I have had two New York Times top. 10 bestsellers–and neither one was reviewed by the Times. So I hear you.

But I think the Times is driven less by animus than ignorance.

The Times’ editors simply don’t read conservative publications (the way conservatives might read the New York Review of Books or the Village Voice or the Times). So they don’t recognize the names of even well-published, serious writers on the right. Sadly, the names they do recognize are hyper-right partisans without serious points to make. And they, rightly, do not want to review anything in that category.

The other problem: The NYT editors cannot make distinctions. We are all Rush Limbaugh to them. Now Rush is fine and fun, but I wouldn’t turn to him for a well-sourced, nuanced critique of the CIA. He doesn’t have the time to do all of that reporting and it isn’t his job. Meanwhile, center-right investigators who have done the real work get treated as if they are just opinion-mongers, and B-list opinion-mongers at that. The biggest reaction I get from liberal readers is… surprise. They were expecting invective and got information.

Rather than stop sending the NYT books, Encounter might be better served by reaching out to the editors. Take ‘em to lunch. Educate them. Show them that there are smart, careful people –who are also good writers–on the right. You know, the ones Encounter publishes.

This works with the New Criterion. I have been reading the New Criterion for almost 20 years. Sometimes I would lend it to a liberal. They’d read the article I recommended by Ozick on Henry James and say “wow.” Then, they would read more and find a conservative tilt. “It’s so smart… how can it be conservative?” That’s the bias. But the good news is that the barrier is permeable.

Sulking doesn’t accomplish much. Outreach might.