We weren't the only bloggers to comment on Times public editor Byron Calame's prodding of the NYTBR policy towards reviewing books by the paper's other staffers. The Literary Saloon, which has been consistently critical of Review coverage of fiction in general and foreign fiction in particular, appreciates the article but isn't impressed by what it reveals about the editorial criteria. But Levi Asher of Literary Kicks has some sympathy for Tanenhaus & Co., suggesting that Calame's recommendations overcompensate for the perceived problem. Asher doesn't think it's that remarkable that Times writers would produce notable books, and when it comes to the Maureen Dowd/Kathryn Harrison dustup, "connectivity to the New York Times is not even a factor" in why Harrison could be considered an inappropriate writer to get the assignment after Dowd called her "creepy" in print. "Adopting the policy Calame suggests," Asher notes, "would not make this type of incident any less likely to happen."

Our tipster line adds another vote of support for the Review team. "Calame's article suggests that the book review editors are weak minded and can be swayed by an agent or publisher," says one anonymous commenter. "Just think what would happen if the NYT had held Judy Miller to the same story [standard?] when she was covering WMDs. [His] argument is pathetic."