'NY Times' Book Editor: 'We May Review Blair Book'

The editor of The New York Times Book Review has not decided whether his staff will review the new Jayson Blair book, saying the paper is in a no-win situation no matter what it decides to do.

"You are damned if you do and damned if you don't," said Charles McGrath, who has edited what is considered the most prestigious weekly book review in the country for eight years. "If you don't review it, it looks like the Times is dodging criticism of itself and if you do review it, it looks like you are giving attention to something that looks like it doesn't deserve it."

McGrath's comments Tuesday came just a day after three Times editors, including Executive Editor Bill Keller, reportedly circulated a staff memo that indicated the paper would not respond to the book and urged staffers not to let the negative comments Blair makes about the paper affect them.

McGrath said he had received no directive from Keller or anyone else at the paper about how to approach a possible review. "I would expect not to get any directive from them," he told E&P. "Bill's comment (in the memo) is the only comment I have heard."

The memo said, in part: "Jayson Blair's book, advance copies of which have begun to circulate, does not merit much attention. The author is an admitted fabricator. The book pretends to be a mea culpa, but ends up spewing imaginary blame in all directions. We don't intend to respond to Jayson or his book.

"But after reviewing an advance copy we did want to convey something to the staff," the memo continues. "Some of you may find the smears hurtful, even if they are utterly lacking in credibility. It pains us that, after all we have done together to put this newspaper right, any of you should be subjected to this."

The book, titled "Burning Down My Masters' House," and due out March 6, is being published by New Millennium Audio and Press of Beverly Hills. It tells Blair's story off how he engaged in one of the worst acts of plagiarism, deceit and fraud in newspaper history, resulting in his resignation in May 2003 and the eventual departures of former executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd.

McGrath, who said he receives about 70,000 books annually seeking reviews and publishes about two dozen per week, said the decision is based on several things.

"There is obviously a news factor here and sometimes news factors trump merit," he said of the Blair book. "I haven't arrived at a final position on this and if we review it, you will see it in the Review."

McGrath would not say if he had received a copy of the book or if he had seen any major parts of it. He did say no advance galleys had been released by the publisher, which made planning a review difficult.

"We try to review books roughly around publication date," McGrath said. "In this case, it will be difficult because we have not had the lead time."

McGrath, who has already announced plans to leave the book editor post and become a writer at large for the Times, said he had faced more controversial books than this during his tenure. Still, he admitted that he would have preferred it if the new book editor -- who has yet to be named -- had taken over by now.

"I was hoping that Jayson Blair would have been on the next guy's watch," he said.