Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book Reviewers Tout Kelley Screed, Ignore 'Unfit for Command'(Media loves Kerry)
Newsmax.com ^ | 9/26/04 | unknown

Posted on 09/26/2004 9:02:15 AM PDT by beyond the sea

The book that turned the 2004 presidential race on its head - "Unfit for Command," by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi - has yet to be formally reviewed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most other mainstream U.S. newspapers, despite sitting atop the New York Times best seller list now for four weeks in a row.

Next week "Unfit's" reign at the top ends, at least in the New York paper, with Kitty Kelley's book on the Bush family "dynasty" supplanting it in the number one spot.

But while the O'Neill-Corsi book was clearly a grass roots hit, Kelley's screed has been propelled to the top by an intense media campaign that has kept her book in the public eye.

While mainstream book reviewers couldn't find the time to review the most significant political book of the season, the anti-Bush tome - chock full of discredited allegations and debunked claims - has received virtual wall-to-wall coverage.

The old media's coverage includes reviews by the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and dozens of other venues. Book reviewers at New York Times and the Washington Post both weighed in on Kelley's opus on Sept. 14.

Not to mention three days worth of consecutive Kelley guest shots on NBC's "Today Show" - which all but guaranteed hundreds of thousands of book sales. Needless to say, O'Neill and Corsi are still waiting for their invitation from Katie and Matt.

On the dearth of mainstream coverage for "Unfit," one publishing insider complained to NewsMax, "I'm not aware of any mainstream review. It's like the book hasn't been published."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bias; bookreview; bull; bush; collusion; election; kerry; oneill; reviewers; swifties; swiftvets
" ............ one publishing insider complained to NewsMax, "I'm not aware of any mainstream review. It's like the book hasn't been published."

Was he complaining? I didn't hear any anger.

The old media establishment is the most destructive institution in this country. They keep the American people ignorant, although there are many Americans who do that quite well all by themselves.

1 posted on 09/26/2004 9:02:17 AM PDT by beyond the sea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

Old media prefers small-minded, fiction-based gossip to factual accounts and historical events.


2 posted on 09/26/2004 9:06:42 AM PDT by xtinct (I was the kid next door's imaginary friend. Doing my best to piss the liberal heathen off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea
This is telling. I would love to hear a Book Review editor explain the blackout on Unfit in terms of anything besides partisan favoritism. If he should say it unsubstantiated he would need to explain the Kelly review.
3 posted on 09/26/2004 9:08:22 AM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Right on.

This article just confirms how sick the media and publishing industry are. And I'm sick of it. I've been watching it for four decades.

4 posted on 09/26/2004 9:17:22 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Free Martha Mitchell......... and Jail Teraaaaaayza - let them run around naked, at least the kids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

"keep the American people ignorant"

Exactly!! That has always been the goal. The liberal media misleads you .. the courts LEGISLATE against you .. the NEA does not educate your children.

I think deaf, dumb and blind pretty much sums it up .. or in other words the liberals want to keep the truth from you so they can feed you trash and you'll buy it.

People fell for it with Clinton .. but they're not buying it anymore. Remember that during impeachment 75% of the public didn't want Clinton removed from office .. or so the liberal media told us. However, just one short year later (and a whole lot of Clinton crimes exposed), that very same 75% now BELIEVED HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

THIS FACT has not penetrated the liberal mindset.


5 posted on 09/26/2004 9:20:46 AM PDT by CyberAnt (Sen.Miller said, "Bush is a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

The fact the book hasn't been formally reviewed backs up the claim that the media is largely (read "overwhelmingly") biased against all things conservative or what they perceive to be conservative. We should be glad that this story exists and that "they" have chosen to show they're true colors with respect to "Unift". It would be worse had they actually given the book the time of day with absolutely no gripes, reviewed it, and said that the book was so-so, 2 stars, etc. Then the claim of bias would be countered with "well, we read the book!" No. Better that 60 minutes et al act like John O'Neill and the rest are Bush hacks. If Alan Kolmes is the worst threat to the integrity of these honorable men then everything is just fine.


6 posted on 09/26/2004 9:38:29 AM PDT by marineguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

The Kelley reviews were scathingly negative.


7 posted on 09/26/2004 9:58:17 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Any mention is a plus. Basic PR and Marketing 101.

Moreover repeated mentions -- create buying interest by branding.

Moreover mentions by familar and "respected" personalities -- validates one's curiousity -- thus buying interest. That's regardless of context of mention.

Further the use of *scathing* negative reviews, with a topic that has a negative valence anyway -- both gossip in general and MSM's view of George W, Bush in particular -- is just rowing the boat in the same direction. That's is it actually creates MORE, additive, buying interest than positive reviews would.

IOW, the MSM is using the MOST POTENT marketing push on this trash that it can.

8 posted on 09/26/2004 10:08:05 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

From the post: "The book that turned the 2004 presidential race on its head - "Unfit for Command," by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi - has yet to be formally reviewed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most other mainstream U.S. newspapers, despite sitting atop the New York Times best seller list now for four weeks in a row."

Is anyone putting together a list of actions/or lack of - that show what people mean when they say the media empire is bias - ?

Also I wonder if someone sent this to O-Reilly - if he would make a point on his show - since he "cried" loudly over his book being ignored -

just wondering -


9 posted on 09/26/2004 11:08:17 AM PDT by Pastnowfuturealpha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pastnowfuturealpha

Wow, that's a shocker, didn't see that one coming.


10 posted on 09/26/2004 12:11:16 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedeict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

I believe you mis-directed -

Or an attempt at being snide is still flying on - and forgotten after a brief note


11 posted on 09/26/2004 12:35:22 PM PDT by Pastnowfuturealpha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson