Style gawker3/21/2023 We should have inquired with Grandin as to the timing of the review of his book and reported that fact in the post, and we apologize for failing to do so.ĭoes this nondisclosure constitute a conflict of interest? Grandin says there is not one. In its review, the Times described Grandin's work as a "fresh argument that, although more provocative than convincing, amounts to one of the most innovative attacks on Kissinger's record and legacy." This was relevant information that should have been included in the post, especially in a discussion of the ethics around writers' conflicts of interest. While we were not informed of the date that the review would be appearing, it turns out to be in the same edition of the New York Times Book Review in which Roberts' essay appears. In the process of assigning this post, we were informed that its author, historian Greg Grandin, was having his own Kissinger biography reviewed by the New York Times Book Review. Still, Gawker didn't know of the timing of the review and has now apologized for not disclosing a potential conflict of interest in a post chiding the Times for not disclosing a potential conflict of interest. Likely, Grandin had not read this review when he wrote the Gawker post. The review, published online Thursday, does not use the word masterpiece. For instance: "Grandin's description of Kissinger's worldview is debatable at best." It's a complimentary but slightly less positive assessment: Mark Atwood Lawrence praised Grandin's "fresh argument" and "engaging passion" in attacking Kissinger's legacy, but quibbled with certain aspects of the analysis. What Grandin did not mention is that his own book was reviewed in the same edition of The New York Times Book Review that carries the Roberts review in question. This book is a more critical look at the statesman, obviously not authorized by the man itself. (So many Kissinger biographies, so little time!) He mentioned as much at the end of his post. (A paper spokesperson stood by the review and told Gawker that it "asked Andrew Roberts and satisfied with his assurances that no conflicts of interest existed that would sway his review one way or the other.")īut there's another, stranger layer: Grandin, author of the Gawker post, has a new Kissinger biography of his own, Kissinger's Shadow. Seems like a pretty textbook conflict of interest, and the sort of Times-ian faux pas Gawker was invented to chronicle. "If the second volume of Kissinger is anywhere near as comprehensive, well written and riveting as the first," Roberts gushed, "this will be masterpiece." Not shockingly, the review is pretty glowing. In other words, the New York Times is having Kissinger's preferred authorized biographer review Kissinger's authorized biography. Roberts brings an unusual level of familiarity to the subject: It was Roberts whom Kissinger first asked, before turning to Ferguson, to write his authorized biography. Oh, but there's more: Kissinger initially asked Roberts to write the book about the Nixon-era secretary of state. 1923–1968: The Idealist, the first volume of Niall Ferguson's massive biography of Henry Kissinger, has been reviewed by historian Andrew Roberts, a man who is friendly not only with Kissinger but also with Ferguson, the author of the book he is reviewing. Updated | In a very old-style Gawker post, historian Greg Grandin pointed out a curious conflict of interest in this weekend's New York Times Book Review.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |