by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
Adam Nagourney’s “biography” of the modern New York Times is really, really good. In fact, so far, the only quibbles I’ve had with it are one formatting issue and one stray word that did not quite fit the idea he was trying to convey.
Adam Nagourney
But, in general, the major “quibble” I have with the book is that it reads like An Official Book About The Times, even though the book says it’s not. It reads like it was sanctioned by the Powers That Be at the paper to give we plebes The Official Line about some pretty dramatic events in the paper’s history.
I will also note that I would read a 500 page book that was nothing more than a tick-tock of even events of, say, Sept 1., 2001 to Oct. 1st, 2001. That would be great. I would love to know EXACTLY what each major player at the paper was doing on Sept. 11 during the course of the day. (Has someone already done that?)
Anyway, I still have a few hundred pages to read.
