On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Tuesday night, host Mark Levin, author of “Unfreedom of the Press,” called out NPR writer Annalisa Quinn for her “sophomoric” review of his book, saying it was only a matter of time before “Unfreedom of the Press” came under attack.
“It was only a matter of time, however – really, seconds – that the book would come under attack,” stated Mark Levin. “It’s much like Trump, where they were demanding his impeachment before he was elected.”
Mark Levin’s remarks came in response to a book review of his newest book “Unfreedom of the Press” put out by NPR writer Annalisa Quinn and titled “‘Unfreedom Of The Press’ Is Full Of Bombast And Bile.” In the review, Quinn writes, “Levin has marketed the book as a way to stick it to the media, to get a book ‘exposing’ The New York Times onto the The New York Times bestseller list. … What people are actually buying is not a book but a message to the Times and the media at large. And the message, to use a favored Levin phrase, is ‘SCREW YOU.’”
Below is a transcript, in pertinent part, of Mark Levin’s comments from his show on Tuesday:
“Well, today’s the big day, at least here – I think with many of you. Many of you have received your copy now of ‘Unfreedom of the Press.’ I hope you’re enjoying it. I hope it’s every bit as compelling as I said it was. Based on all the five-star ratings so far – and it’s early yet; it’s the first day. I want to thank you all.
“It was only a matter of time, however – really, seconds – that the book would come under attack. It’s much like Trump, where they were demanding his impeachment before he was elected. We have Brian Stelter over at CNN – he’s a reprobate too; we know all about him – who was condemning the book even though he had never read it.
“Now, over at NPR, which shouldn’t even exist – we’ve got plenty of radio stations and so forth – there’s an individual by the name of Annalisa Quinn, Annalisa Quinn. I assume that’s her name. I never heard of her before. She’s their book review person. And I went back and looked at the sort of thing she’s written because she’s been a contributor to The New York Times and the usual leftwing, you know, papers and so forth, and she’s a hack. She’s a leftist, and she’s relatively inarticulate and incoherent.
“Now, I don’t have time to read the entirety of this screed, but I want her to know something. I’m going to read some of it. You’re the perfect example of exactly what I’m talking about in this book. You’re a snob, and you’re an elitist. And you have no reason to be either because you’re obviously not particularly bright. You really shouldn’t be reviewing a book when you absolutely hate the author. That’s the point. Somebody should review a book who wants to objectively review a book. But you have an agenda. That’s why you work for, and write for, and are subsidized by leftwing publications and NPR – which we the taxpayers subsidize. So, you prove the point.
“And here’s her title: ‘“Unfreedom of the Press” Is Full Of Bombast And Bile’
“‘The media, Levin writes, constitute[s] “a profession whose members form a class or aristocracy of strident, pretentious, arrogant, and self-righteously superior individuals, rarely capable of circumspection or improvement.”
“‘Levin hopes to prove this by tracing the history of American media from the early days of the revolutionary press to what he calls the modern “Democratic party-press.”’
“Let’s stop there.
“That’s not where I start the book. I don’t start the book on chapter two, although, Annalisa Quinn may have difficulty with numbers. I start the book at chapter one. And why does she skip over chapter one? She skips over chapter one because it’s called ‘News as Political and Ideological Activist,’ and there’s case after case – indisputable – that this is the fact with the modern mass media, that it is Democrat; that it is progressive; that it is filled with social activists; and that it’s not reporting news. Of course, there are exceptions. NPR is not one of them.
“Why did she skip this entire chapter that discusses: standards, what freedom of the press is supposed to be, what news is supposed to be, what do we mean by journalism? Why did she skip all of that? Why? Because she’s a hack who shouldn’t be reviewing this book, but it’s okay because she’s given me the opportunity to talk about it.
“Now, I posted the individual’s, Annalisa Quinn’s review so you all can read it and draw your own conclusions. It is sophomoric. It is incoherent. She doesn’t even understand the substance of the book. She doesn’t understand scholarship. It doesn’t matter. This is their narrative.
“Now, this book wasn’t written for her. She’s incapable of reform and in digesting it, taking a step back, looking at what’s going on on the horizon of the media, because she’s eye deep into it. She’s a writer for The New York Times, contributes. She’s a writer for NPR. She’s exactly the problem. And she jumps right out of the gate, trying to create the narrative for the book.
“It’s not gonna work Annalisa. It’s not gonna fly. We’re sick of you and people like you. You think you’re so clever. You’re not. In fact, you’re so stupid, you wrote this review. And I’m using you as a foil tonight. What do you think about that?”