Halvar Flake's review of this book, which is actually about the book and not about the New York Times as an institution, is better and more enlightening. Discussed here:
Thank you. I read both reviews. Halvar's was more convincing that I should not spend time reading this book.
It is too bad. The title/blurb was catchy. I spend a lot of my life educating people on these topics. I am always hopeful that a mainstream publication will get the story right. How sad should I be about the inaccuracies in this one?
Why bother to write a book if you want to make it some kind of wishy washy political hack job that doesn't stand up against any scrutiny? What exactly is the point? Does anyone read it aside from reviewers such as the author? Who is the audience, and why? I really don't get this.
Because she’s pushing a narrative (meaning fiction mostly) to the non-subject-matter-expert masses that are conditioned to unquestionably swallow everything from sources like the NYT.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26266570