Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Times Fawns Over Insider's Book...Again!


Bioimage Lynn G DolnickTimes editors can't stop lavishing praise on books linked to their corporate overlords — and one corporate overlord can't seem to keep her family members from enjoying the fruits of this self-dealing. Times board member Lynn Dolnick yet again has an immediate family member whose book is featured in her newspaper, and yet again there is no disclosure of the connection to the board or to publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who is Dolnick's cousin. And this time, the newspaper really went to town. A book by Dolnick's husband Edward about Dutch art forger Han van Meegeren got an early review ("engaging"), an "editor's choice" recommendation, a special plug on page A4, and a friendly write up on the Paper Cuts blog ("delightful book"). And theTimes is not likely to be making any apologies for the situation, judging from its handling of Lynn Dolnick's last nepotism controversy.

Last year, you'll recall, it was Lynn Dolnick's son Ben who was the recipient of a helpful Times notice — one he wrote himself, in the form of an op-ed piece. The scandal made Gawker, and was then picked up in Page Six, but the Times shrugged off the incident, setting aside its normally delicate ethical sensitivities.

How could there be a conflict of interest, the Times asked the Post, if "members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family have no more or no less opportunity to appear in the pages of the Times" than anyone else? In other words, Times editors are such ethical superheroes that there doesn't need to be so much as a disclosure when they handle a book from a member of the clan that writes their paychecks.

Later, Ben Dolnick's agent was quoted in a friendly Washington Post feature saying that it was not a challenge or big deal to get his op-ed published, as though that wasn't precisely the point.

In either Ben or Edward Dolnick's case, disclosure would at least have let readers discount the paper's praise as they saw fit. Such was the case when Times vice president Alyse Myers received both a glowing review and room for her own magazine essay this past May in connection with the publication of her book about her mean mom — and even with the disclosure, we heard, Times staffers were still in an uproar.

Readers aren't the only ones with reason to feel cheated by the way the Times has handled Ed Dolnick's latest book. A tipster — who from the sounds of things has a dog in this fight — puts forward the name of a competing author as another aggrieved party:

...a serious, competing book [is] coming out in four weeks from
Harcourt. "The Man Who Made Vermeers" by Jonathan Lopez is based on
years of archival research conducted in Dutch and English, as well as
interviews with descendants of Van Meegeren's accomplices. (Dolnick
neither speaks nor reads Dutch.) Parts of "The Man Who Made Vermeers"
have already appeared as major articles in the London-based Apollo
Magazine
and as a cover story in De Groene Amsterdammer, the oldest
continuously-published news magazine in the Netherlands. The book has
already been praised as "remarkable" by major museum curators. But
it's absent from the New York Times.

The Times has had advance readers' copies of "The Man Who Made
Vermeers" for months.

...By placing Dolnick's title in so many
outlets – Sunday Book Review, daily paper, blog – it has
effectively blocked the competition from being covered in any of them,
the general topic having been so recently treated.

Unlike his son Ben, Ed Dolnick is an established writer. He is a former science reporter at the Boston Globe (wholly owned by the NYTimes Corporation) and author of at least three other books. His work on van Meegeren might do just fine without all this notice in the Times, and perhaps he would have recieved some — maybe even all — of it without being part of the extended Times family. Which is precisely why the newspaper should handle his book more transparently. Keeping his extensive connections in the dark makes them look all the more sinister.


Gawker: Mark Sanford Took at Least Three Trips To Argentina at Taxpayer Expense








In his press conference today South Carolina Governor Mark Sanfordstated that he paid fully for his recent sex-trek to Argentina. But it appears as though Sanford may have a fondness for attending political junkets in that country.

Reports Politico:

Sometime after his 2002 election as governor, Sanford traveled to Argentina on the dime of the South Carolina Department of Commerce.

Though it's unclear precisely when the trip occurred, it likely would have taken place after he had met the woman. Sanford said Wednesday he met the woman eight years ago, though a romantic relationship did not develop until one year ago.

Sanford also traveled to China and Brazil through the state commerce department, and a review of its records late last year by state press found that taxpayers footed a total bill of $21,488 in Sanford travel. The governors' office also spent $1,976 in travel for Sanford, according to the review.

Politico also reports that Sanford took other taxpayer-funded trips to South America as a member of the U.S. House, but those predate the time Sanford said that he first met his mistress.

Finally, in a rather cruel twist of irony, Sanford once pointed to the U.S. embassy in Argentina as an example of wasteful spending that needed to be cut from the federal budget. Perhaps after he's forced to resign as Governor, Sanford can lobby to be named U.S. Ambassador to Argentina so that he can be closer to his lover and work out of the very embassy he once took issue with? How very modern Republican that would be!

Some Mark Sanford Trips Were Taxpayer Paid [Politico]