Diana West Frontpagemag



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……

ron radosh

If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won’t They Lie About?


Written by: Diana West
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:20 PM  

Diana WestI have not had time to respond to the massive hit piece against my book American Betrayal posted today at Frontpage.com.

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.

More here at Diana’s.

5 Responses

  1. Typical of American neocons with a total lack of realism, always trying the utmost to steal each other’s thunder and to prove a point, like presbyterian village idiots foaming at the mouth. Strenuously tedious, to say the least.

  2. I don’t know enough of American history to have an opinion concerning the accuracy of Diana West’s claims. However, the tone of professor Radosh’s review was so unpleasant and the personal attack so vitriolic that I suspect there was more to it than mere disagreement.

  3. It’s frustrating to see frontpage egos get in the way of information.
    Guess what? Readers do not care about their egos. We want facts and honest. And when you don’t deliver, you lose us. It’s very hard to gain back a reputation for integrity once you’ve lost it. They have done much more damage to themselves than to Diana West.

  4. FrontPageMag is a useful “go-to” website for fact based research as with their “Discover the Networks” data bank. The prior controversy mentioned by West above, unnecessarily invited question to FPM’s integrity and was also the point at which I stopped daily visits to FPM as well as JW. It seems that controversy has settled somewhat as both of the involved authors have moved on and focused on their most essential CJ work.
    In this specific instance, FPM did themselves NO favor by eliminating the first review. They should have left up the original review and added Radosh’s with an editor’s note to clear Horowitz’s conscience.
    Glazov simply followed orders, and doesn’t strike me as the scholarly type sufficiently primed to challenge-at-will either Radosh/West or Bostom/Spencer.
    As a reader/student of all these author’s works, I have neither time nor interest to deal with delicate egos.
    When these authors print material I find a way to read it, compare and interpret it for myself.
    In this specific case, I have West’s latest book and have started to read it, but put it aside temporarily so I could follow-up with material from referenced writers in her work (Romerstein, Yakovlev and McManus). Playing catch-up in this much neglected subject matter is time consuming. There is little time or patience left for Radosh’s ego .

  5. Precisely my thoughts. I think she hit paydirt. I hope she is not silenced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.