You might think that an Amazon #1 bestseller -- as Mark Levin’s ninth book has become -- would merit serious reviews from serious people. Obviously, NPR’s choice of Annalisa Quinn, a sometimes contributor to The New York Times, is immediately suspect. Conflict of interest much?
As one might have guessed from minute zero, Quinn’s review of Unfreedom of the Press is not about Levin’s book, but undermining its premise through insult, not argument.
Beginning with ad hominem attacks and ending with emotional diatribes, Quinn’s “review” of an academically documented and nonfiction bestseller is an outrage, but -- as Levin has carefully outlined -- easy to have predicted.
The first two paragraphs of Quinn’s review do not, of course, touch upon the book itself.
They are instead meritless and poisonous attacks on the author. Excoriating the writer before even touching upon the content is the mark of an unserious reviewer. Further, Quinn’s characterization of Levin -- in the very first sentence of the review -- as “fringe” betray her inability to objectively review any book.
Consider: does a “fringe” character:
• Serve eight years in the Reagan administration, including as Attorney General Ed Meese’s Chief of Staff?
• Mount the first great defense of the inner-city education system via charter schools, using the teachings of the great economist Milton Friedman?
• Lead a major legal foundation (Landmark Legal) intended to defend the Constitution as our Framers intended?
• Without any formal media training, build one of largest radio network audiences in radio history (more than 10 million weekly listeners)?
• Write nine (9) New York Times bestsellers in a row?
If that’s “fringe”, what the hell is Annalisa Quinn (if that is her real name)?
But the key question I have for Quinn is: why did you somehow skip Chapter One of Levin’s book?
In Chapter One of Unfreedom of the Press, Levin describes two interesting phenomena:
• The incestuous rotation of media personalities into and out of Democrat administrations (featuring George Stephanopoulos, Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd)
• The increasing centralization of “journalists” within the perimeters of Manhattan and DC
Quinn, of course, ignores these very real concerns to minimize Levin’s critique of her occasional employer The New York Times.
The Times, as many are aware and Levin illustrates in stunning detail, attempted to conceal the Holocaust from the American people. A decade earlier, the publishers of the Times concealed the massacre of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin.
Quinn admits that its coverage of these events was “inadequate”, though they were in fact borderline criminally negligent. Curiously, Quinn’s description of this outrage echoes the words of the Times in its press release responding to Levin’s charges.
If there were the equivalent of a Hippocratic Oath for journalism, it would certainly advocate zealously reporting the truth when it could save millions of lives.
But, as Levin’s title for Chapter Six confirms, countless innocents were instead betrayed by the Times’ owners to avoid being seen as a “Jewish newspaper”.
As a Times contributor, Quinn should never have been permitted to review a book that reveals the mostly forgotten legacy of the “newspaper of record”.
But, with that said, she could have operated with a modicum of intellectual honesty and offered a balanced assessment of Levin’s arguments. But she couldn’t and didn’t. Which is why she ignored Chapter One.
Annalisa Quinn should never be permitted to write a taxpayer-funded book review again. You and I are paying for her verbal excrement.
Hat tip: BadBlue Uncensored News.