Your post is self-defeating and unintelligent for several reasons, of which I will mention but a few.

1) The Boston Globe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times, so in your pathetic attempt to defend the self-serving Dolnick, you merely underscore that his is a career based on nepotism and preferential treatment.

2) Although this Dolnick creature may have claimed to his publishers and readers that he had served as the “chief science writer for the Globe,” according to Wikipedia “Robert Cooke was chief science writer at the time Dolnick worked at the Globe,” so Dolnick was merely “a” science writer there, not the chief of anything. Consequently, whatever else Dolnick may or may not be, one can safely draw the conclusion that he’s a resumé falsifying fraud.

3) As for “Who is Lopez? Nobody,” again according to Wikipedia, Lopez is a respected writer on the arts for a great number of publications, including, I would like to point out, Apollo, an English magazine owned by the Telegraph, a good Tory paper that publishes Christopher Booker, among other writers that I admire. So maybe this book review incident is indeed a matter of liberal versus conservative viewpoints after all. In any event, Lopez would seem easily as qualified, if not more qualified, than the Dolnick to write on the topic of an art forger. So your argument is completely worthless from beginning to end.

In sum, “Read It and Weep,” I think you’ll have to take your own advice. The incorrigibly despicable Times was clearly remiss in favoring its in-house charity case over an outside competitor of genuine merit. That they did this, however, does not surprise me in the least: they are nothing more nor less than a swarming cabal of liberal hacks.

Tanenhaus draws a New York Times paycheck, and therefore he is a servant of the liberal cause – just another New York Times pseudo-conservative like David Brooks, who hasn’t a clue what the movement is really about. People like Brooks are just there so the Times can say, “Oh, aren’t we open-minded, we have a pet conservative who we let write bland egg-headed gibberish on the Op-Ed page. Let’s pat ourselves soundly on the back for that.” What a pack of scheming rotters.

Has it occurred to you that the Times has perpetrated this book review fraud in reviewing books specifically ABOUT fraud? It seems almost like a calculated act of contempt. “Oh, we’ll connive and lie and mislead the public to serve our own interests while pretending to comment sagely on the wicked ways of some historical malefactor.” What a pathetic joke. The Times itself is a fraud. I relish the prospect of its bankruptcy, which, as far as I am concerned, cannot come a moment too soon.

I don’t buy your argument about the Tribune acting more responsibly because it’s less liberal. The New Yorker reviewed the two books together, and last I checked it wasn’t exactly #1 on the John Birch Society’s reading list.

The Times fucked up because it’s a way too big corporation whose attitude towards just about everything is dictated by its Yuppie shithead New York owners, who are just a bunch of arrogant fucks. They’ve got this hack writer dude in the family who wants to pretend like he’s a player, so they boost him up with coverage, and if they screw over some other dude, what the fuck do they care?

The bigger issue is this: Before the internet, newspapers probably got away with this kind of stuff all the time. Now they get called on it. Either the big papers like the Times have to get off their high horse and realize that they can’t dictate to the world what is news and what isn’t anymore, or they’re going down the tubes. And like I said, I don’t think liberalism has got anything to do with it. As far as I can tell, the Chicago Tribune is going down the tubes too.