A few days before former President Bill Clinton’s autobiography was released, an anonymous reader called to say he hoped The Courier-Journal would reprint the scathing review of the book from The New York Times. He said he preferred to see that instead of the glossy number he expected a local reviewer to write.
I inferred that the reader believed this newspaper wouldn’t be truthful about the merits of Clinton’s book, and perhaps other mainstream media The Times review notwithstanding wouldn’t, either. And beneath that, I detected another tap in the drumbeat of comments that the news media’s coverage is liberally bent, and that left-of-center pols are treated better than right-of-center officials.
In his book and in omnipresent interviews touting it, Clinton takes a contrarian’s view to that often-aired complaint and does some pretty thorough bellyaching about how the press treated him and how it handled or didn’t handle stories dealing with Whitewater, Lewinsky, Starr and impeachment. I won’t repeat his arguments here; you can hear them on TV or, as they say, buy the book.
Instead, I took the anonymous reader’s message to heart and decided to look at what mainstream media outlets and operatives were saying about Clinton and his My Life, and share that with you.
In the spirit of Fox News, I report and you decide whether there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy in the news media as coverage pertains to Clinton and his new book:
First, for the caller, a snippet of The Times’ review by Michiko Kakutani:
“As his celebrated 1993 speech in Memphis to the Church of God in Christ demonstrated, former President Bill Clinton is capable of soaring eloquence and visionary thinking. But as those who heard his deadening speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta well know, he is also capable of numbing, self-conscious garrulity.
“Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton’s much awaited new autobiography My Life more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words `In closing . . . ‘.
“The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader for himself and some distant recording angel of history. . . . ”
Excerpt from the review written by Jerry Schwartz of the Associated Press:
” . . . Here is one of the most fascinating figures of his time, a charismatic and brilliant man a fatherless boy who rose from humble beginnings to live, in his own words, `an improbable life’ and he has produced a book that lacks anything more than the most rudimentary insights . . .
” . . . The effect is mind-numbing. It’s like being locked in a small room with a very gregarious man who insists on reading his entire appointment book, day by day, beginning in 1946.”
Schwartz ends his review: “You dig and you dig. And in the end, it just isn’t worth it.”
Excerpt from Bob Minzesheimer’s review in USA Today:
“Shortly after law school, Bill Clinton read a self-help paperback, How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life, that advised making lists of life goals.
“Clinton followed the advice. Among his most important goals he notes in his memoir, My Life, out Tuesday was `to write a great book.’
“My Life is not a great book. It’s not even a good book, but like its author, it has its moments.
“It is Clintonesque: frustrating and fascinating, more exhausting than exhaustive. . . . ”
Excerpt from Newsweek:
” . . . In speeches and interviews, the former president has coyly hinted at the great revelations to be found within the book. In truth, it is hardly an edge-of-your-seat experience. Throughout its leisurely 957 pages, however, every facet of Clinton’s complex, nuanced and sometimes maddening personality is on display. He is by turns introspective and willfully obtuse, expansive and curt. . . . ”
Excerpt from Fox Special Report with Brit Hume:
I know, I know, it’s Fox, so what do you expect? But these comments come from panelist Mara Liasson, national political correspondent for National Public Radio, which is often painted as one of the offending media outlets.
“I don’t think he’s going to have much of an effect on this election at all,” she said. “I think this book is going to have its day or weeks, and that will be it. What surprised me from what I’ve read in it, and having covered him for eight years, is this is a guy who is extremely colorful. He has a larger than life personality. He is interesting to listen to, but he wrote a pretty dull and colorless book.”
Excerpts of the lead-in to a CNNfn interview program about the book:
Kathleen Mays, anchor: ” . . . Boy, oh, boy, this is the week for Bill Clinton, isn’t it? An interview last night on `60 Minutes’ with Dan Rather to kick off the release of the 900-plus page autobiography. I think you’ve got to be a real Bill Clinton lover to wade through all that.”
Gerri Willis, anchor: “I’m sitting here thinking, if you need Sominex, this may be the book for you. The book is not getting the best reviews, although it does give some interesting insights into his history as president.”
And what would Clinton coverage be without a visit to The Drudge Report Web site?
I browsed there last Thursday and saw that Matt Drudge helped make the point about mainstream news coverage of Clinton and his book with links to stories about disappointing or lackluster initial sales that appeared in at least 20 different newspapers or TV broadcasts from Florida to California.
A sampling of the headlines to those stories:
“Clinton book not selling in the valley”
“Clinton’s tome slow out of the gate”
“Hoosiers react quietly to memoir”
Finally, a Google produced this by-then surprising headline, “Charming read may make you miss Clinton, or not.”
To get to the positive review by Marta Salij of The Detroit Free Press, you had to get past the first part of this first sentence:
“I hated Bill Clinton the president, but I love Bill Clinton the writer.”
So when we next speak about liberally bent coverage, and we will, let’s please do it with this coverage as part of the context of that discussion.
