Live from La Strada: Two great tastes that taste great together! Biographicalism! And journamalism! How very fitting that the New York Times cannot even review a biography of Henry Kissinger without it turning into a sink of lies, misrepresentations, and corrupt insider dealing!
: The Observer Profile: Niall Ferguson: "[Ferguson] has the dubious honour of inspiring Alan Bennett's award-winning play, The History Boys...
...in particular the character of Irwin, a history teacher who urges his exam candidates to find a counterintuitive 'angle' and goes on to become a TV historian. To be contrary, this might be nonsense. Ferguson is a formidable historian and esteemed academic whose first book was distinctly not pop history: Paper and Iron: Hamburg Business and German Politics in the Era of Inflation, 1897-1927. Admittedly, his friend of 15 years, Andrew Roberts, might be a little biased in calling him 'the brightest historian of his generation', but fellow historian Tristram Hunt, his unfavourable review of The War of the World notwithstanding, points out: 'You don't become a Harvard professor without being a historian of substance'...
: [Conflicts and Kissinger: A Tale of Two Book Reviews]](http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2015/10/02/conflicts-and-kissinger-a-tale-of-two-book-reviews/): "Andrew Roberts is described only as ‘the Lehrman Institute distinguished fellow at the New-York Historical Society.’...
...And that is true. But Mr. Roberts... was Mr. Kissinger’s earlier choice to write his authorized biography.... The Times Book Review editor, Pamela Paul, told me Thursday that she was unaware of this before the publication of a Gawker piece that makes much of that relationship and of Mr. Roberts’s acquaintance with the book’s author, Niall Ferguson. Gawker’s headline: ‘Kissinger Biography Is Great, Says Pal of Author and Kissinger in New York Times.’ Indeed, the review is kind to Mr. Kissinger and to Mr. Ferguson; it calls the book ‘comprehensive, well-written and riveting.’ ‘We rely on our reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest,’ Ms. Paul said. Mr. Roberts disclosed no conflict to The Times. He said that he knew Mr. Ferguson, had met him a few times in recent years, but that this wouldn’t affect his review...
Ali Gharib on Twitter: "Either the Guardian profile is wrong...
...or Roberts lied to @PamelaPaulNYT http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2015/10/02/conflicts-andhttp://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2015/10/02/conflicts-and-kissinger-a-tale-of-two-book-reviews/ cc @Sulliview
: Kissinger Biography Is Great, Says Pal of Author and Kissinger in New York Times: "A spokesperson for the New York Times offered the following statement to Gawker...
...on behalf of Pamela Paul:
We always ask our reviewers about any potential conflict of interest, as we define it, and disclose any possible conflicts in the review if necessary. In this particular case, we asked Andrew Roberts and were satisfied with his assurances that no conflicts of interest existed that would sway his review one way or the other.
The Times might as well have asked Kissinger to review his own biography. Or, better, Ferguson himself, since, along with Roberts, there’s not a nano-difference between the three men, at least when it comes to controversies about war. Like Ferguson and Kissinger, Roberts was an early advocate for a military invasion of Iraq. Kissinger supported torturers in Latin America; Roberts ‘approves,’ according to The Economist, ‘of American support for some vile regimes and ghastly civil wars in Latin America.’ Roberts also advocates torturing the West’s current enemies: ‘the defense of liberty requires making some pretty unpalatable decisions, but it was ever thus.’ So how is the review itself?... Roberts’s essay is ponderous, and, if possible, even more hagiographic than the authorized biography itself. ‘Kissinger’s official biographer,’ writes the man Kissinger first asked to be his official biographer, ‘certainly gives the reader enough evidence to conclude that Henry Kissinger is one of the greatest Americans in the history of the republic, someone who has been repulsively traduced over several decades and who deserved to have a defense of this comprehensiveness published years ago.’
Let me be clear: I think it would be totally legitimate if... Ferguson... were to review my new, critical book on Kissinger. That might indeed... [be] engaging, fun... readers would know where author and reviewer stand. However, asking Roberts to review Ferguson, without acknowledging their connections, not to mention Roberts’ history with Kissinger, is a trench too far. Thus a new genre is born: the authorized review of the authorized biography.
