As you can imagine, with all the hoopla that's been going on in the industry since Friday afternoon, I didn't get a chance to actually watch the BookTV special on a day at the New York Times Book Review when it aired Sunday morning and evening. But I finally managed to find an uninterrupted hour to sit in front of the television set last night and, well, for the most part it's about as interesting as you'd expect a show about how a book review editorial team chooses what books they're going to review would be, complete with printouts of spreadsheets. (Don't get me wrong—I did that job for two years at Amazon.com in the late '90s, so I know firsthand that it ain't the glamorous life, although the free books can make it all feel worthwhile.) That said, Sam Tanenhaus is a very amiable tour guide, leading viewers through the corridors of the Times offices, with an on-air presence somewhere between Matt Frewer and Ron Rifkin.

Now, I admit I was mildly disappointed when I found out the show was about the making of the October 29 issue, because that meant they wouldn't be looking at the October 22 issue, which meant no opportunity for C-SPAN's cameraman to ask why the Review turned Andrew Sullivan's head into a penis. But then I perked up, because the October 29 issue was the one where an ad for the new Jonathan Franzen was published next to letters about it, but since the conversation with the letters page editor took place before the ads were laid out, we didn't hear about that. Plus we didn't even get to see Rachel Donadio until the program was nearly over, and that just reinforced my anger that she got invited to lunch with Norman Mailer and I didn't, because now I find out they served steak and scotch.

I have to admit, though, that while some critics took offense at Tanenhaus's remarks about the blogosphere, I didn't see what the fuss was about. He said the Review likes "polished prose," and for online writers, "there's a tendency to write very quickly, and not always thoughtfully, and to write sloppily, often." He added that "sometimes it's hard for those writers to make the transition" to the more refined levels he wants from his reviewers—but then he pointed out that they'd found some writers online who were "brilliant" in their NYTBR. He didn't name names, but I think I know a writer, and perhaps another, he might have had in mind. (And thanks to all the readers who've suggested over the last two years that I should join their ranks; I've been given a very reasonable explanation for why that isn't particularly feasible—although, personally, I think Tanenhaus just likes having me out here as the comparatively nice gadfly who doesn't harangue him about baked goods all the time.)