Eric Alterman complains that his book got ignored by major media because it made them uncomfortable:
The book got almost no attention in the media; the only significant review was the one published in The Washington Post, who gave it to Reagan/Bush/Fox News operative, James Pinkerton. Still, with next to no media attention, the book entered the Times extended best-seller list and stayed there four weeks. I’ve never before published a book that was so thoroughly ignored in the media, nor one that started out as a best-seller.
I haven't read it. I imagine that the book review editors most likely would say that didn't review it because they thought it wasn't that great, or was like a lot of other anti-Bush books being published these days.
Probably just about every author thinks that his book deserved more and better reviews, so one should treat all such complaints with healthy scepticism. And it's certainly the case that not every best-seller gets reviewed. Diet books, sleazy potboilers, and many genre fiction such as scifi/fantasy books sell well but don't get much attention from newspaper reviewers.
But when was the last time a non-fiction political book was a best seller and didn't get reviewed in major newspapers? Maybe the last time such a book accused those papers of mis- (if not mal-) feasance?
I know just how Eric Alterman feels. I write brilliant, insightful stuff on my blog everyday but am constantly ignored by the major bloggers, probably because I make them uncomfortable.
Michael,
You miss the point. Eric’s book was the first of its type. Al Franken and Joe Conanston both cite Eric. The fact it was a surprise best-seller is what gave rise to the crop of books telling the truth about Bush. In many ways it is better than those that came after, there is less about Bush (who is after all merely a puppet) and more about the vast right wing punditocracy.
PS please fix your font sizes, 3pt is not acceptable.