We're resurrecting an issue from a few weeks ago, mostly because it was never resolved: Arianna Huffington's post questioning NYTBR editor Sam Tanenhaus' assignment of Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?" to Kathryn Harrison, who wrote a less-than-favorable review. On Nov. 23rd, Arianna wondered at the choice, especially since MoDo had knocked Harrison in print twice in the past (two columns from 1997 regarding Harrison's incest memoir "The Kiss").

E&P picked up her column on the 25th, noting that Huffington had written -- but not sourced -- the following:

"[W]hen Dowd complained to Tanenhaus about the curious choice of book reviewer, he suggested that if she didn't like criticism, she shouldn't write books, but acknowledged Harrison had admitted that she remembered having been mentioned in Dowd's columns. Even that, though, didn't raise any red flags. And no elementary Google search followed."

We wondered about that, so we emailed Tanenhaus on Monday (Nov. 28th) asking if (a) Dowd had indeed complained and (b) if the comment attributed to him was accurate (we also asked about that Google search and, more generally, why he picked Harrison in the first place).

We didn't hear back so we sent another email on Dec. 1st, copying Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, with one more email requesting comment on Dec. 2. Mathis, who does always get back to us, responded thusly:

Kathryn Harrison, the author of many works of fiction and nonfiction, has been a regular reviewer for the Book Review, particularly on books dealing with male-female relations. Both Ms. Harrison and the editors of the Book Review were aware that Maureen Dowd had made passing, negative references to Ms. Harrison's book, "The Kiss," when it was published in 1997 -- quite tame references compared to much else written at the time. The editors were confident Ms. Harrison would review Ms. Dowd's book fairly, and her review justified that confidence.

So - an answer, of sort (though silent on the alleged Tanenhaus-MoDo exchange). Arianna's point about the appearance of bias is still valid (quoting from the Times Ethical Journalism Guidebook, which eschews "the slightest whiff of favoritism" and, presumably, the converse), which means that asking why Tanenhaus would pick Harrison - who it's fair to assume may have a long memory - is still a valid question.

But - it should also be noted that it's a lot easier in the newsroom when you don't publish a negative review of a colleague's book, and in doing so Tanenhaus did choose the more difficult road (see this post). Which does constitute a res ipsa loquitur* sort of argument supporting his decision.

Still, consider this observation from Paul McLeary at CJR: the NYT's top 100 is loaded with NYT staffers (our sharp-eyed brethren at GalleyCat note that it's not short on contributors, either). This is not a res ipsa loquitur argument for Times favoritism; but it is worthy of note, for the NYT as well. There's bias, and then there's the appearance of bias; and in our line of work, both should be hearkened too, and avoided.

p.s. Both Dowd and Harrison's books appear on the NYT 100.

*"The thing speaks for itself" - legal term which denotes evidentiary weight for something obvious.