Front Page Magazine Publishes Positive Review Of Diana West’s AMERICAN BETRAYAL – Then Scrubs It And Prints A Negative Review

American Betrayal CoverI’m looking forward to reading Diana West’s controversial new book American Betrayal.  A best-seller, since its publication on May 28, 2013, American Betrayal has received a sizable load of 5 Star reviews (61 out of 76, to be precise) at Amazon, as well as acclaim from numerous conservative literary authorities.  Some controversy has recently erupted – outside the pages of the book.  Over at David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine, Mark Tapson published a complimentary review.  The FPM editorial staff then had an odd change of heart, scrubbed Tapson’s piece, and printed a viciously critical review by Ron Radosh. 

Publishing both reviews I could understand.  People can have differing opinions on the same material presented in any literary work.  The act of erasing the good one and replacing it with the bad one constitutes grounds, in and of itself, for some vehement argument, and an examination of FPM’s concept of journalistic integrity.  Here is Diana’s response today to what FPM did, in toto:

Written by Diana West

I have not had time to respond to the massive hit piece against my book American Betrayal posted today at

I will.

I would like to point out in brief, however, the simple, lowdown mendacity of the “Editors’ note” — that would be editors David Horowitz, Jamie Glazov, perhaps others — that tops 7,000 words of misrepresenting, twisting, and omitting by Ronald Radosh passed off as a “review.”

(This is the Radosh m.o., by the way, as briliiantly exposed in 2008 by M. Stanton Evans.)

Here it is:

Editors’ note: Frontpage offered Diana West equal space to reply to Professor Radosh’s points below. She refused.

To say that this misrepresents the truth is one of those understatements of the year.

First of all, Frontpage doesn’t inform their readers that they are actually looking at Frontpage American Betrayal Review #2.

Frontpage posted an earlier review — Review #1. It was positive. They removed it — purged it. (It is archived at Ruthfully Yours.) This is unheard of. Quite commonly, controversial books rack up more than one review, more than one opinion. The commissars of Frontpage don’t permit “incorrect” opinion, however, so the positive review of my book was removed from the website. On my incredulous inquiry of Glazov, he proceeded to explain in emails to me that the reviewer, Mark Tapson, “lacks the expertise” to review the book, and later, that the problem was the review’s “inaccuracy.” I asked what was innaccurate in the review and received no reply.

Here is a brief recap of that egregious event. (I omitted the comments about the reviewer in that post but given the sludge Frontpage is hurling at me to misrepresent my actions, I am exposing the backstory to these and other events.)

So here we are at the lie of an Editors’ Note. Did I refuse to reply to “Professor Radosh’s” “points”?

Of course not. I refused to play in Frontpage’s tainted little sandbox, however.

Why would any self-respecting human being decide to legitimize the actions of these ossified totalitarians and enter into a debate as if nothing had happened, as if they had treated my work in a collegial fashion to which writers — citizens — in a free society are accustomed? I decided there was no reason to enable them, to promote their dirty tactics at their website.

Further, this was not the first time Frontpage’s commissars had enforced party line. Several years ago, when I weighed in on a controversy among colleagues in a post at my website, John L. Work, a blogger for Frontpage’s NewsReal page — a retired police detective and, now, fine novelist — was instructed by site editors not to “link” to my work anymore. Not wanting to take party-line enforcement from anyone, John, a good friend before and even an better friend since, resigned.

That’s the Frontpage Commissariat for you.

What I decided last night was that if, on reading Frontpage’s new and “correct” review by Radosh, I wanted to reply, I wouldn’t dignify Frontpage with my reply — and told them so. In other words, I would reply elsewhere.

That is not what the editor’s note tells readers.

If they lie about this, will you be surprised to learn the review is equally mendacious? I will attend to that later.

For now, for the record, here is the email exchange I had with Frontpage yesterday just before Radosh hit piece was unveiled, and that led them to lie about me in the Editors’ note.

The email sequence starts at the bottom. I note that Horowitz cc’d his email (immediately below) to three other people — presumably to display his cleverness. 

On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, david horowitz wrote:
Dear Diana,
Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because it offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.
David [Horowitz]

From: jamie glazov
Subject: Fwd: review of your book
Date: August 6, 2013 7:41:00 PM PDT
To: David Horowitz

I guess we’re not friends anymore.

From: Diana West <>
Date: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: review of your book
To: jamie glazov

Dear Jamie,
What gall. You and your crew behave like little totalitarians, suppress an “incorrect” opinion of my book, and, now that you have your “correct” reveiw at the ready, ask me to dignify your nasty tactics by engaging in civil debate. If I deem it worth my while to respond to the Radosh review, I will find another outlet.

On Aug 6, 2013, at 9:41 PM, jamie glazov wrote:

Dear Diana, I just want to give you a heads up that our review of your book, written by Ron Radosh, will be going up on our site at 9:30pm Pacific time this evening (12:30am Eastern).

David would like me to pass on to you that you are most welcome to write a response to this review, and to feel free to write at length to defend your position (but not longer than the review itself).

Sincerely, Jamie.

About John L. Work

John Lloyd Work has taken the detective thriller genre and woven an occasional political thread throughout his books, morphing what was once considered an arena reserved for pure fiction into believable, terrifying, futuristic, true-to-life “faction”. He traveled the uniformed patrolman’s path, answering brutal domestic violence calls, high speed chases, homicides, suicides, armed robberies, breaking up bar fights, and the accompanying sporadic unpredictable moments of terror - which eventually come to all police officers, sometimes when least expected. He gradually absorbed the hard fact that the greatest danger a cop faces comes in the form of day-to-day encounters with emotionally disturbed, highly intoxicated people. Those experiences can wear a cop down, grinding on his own emotions and psyche. Prolonged exposure to the worst of people and people at their worst can soon make him believe that the world is a sewer. That police officer’s reality is a common thread throughout Work’s crime fiction books. Following his graduation from high school, Work studied music and became a professional performer, conductor and teacher. Life made a sudden, unexpected turn when, one afternoon in 1976, his cousin, who eventually became the Chief of the Ontario, California, Police Department, talked him into riding along during a patrol shift. The musician was hooked into becoming a police officer. After working for two years as a reserve officer in Southern California and in Boulder, Colorado, he joined the Longmont, Colorado Police Department. Work served there for seven years, investigating crimes as a patrolman, detective and patrol sergeant. In 1989 he joined the Adams County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office, where he soon learned that locking a criminal up inside a jail or prison does not put him out of business. As a sheriff’s detective he investigated hundreds of crimes, including eleven contract murder conspiracies which originated “inside the walls”. While serving on the Adams County North Metro Gang Task Force and as a member of the Colorado Security Threat Intelligence Network Group (STING), Work designed a seminar on how a criminal’s mind formulates his victim selection strategy. Over a period of six years he taught that class in sheriff’s academies and colleges throughout Colorado. He saw the world of crime both inside the walls and out on the streets. His final experiences in the criminal law field were with the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office, where for nearly two years he investigated felonies from the defense side of the Courtroom. Twenty-two years of observing human nature at its worst, combined with watching some profound changes in America’s culture and political institutions, provided plenty of material for his first three books. A self-published author, he just finished writing his tenth thriller.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s