A COURT of NO APPEAL How One Obscure Sentence Upset the New York Times by Renata Adler

C R T C S M A COURT OF NO APPEAL How one obscure sentence upset the New York Times By Renata Adler In January of this Grath, the editor of year, Simon & Schus- The New York Times ter published my book Book Review, wrote to Gone: The Last Days of Simon & Schuster. The New Yorker. I had McGrath had for been at The New York- many years been an er since 1963-with editor at The New an absence of about Yorker. 1had described fourteen months, dur- his tenure there in less ing which I wasBosley than admiring terms. I Crowther's successor had also raised ques- as the film critic of the tions about what New York Times. Al- seemed to me an in- though I had written herent conflict of in- for other publications, terest in his having as- I thought I knew the signed to himself, magazine pretty well. when he became edi- The New Yorker, I tor of the Book Review, wrote, is dead. I did the review of another not expect everyone to book in which he fig- agree or to welcome ured. "The other day," my account of what McGrath now wrote, happened to the "I received the galleys magazine. Perhaps not surprisingly,the Shawn, the great editor, who, over a of Renata Adler's forthcoming book. colleagues whom I had loved and ad- period of more than thirty years, nat- As is my custom, I read through it pri- mired through the years tended to urally grew old, declined, and lost con- or to assigning [id for review." He de- share my views. Those of whom 1 trol of his magazine. A young editor scribed as a "complete fabrication" an thought less highly, and whom I por- whom I met in January said he thought account of a lunch at which he had trayed less admiringly, did not. I had treated The New Yorker as speculated to his cousin Laura ("who Throughout the book, I referred to though it were the proverbial canary isnot my cousin but, rather, my cousin- matters in the outside world, politics, in a mine shaft. Its death meant some- in-law") that he was, at that very mo- travels, issues, assignments taken and thing about the capacity of any liv- ment, being designated successor to not taken, discussions with William ing creative enterprise to survive with- the editorship of the magazine. The in the culture. The thought had not lunch had, in fact, been described to Renata Adler is a graduate of the Yale Law crossed my mind. It has crossed my me by several people. My account of it School and the author of seven books. A mind now. was harmless; it certainly had no legal newcollection, Politics,will be published in On November 11, 1999, when my implications. (McGrath's letter had the spring. book was still in galleys, Charles Me- ended with "cc" to an attorney.) But I Illustrations by Gerard Dubois CRITICISM 65 had also written that "no one, at least 1979, by Norton) of Judge John J. If I did not wish to "disclose" my no writer in his right mind, [wants] to Sirica, Jack Sirica's father. The sen- "sources" to her in an interview, Bar- antagonize the Book Revie'l,(;." I tence in question said I had found ringer said, "Why don't you post it on thought, What the hell. I wasn't at the that "contrary to his reputation as a the Internet?" "You post a lot of your lunch. I had written, several times, hero, Sirica was in fact a corrupt, in- own pieces on the Internet, do you, about my distrust of journalism that competent, and dishonest figure, Felicity?" relies, in quite this way, on "sources." with a close connection to Senator It must be said that, although I was So I replaced the passage with an ac- Joseph McCarthy and clear ties to not, as far as I know, discourteous, I was count of a conversation in which Me- organized crime." Jack Sirica chal- not particularly deferential or Grath spoke directly to me. I framed lenged me "to produce any evidence awestruck either. This was, it was true, his letter, and hung it on my wall, as whatsoever" that his father was a the Times. It was also an unusually a little distillation of what I thought an "'corrupt, incompetent and dishon- repetitive and mindless interrogation. editor of a major publication ought est figure'" or "had' clear ties to orga- The game and its rituals, anyway, are never to do. nized crime.''' He demanded that Si- fairly set. The reporter will write what The New York Times subsequently mon & Schuster "issue a public & she chooses-not infrequently re- published no fewer than eight, ar- written retraction" and "remove the gardless of what is said. It is one of the guably nine, pieces about my book. references" from all future editions of many reasons I have always preferred The first four (on January 12, January the book. He distributed his letter to work with documents. Barringer 16,February 6, and February 13, 20(0) widely to his colleagues in the press. had a final question: was my source G. appeared in four sections: Arts, the A reporter from the Associated Press Gordon Liddy? No. Sunday Magazine, Sunday Letters, and called me and asked, in highly pro- The followingMonday, April 3, Bar- the Sunday Book Review. They were fessional and neutral terms, whether ringer's piece appeared on the front unfriendly but, apart from their sheer I planned to document my remarks page of the Business section. On quantity, not particularly striking. The in any way. I said I did. The reporter Wednesday, AprilS, a piece, by Eleanor Arts piece, by Dinitia Smith, did men- asked when. I said soon. The re- Randolph, but unsigned (I had men- tion McGrath's letter in approving porter asked where. I said in any tioned Randolph unfavorably in my terms ("The material" to which he place that seemed appropriate. book), appeared as an Editorial. On objected, Smith wrote, "was re- Some days later, I had a call from Fe- Thursday, April 6, there was an Op Ed moved") but added that McGrath said licity Barringer, a Media correspon- piece, written by, of all people,John W. "he had decided to distance himself dent of the New York Times. Barringer, Dean. On Sunday, April 9, the Times from reviews about the current New I knew, is married to Philip Taubman, published the last (at least so far) of Yorker books." What form that dis- a member of the Times editorial board these pieces in its Week in Review. tancing would take, Smith did not and an assistant editor of the editori- Barringer's article was, in its way, say. al page. From the outset, the conver- exemplary. In my "offhanded eviscer- The next four pieces (April 3, April sation had nothing of the tenor of an ation of various literati," she report- 5, April 6, and April 9, 2000) were dis- "interview." Barringer did not even ed, not many people had noticed "Ms. persed among four more sections (Busi- pretend to any interest in Sirica, only Adler's drive-by assault on the late ness/Financial, Editorial, Op Ed, and in "ethics in book publishing." Would Judge Sirica." She deplored the lack the Week in Review), treated as seri- I give her my "sources"! "Come on. of "any evidence" and managed to con- ous news, in other words,from Monday Yes or no) Up or down!" Her dead- vey her conviction that none existed. through Sunday of an entire week. It line: forty-eight hours. No. Why would Barringer's own "sources," on the oth- might have been, even as an episode of I not disclose my evidence, if any, to er hand, were the following: Jack Sir- institutional carpet bombing, almost her? Because, as the A.P. reported, I ica (whom she did not identify as a flattering. It seemed unlikely that the was writing a piece of my own. Why Newsday reporter); John F. Stacks, who Times had ever devoted four, let alone wait? I was not waiting; I was writing. co-wrote Judge Sirica's autobiography eight, polemical pieces to a single book Had I no concern meanwhile, she (and who said Sirica "didn't have the before. There is perhaps an explana- asked several times, about what I had imagination to be anything other than tion and a story here for both sets of done to Judge Sirica's reputation' I absolutely straight all his life"); "those pieces. Let me begin with the said I didn't think most people relied who have read just about all the books second set. for their information about Judge Sir- on \Vatergate" and "those most steeped ica on a sentence in a book about The in Watergate lore" (whether these In mid-February, Jack Sirica, a re- Ne'l,(;Yorker. In fact, none of the re- "those" were co-extensive was not porter at Newsday, wrote a letter to views, in the Times or elsewhere, had clear); two lawyers, who confirmed Simon & Schuster, calling attention so much as mentioned the passage that "the dead cannot sue for libel"; an to a sentence, at the end of a passage about Judge Sirica. Before Jack Siri- editor, who did not claim to know ei- on page 125 of my book, in which I ca's letter, no one had apparently no- ther me or anything about Sirica, who wrote about having been assigned, ticed it.

Load more