Saturday, February 16, 2008
More on Philip Zelikow and fairness
All my career in journalism, I've loved to be ''leaked'' to. But now I understand what happens from the other end -- to have your work leaked out, sometimes described accurately, sometimes not. My brilliant publisher, Twelve Books, put an embargo on release of "The Commission,'' barring bookstores from placing it up for sale until the publication date, Feb. 5. (Most books begin circulating long before their official publication date, allowing book reviewers to be ready to go.)
The embargo on the printed page held. But a couple of clever bloggers and reporters busted the embargo by finding a bookstore, apparently somewhere in New York City, that was selling copies of the audio book of "The Commission'' ahead of the publication date. The 7-hour audio book is a fine work, but it is an abridged work, and some of the nuance of the written page is lost.
And some of the initial blogging and internet reporting went beyond a lack of nuance to a make allegations that are not in the book -- specifically over its depiction of Philip Zelikow, the University of Virginia historian who was the executive director of the 9/11 commission, and his relationship with the commission's staff.
If all you read was some of the more extreme blogging about this book, you might be left with the following understanding of "The Commission'': that Zelikow was planted on the commission by the White House; that he handpicked timid staffers who were bullied into following a long list of partisan demands; that he intimidated the commission's staff into a top-to-bottom whitewash of the Bush administration. And some bloggers would also have you believe that Karl Rove dictated the commission's final report.
None of that is true. As I've said in an earlier blog post and in several interviews (and as the book makes clear), Zelikow was not planted on the commission by the White House; many in the White House did not want him there. To his credit and as the book makes clear, Zelikow put in place a tremendously talented staff -- many of them Democrats -- and much of the book's narrative is of staff members standing up to Zelikow to be sure that the truth was told as they saw it. That explains why much of the 9/11 commission's final report remains the definitive account of the Sept. 11 attacks.
As the book makes clear, I do believe that the 9/11 commission report is incomplete, especially with the discovery that so much may have been missed at the National Security Agency. And I do believe that certain passages in the commission's report do distort the record -- most importantly, perhaps, on the question of possible Saudi links to some of the 9/11 hijackers. The report is widely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia when, in fact, many staffers feel that there is grave concern about the actions of some Saudi officials. On the question of Rove, I have written almost all I know -- there were phone contacts, Zelikow and White House officials insist they were innocent and involved Zelikow’s past work at the Miller Center, which specializes in presidential history.
The book also contains page after page of Dr. Zelikow explaining and defending his actions (taken often from our extended email conversation, which is available at this website). The book quotes Democrats on the commission, including Jamie Gorelick and Dan Marcus, the general counsel, saying that Zelikow did not pull his punches on sensitive issues, including the handling of the all-important Presidential Daily Briefs. Certainly Lee Hamilton, the commission's top Democrat, is a strong defender of Dr. Zelikow's.
So far, there have been exactly two reviews of the book in large national publications, both by journalists at Newsweek magazine; one of them says explicitly that no matter how hard conspiracy theorists might try to stretch evidence in my book to suggest the opposite, Dr. Zelikow was almost certainly not a White House mole. The other says that while my book is harsh on Zelikow, the book shows that I reached out to tell Zelikow's side of the story. (One of the reviews was in Newsweek. The other was written by a Newsweek editor, Evan Thomas, and published in my own newspaper. Books written by NYT journalists cannot be reviwed by in-house critics because of the obvious conflict of interest.)
If you only read some of the more partisan elements of the blogosphere, you would think that I treated Dr. Zelikow like a comic-book character and gave him no chance to defend himself. He is not a comic-book character; he is not presented as one in the book. His version of events is represented on page after page. I hope you'll read the book and see.
The embargo on the printed page held. But a couple of clever bloggers and reporters busted the embargo by finding a bookstore, apparently somewhere in New York City, that was selling copies of the audio book of "The Commission'' ahead of the publication date. The 7-hour audio book is a fine work, but it is an abridged work, and some of the nuance of the written page is lost.
And some of the initial blogging and internet reporting went beyond a lack of nuance to a make allegations that are not in the book -- specifically over its depiction of Philip Zelikow, the University of Virginia historian who was the executive director of the 9/11 commission, and his relationship with the commission's staff.
If all you read was some of the more extreme blogging about this book, you might be left with the following understanding of "The Commission'': that Zelikow was planted on the commission by the White House; that he handpicked timid staffers who were bullied into following a long list of partisan demands; that he intimidated the commission's staff into a top-to-bottom whitewash of the Bush administration. And some bloggers would also have you believe that Karl Rove dictated the commission's final report.
None of that is true. As I've said in an earlier blog post and in several interviews (and as the book makes clear), Zelikow was not planted on the commission by the White House; many in the White House did not want him there. To his credit and as the book makes clear, Zelikow put in place a tremendously talented staff -- many of them Democrats -- and much of the book's narrative is of staff members standing up to Zelikow to be sure that the truth was told as they saw it. That explains why much of the 9/11 commission's final report remains the definitive account of the Sept. 11 attacks.
As the book makes clear, I do believe that the 9/11 commission report is incomplete, especially with the discovery that so much may have been missed at the National Security Agency. And I do believe that certain passages in the commission's report do distort the record -- most importantly, perhaps, on the question of possible Saudi links to some of the 9/11 hijackers. The report is widely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia when, in fact, many staffers feel that there is grave concern about the actions of some Saudi officials. On the question of Rove, I have written almost all I know -- there were phone contacts, Zelikow and White House officials insist they were innocent and involved Zelikow’s past work at the Miller Center, which specializes in presidential history.
The book also contains page after page of Dr. Zelikow explaining and defending his actions (taken often from our extended email conversation, which is available at this website). The book quotes Democrats on the commission, including Jamie Gorelick and Dan Marcus, the general counsel, saying that Zelikow did not pull his punches on sensitive issues, including the handling of the all-important Presidential Daily Briefs. Certainly Lee Hamilton, the commission's top Democrat, is a strong defender of Dr. Zelikow's.
So far, there have been exactly two reviews of the book in large national publications, both by journalists at Newsweek magazine; one of them says explicitly that no matter how hard conspiracy theorists might try to stretch evidence in my book to suggest the opposite, Dr. Zelikow was almost certainly not a White House mole. The other says that while my book is harsh on Zelikow, the book shows that I reached out to tell Zelikow's side of the story. (One of the reviews was in Newsweek. The other was written by a Newsweek editor, Evan Thomas, and published in my own newspaper. Books written by NYT journalists cannot be reviwed by in-house critics because of the obvious conflict of interest.)
If you only read some of the more partisan elements of the blogosphere, you would think that I treated Dr. Zelikow like a comic-book character and gave him no chance to defend himself. He is not a comic-book character; he is not presented as one in the book. His version of events is represented on page after page. I hope you'll read the book and see.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
« Blog Home