newspapers with the CIA.

At a critical moment in American history, when the public desperately needs open discussion of U.S. foreign policy and why we are so reviled throughout the Muslim world, the leading press institutions shut off discussion of a book that sheds important historical light on this subject. In this sense, the New York Times and Washington Post -- our much heralded "liberal" beacons of truth -- remain a big part of the problem. Shame on the Times and Post editors for their cowardly coverup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why these influential newspapers refused to review David's book. This is because history will show conclusively that they were accessories before and after the fact to the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by our government and by specific individuals that David chronicles in his thoroughly researched and well written work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why these influential newspapers refused to review David's book. This is because history will show conclusively that they were accessories before and after the fact to the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by our government and by specific individuals that David chronicles in his thoroughly researched and well written work.

I remember when the press was covering the imminent war with Iraq, and how George W. Bush was intentionally conflating the perpetrators of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein in order to garner popular support for the war. I watched MSNBC at the time, and I was so angry with Chris Matthews for not calling him and the neocons out on it. I had originally supported the war, when I thought Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon (thanks to another one of their lies). But I knew there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam or Iraq. It was obvious. I remember cringing every time Bush mentioned it. I wondered, why does he have to do that when he already has the weapons of mass destruction and the nuclear program to point to? By the time Congress voted to give Bush the go ahead, I had figured out it was probably all a lie.

I expected from Fox News what Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC did when they ignored the lies. But not the liberal/progressive media. What a huge disappointment that was.

I'd like to see David Talbot interviewed by Chris Matthews again. I'd like to see him ask Matthews why he failed to report those lies. He was, in effect, acting as an accessory before the fact. They all were, the media. Damn them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what is the current relationship of David Talbot with:

• Salon, which he founded but left.

Most importantly:

• The Clintons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbot

Perhaps Bill Clinton sees Talbot, his former protegee, as somebody who has gone maverick ?

While we are on the topic: What are the chances that the 2 candidates will be asked in their debates about the Kennedy documents?

-Ramon

Link to post
Share on other sites

My review of Talbot's book will be going up tonight.

I read it twice, which is the only way one can deal with it all.

It is the best book on Dulles there is.

Wow Jim, looking forward to your review. Your reviews are so comprehensive that you almost do not have to read the book. My copy was here yesterday when I got home from court, along with Don Jeffries'. Lots to read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what is the current relationship of David Talbot with:

• Salon, which he founded but left.

Most importantly:

• The Clintons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbot

Perhaps Bill Clinton sees Talbot, his former protegee, as somebody who has gone maverick ?

While we are on the topic: What are the chances that the 2 candidates will be asked in their debates about the Kennedy documents?

-Ramon

Zero. For the same reason the press is ignoring Talbot's book. Operation Mockingbird has never been more alive and well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:

The mainstream media blackout of my book about the CIA reminds me why I and a band of journalism renegades started Salon 20 years ago. It makes me appreciate all over again the vital importance of independent media. As Umberto Eco recently wrote, corporate newspapers exist more to cover up the truth than to uncover it. So what independent news sources do YOU rely on for the truth? In addition to Salon, here's my Top Ten list (in random order):
1. The Intercept
2. Truthdig
3. TomDispatch
4. Truthout
5. WhoWhatWhy
6. Democracy Now!
7. Consortium News
8. JFKFacts
...and for San Francisco news:
9. 48Hills
10. VanishingSF

What other must-click alternative news sources am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what is the current relationship of David Talbot with:

• Salon, which he founded but left.

Most importantly:

• The Clintons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbot

Perhaps Bill Clinton sees Talbot, his former protegee, as somebody who has gone maverick ?

While we are on the topic: What are the chances that the 2 candidates will be asked in their debates about the Kennedy documents?

-Ramon

I would say the chances are -459F.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the NYT or WP owners were told not to review this book, or did they make this decision on their own?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the NYT or WP owners were told not to review this book, or did they make this decision on their own?

Honestly, I think it's the editors. Over the years the Kennedy assassination has become this mutually reinforced little piffle. No news is good news.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were an NYT editor, I'd ask, what does this book say that's possibly important? It's a historical work.

I'd ask, what's new and important?

I guess I'd review the book because it provides information about an important individual long dead. But then I'd ask myself, so what?

Bottom line: If I were an NYT editor and had no particular interest in either the JFK assassination or Allen Dulles biography, I might say, I'll take a pass.

Bottom line: Talbot has not found the smoking gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...