Eh, David Horowitz serves up (here) a face saving attempt at damage control, but the die has been cast, FP has engaged in shameful conduct towards Diana West. It’s not the good review that should have been taken down, but the vitriolic bombast by Ronald Radosh. Horowitz’s casting of himself and his editorial staff as ‘victims’ in this situation is truly disigenuous indeed.
NOTE: Sorry folks, no more linking to Front Page Magazine until a full apology is offered to Diana West. Y0u can thank Mr.Vitriol himself……
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.