2 Comments

Obviously coming to this article very late (I'm a new subscriber), but I think it's an interesting subject and want to weigh in. A few thoughts:

- I think John is right that transparency rather than "fairness" is what the Times should be shooting for in its choice of reviewers. That said, given the internet, isn't

- On balance, if there is going to a single reviewer for a book (especially non-fiction books about ideas), I think it would be better to have the reviewer be someone who is ideologically sympathetic to the arguments being presented. I think the reader (and the world of books is general) is better served by someone who is willing to make the best arguments for a book, while hopefully being willing to also point out its flaws and how it could have been better.

- That said, I think it would be great service to the audience (and lots of fun) if the Times presented multiple reviews of a book with reviewers from across the ideological spectrum on whatever issue is being discussed. And if there isn't "room" in print, make this a digital only feature.

Expand full comment