The New Yorker got it right
|
|
just found this in the May 24, 1993 issue of "The New Yorker" Magazine: a review of Brock's book by Jane Meyer & Jill Abramson includes... "All nonfiction books contain errors, but this book is unusual in the extent to which its key arguments are based on them." "At a certain point, a knowledgeable reader begins to wonder how many of these errors are innocent and how many are deliberate distortions." "Once the sources are evaluated and the contradictory evidence is considered, Brock's arguments evaporate into an amorphous cloud of ill will." ...and the reactionaries of the right still hold fast to their hatred of reality. [Why is this book of lies still in print?]
|
|
valuable only as example of
|
|
this book is of course dreadfully bad as journalism; read it only as a window on the recent upsurge of rightist political fantasia, and as a supplement to brock's latest, *blinded by the right*. in reading his latest, he will explain what the score is for this one, what he called "character assassination." i am somewhat disturbed by some of the other reviews, here, though....witness brock: "i could see that my reportorial method for *the real anita hill* was shoddy, not only in the sources i had trusted, but in the obvious fact that i had missed significant evidence that showed that hill's testimony was more truthful than thomas' flat denials after all. my version of the thomas-hill controversy was wrong, my belief in it as truth was a delusion. perhaps the errors of *the real anita hill* could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. in the review of *strange justice*, however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, i consciously and actively chose an unethical path. i continued to malign anita hill and her liberal supporters as liars. i trashed the professional reputations of two reporters for reporting something i knew was correct. i coerced an unsteady source, i knowlingly published a lie, and i falsified the historical record" (brock, d. *blidned by the right* ny: crown, 2002. p. 248). as can be seen here, the author of *the real anita hill* is admitting that it is not true.
|
|
|
where are the apologies from the right?
|
|
In his new book, Blinded by the Right, here's in part what Brock says about his writing of this book: ".... Tainted by bias, and already committed to a flawed interpretation of events in print, I got no closer to the truth in the book.... I failed to weigh my findings against the fact that all of my sources were pro-Thomas partisans..... I had no access to Hill's supporters, and therefore no understanding of their motivations, no responses to any of my charges, and no knowledge of whatever incriminating evidence they might have gathered against Thomas that was not introduced in the hearing..... As for the traits ascribed to Hill that might have motivated her to lie -- ambitious, willful, and even vengeful -- they were all culled by me from the Thomas camp. Everyone I spoke to HATED that woman." It is truly sad, and frightening, that not only was the book published, and believed, but that, as far as I'm aware, none of the conservatives who continued to rip Anita Hill to shreds based on the falsehoods contained in this book have come forth to apologize to her. Partisanship seems almost always to trump truth and plain human decency.
|
|
Informative Read In Conjunction with Blinded by the Right
|
|
David Brock has publicly admitted in his latest book, "Blinded by the Right", how "The Real Anita Hill" came to be - the unverified half-truths and suppositions, the missing leads and facts that, had they come to light before Thomas was appointed, would most likely have stopped his ascension to the Supreme Court, bundled up neatly with a hard right spin. In "Blinded by the Right" he reveals the sources, the money, and the politics behind the writing of "The Real Anita Hill", the true right wing conspiracy behind it all, and the eventual disgust and guilt he felt over the slandering of this woman. In fact, he ended up writing an apology letter in an attempt to absolve himself of the guilt of being a shill in a well planned, funded, and orchestrated conservative movement, and for betraying his journalistic integrity. Therefore, "The Real Anita Hill" should be read only in conjunction with "Blinded by the Right", to keep the reader from having his mind poisoned by material the author himself has recanted, and that facts that surfaced after the book's publishing came to disprove. It is quite interesting from a historical perspective, and also as a chilling demonstration of the conservative movement as Brock reveals in "Blinded by the Right".
|
|
Blinded by the left?
|
|
This is a book that that caused emotions to run high when it was first published, and still continues to cause readers to break out into impassioned argument, some of it not very polite. My own perspective is that Brock got it right on this one, a well researched investigative report on Anita Hill and the left's campaign to discredit a man whose only crime was being black and conservative. Of course those who believed Hill and dislike Thomas will have a totally different viewpoint, which is fine. My own advice to both groups would be to read both this book and the "Strange Justice" which was the hatchet job commissioned by the vast left wing conspiracy. Contrary to what some have said, Brock did not disavow this book, rather he said that he went into writing it with the purpose of looking for evidence against Hill and for Thomas. Of course the author of "Strange Justice" did just the opposite. Until we actually have an unbiased look at the Thomas hearings (and we may not have that anytime soon) then this book still deserves to be read. Some other authors to try after this book are Paul Johnson, Ken Hamblin, Shelby Steele, George Will, Dinesh D'Souza and David Horowitz. All of these present a viewpoint that tends to support Brock's conclusions in this, his first book. However, be warned that you're either going to hate the book or like it. Unfortunately there appears to be no middle ground in this long lasting debate. Regardless of your political views this book is a must read, if just to find out what all the hullabaloo was/is about.
|
|
|
