If you've been reading this blog for awhile, then you'll recognize the name Debra Galant as someone I've mentioned before - she's one of the names behind the super fun local news and commentary site, Barista of Bloomfield Avenue, based on the goings-on in Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, and Montclair, NJ. In case you haven't heard, she's got a new novel out, Rattled, and it appears to have made Deirdre Donahue at USA Today happy with her debut book.

Huge props to Deb on her book's launch. I haven't been able to check it out for myself just yet, but will definitely have my say when I do. For more info, check out Deb's site at debragalant.com.

Dan Gillmor writes about a change he noticed when shopping in an airport shop for books - a size and price change. It looks like the books have slightly gotten bigger from certain publishers, and said books are coming with approximately a $2 price increase. Ouch. Anyone else seen this?

Back on June 3, Rachel Kramer Bussel wrote a piece in the Village Voice about the Washingtonienne, Jessica Cutler - remember her? She was the Capitol Hill staffer who wrote about her sexual exploits with other staffers, mostly her senior, on a blog archived here. Well, as it turns out that she's back in the news nowadays just as her book, The Washingtonienne, is hitting the streets - but it's not really about the book that she's being talked about, it's her old blog.

Cutler is being sued for revealing certain sexual habits of one of her partners, who were generally referred to by initials only - but suspicions of which initials represented which real live people have culminated in at least one successful guess, which is where the lawsuit comes in. Bussel's point is about how Robert Steinbuch, the plaintiff, is upset that people now know that he's into spanking - which really isn't that big of a deal, is it? Bussel goes on to point out how certain sexual habits are "bad" in the eyes of the public, or at least the media, while others would make the rest of us say "whatevs," when hearing about them. What's with that?

Across the pond pal dabitch tagged yours truly with a passalong post about books, and I'm more than happy to oblige.

Total number of books owned?

Hm, probably a few hundred. I was pretty good for about three years with our in-office library when I worked in NYC, so I tended to leave my books there after purchasing them. Otherwise, I listen to quite a few from Audible now, and pick up some here and there, especially when I'm prepping to fly.

The last book I bought?

The Associated Press Style Guide, actually. Sorry, not so sexy, but a necessity.

The last book I read?

The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown. Loved it to death, recommended it to everyone. Read that badboy straight through on a Newark to Frankfurt nonstop with time to spare.

Five books that mean a lot to me?

The books in the Harry Potter series - really enjoyed reading them, love the character development and ability to come up with something new and exciting each time around.

Fahrenheit 451. Got into this book in like fourth or fifth grade, and have always enjoyed it. Wished they would just create an actual good movie out of it for once.

Hunt for Red October. The early Clancy books rocked, now they're just goofy. I have a thing for spy series, and this one did a good job with the whole action/adventure/drama thing.

Point of Origin. Patricia Cornwell always put out a quality few hundred pages, and you actually like her characters.

Timeline. A Michael Crichton book that was just as good as the movie it was adapted into, who would've thunk it. A bit of a history lesson with a timewarpy twist. Entertaining all the way through.

As for tagging five people who aren't slackers enough to not reply to this, it's a tough one, but I can do it.

Suzette, Prop, Kimberly, K. Paul and Matt Sheffield should all consider themselves "it!"

Jason DeParle, writer for the New York Times and the New York Times Magazine, was honored this week with the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism for his work on American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare, published by Viking. DeParle's book won out of what was originally over 100 submissions, ultimately beating four other finalists, including Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh.

Previous winners of the award, which carries a $15,000 prize, include David Remnick in 1994 for Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire and former CNN anchor Judy Woodruff in 1989 for her coverage of the Iran-Contra controversy.

When is bad news not considered good news just because it's news at all? Probably when you're a major software and hardware player and the producer of one of the hotter technological "toys" to hit the market in recent years - like Apple.

The San Jose Mercury News's Dawn Chmielewski reports Friday that Apple stores have taken books published by John Wiley & Sons off of their shelves because someone is a bit peeved about what a soon-to-be-released bio about Apple boss Steve Jobs.

Kevin Roderick points out that former Slate staffer Jason Leopold's book, mentioned here a couple weeks ago, has been kiboshed by the publisher, Rowman & Littlefield.

This just in - local Jersey / bloggerific pal Debbie Galant, otherwise known as "The Barista," has signed a deal to have her book, the upcoming "RATTLED: A Comedy of Bad Manners," published by St. Martin's Press.

Congrats, Debbie!

Should a change in the legality of something change the text of a piece of fiction when it is republished?

Australia's The Age has an item by Shane Green regarding a request to an author of a children's book by her publisher to change a line in her book, most likely in order to be politically correct.

Newsday's Jennie Yabroff writes a review/interview with ex-Maxim employee Dave Itzkoff, whose new book, "Lads: A Memoir of Manhood," comes out September 7. Itzkoff describes how the alleged "target" reader for Maxim doesn't really exist, how his life has changed since leaving the publication, and his hopes for the future of magazines.

The National Review posts an excerpt today from L. Brent Bozell III's new book, Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media.

So we're back to the bias issue, on which Bozell makes some very solid points that I wholeheartedly agree with. Some on the left do claim that there is a right-wing slant to media outlets, not one to the left. One example below:

How many times do we hear liberals cite Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley, Robert Novak, Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, and so on, as evidence of the conservative "dominance" of the media? What these liberals know full well is that all of these conservatives are commentators, not reporters; their work appears in opinion columns and on TV or radio talk shows — not in news stories in our newspapers or on radio or television news programs. None reports news, but rather they all react to it analytically and, by necessity, with prejudice.

The people who make this claim with their backup being the number of conservative commentators are obviously misinformed. However, I do believe that there are so many right leaning talk show hosts - especially on the radio - that many people feel they don't have the opportunity to hear what the left has to say. This tends to lead into people claiming "bias" - they are clearly confused as to what is news and what is commentary. But to say that while conservative talk show hosts outwardly claim they are conservative, while liberal news media people will never claim to be liberal is kind of an unfair comparison. While we may all feel that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or whomever are personally liberal or conservative, isn't the whole point that they aren't supposed to claim one or the other?

I think the other unfortunate point that Bozell misses here is that the media is inherently liberal in a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of way. It's not that there aren't any reporters/anchors/newspeople that are conservative, but what about the possibility that conservatives just don't make up as much of the future news media population in the first place, probably even pre J-school?

Back in May, I posted on this topic in response to something Daniel Drezner had been talking about in the blogosphere - i.e. the number of left vs. right bloggers of note. CableNewser's Brian Stelter made a great point then, and I'm going to post his quote again. He said, "Journalists tend to lean liberal, which makes sense -- journalists enter the biz hoping to change the world and make it better. That's a liberal notion, eh?" I would stand behind this comment for a long time - or at least until someone could absolutely talk me down from the ledge. If you feel otherwise, please tell me - you don't have to have chromosomal evidence to the contrary, but I think that it just happens to work out that way. Don't the same things hold true in other industries? Unionized workers tend to lean one way, while stockbrokers may lean another. We could go on about this all day, but I think it's a point that needs to be taken.

I also believe that if we're going to have "media watchdog" groups, then they need to go in nonpartisan. I haven't found one group yet that doesn't go in targeting the other side of the party lines. They might report sometimes on the same side they're on, but it's not their focus. Bozell's Media Research Center is clearly conservative (though it doesn't pretend not to be) while David Brock's Media Matters is definitely looking to debunk the right leaning portion of the media. So again - if you're going to play this game, then go in clean.

Oh, wait - you're having trouble doing that? Well, if you haven't noticed, it's because everyone has preconceived notions and thoughts that flow along party lines. You don't even have to be a voter or be interested in politics to have them. If you landed on the planet in 1999, you might think that all Democratic Presidents sleep with interns and that Republican governors liked to execute people. You would also decide which of these things you dis/agreed with and which you identified with - or didn't.

I just wish that people would stop spending so much time complaining about what the other side was doing and that they were biased (hell, start taking billboards out so we can all say "no, really?" while driving down the highway already), and do something about it. It's like we've built a cottage industry for liberals to go after conservative media and conservatives to do the opposite. For all the statistics of times that Al Gore was mentioned as being "annoying" and that George Bush was looked at like an "idiot" by the media, something constructive should have been proposed that the media needs to do by now. Hell, get News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, Tribune's Dennis FitzSimons, Gannett's Douglas McCorkindale and their contemporaries together in a room and say, "Look - the commentary is fine, but the overall tone of your news networks or newspapers needs to change. Op-ed is great - leave it. Chris Matthews - fine. Bill O'Reilly - fine. Just report the news as news. If someone complains that you skipped a story because they think you're biased, state your case in rebuttal. But report the news. Make 'Fair and Balanced' an actual term of reality and not a joke."

I firmly believe that if everyone would stop complaining and start acting, this "argument" would get a lot easier to stomach, rather than making people go "oh, another frigging bias book."

[Thanks to Notorious MiG for the heads up on Bozell's item]

Jason Vest of the Boston Phoenix discusses the recently "unmasked" author of Imperial Hubris, and asks why the author, "Mike," was even anonymous in the first place. The book, the second installment from this author, is a critical piece on America's ongoing "War on Terror," and has garnered quite a bit of media attention. A week ago, the New York Times' Douglas Jehl wrote about the book and its origins, pointing out that the CIA had no real problem with the author's work, and that "the book had been vetted to insure that it not include classified information." But still, there's the anonymity thing. It was widely reported that "Mike" was concerned about repercussions from Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda and that this was the reason for the lack of a full name on the cover of the book.

So while "Anonymous" has not confirmed or denied his identity, many Washington insiders have reportedly known the author's name for some time now, but have not printed it as of yet. Is it because the CIA or another government agency has stated that the aforementioned "fears" were an issue, or is it a way to avoid the issues raised by the Valerie Plame situation? If it's a safety issue that the press is citing, then they're doing so with no merit. Vest reports that the author - who he names as Michael Scheuer - doesn't want the anonymity, and that any suggestions that he did would be incorrect. His editor at Brassey's, Christina Davidson, went as far as to send the CIA a letter that stated "To say that our author must be kept in the shadows because he has expressed fears about al Qaeda retaliation is patently false and impugns his courage," and followed that by asking that they not continue to do so in the future.

Will Scheuer's name make its way into the mainstream press anytime soon, or will they take the CIA's statements as word? While the press has a reason to make sure its collective bread is buttered (in other words, to be in the loop), it'd be kind of curious to see if this identity keeps being passed over, especially if this book stays in the public eye.

Notorious MiG writes:

Bubba Clinton's book is coming out soon -- this month I believe based on the big signs advertising the volume's arrival at all of the Barnes & Nobles on the Island of the Manhattoes.

Will all the people -- including the media -- who complained about the excessive coverage of Reagan's death also complain about the excessive coverage of Clinton's book?

Unlikely.

While we've heard quite a bit about President Clinton's upcoming book, My Life, of late, it hasn't gotten overwhelming - though I can attest that the marketing has been crazy. Audible and Amazon both had items up a few weeks ago about the book, and I expect for everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Matt Drudge to Larry King will be chatting it up over the next few weeks. I'm not sure it'll get ridiculous, but I can see the nightly cable talk shows being all over this book for a few days or a week.

Last month I had posted about Lawrence Lessig's offer to send you a free copy of his newest book, The Future of Ideas if you made a donation to Creative Commons in the amount of $5.00 or more.

I had made a donation that day, and received my autographed copy today. I'll have more details after I read it!

National Review Online has a piece today from Clay Waters (of Times Watch) that talks about how while Jayson Blair's book isn't selling a lick, everyone and their brother seems to be reviewing it - and wonders why.

Then he follows up by providing his own informal review, "Objectively speaking," of course.