I’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 Frontpage.com.
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:
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.
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
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).