I notice on the Bookseller To The Stars blog (which I am proud to say I bookmark) that Fourth Estate have had to issue an erratum for insertion into Nick Cohen's current bestseller What's Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way. It reads:
"On page 358 it is said that Azar Nafisi dedicated her book, Reading
Lolita in Tehran, to Paul Wolfowitz, which is not the case. The book is
dedicated to her family."
Now I know that researching a non-fiction work can be a hard slog and we should forgive any writer the odd mistake, but not opening a book which you can find in any bookshop to check the bloody dedication is simply poor journalism. Could it be that Nick Cohen is a bit shit?
Nick Cohen? Nick Cohen? Why does that name ring a bell? Could he be the same Nick Cohen who wrote this article about me? I guess if he is lazy and unprofessional enough to write a cheap and inaccurate attack on someone he has never met then it shouldn't surprise us that he doesn't get off his arse to check his facts when writing a whole book.
Now, rather than Fourth Estate inserting an erratum into Nick Cohen's book perhaps I could suggest something Nick Cohen could insert himself? I would be happy to lend a hand. Mind you, by the look on his face, perhaps someone beat me to it.

Classic!
Posted by: Ben Johncock | February 26, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Bit harsh maybe: Azar Nifisi did acknowledge a mysterious 'Paul' in 'Reading Lolita in Tehran'. Nifisi later made clear in communication to Christopher Hitchens, who originally circulated the 'dedication' claim that:
"these acknowledgements were personal tributes to individuals who came from very different political spectrums and held opposing political views, and my one time association with them in no way reflects my political biases, and if others do not respect my wish for privacy I have to respect it myself and not give in to pressure and innuendos".
Hitch obviously has reason to believe that it is Wolfowitz, but *shrug* this whole thing seems to stink of a chance for a lot of people with axes to grind against Cohen and Hitchens, and their respective position on Iraq, to kick up a stink. Was it the 'ageing rocker' pop or the dumbing down jibe that made you get out your hatchet?
I read the Statesman review and not only thought it was balanced, but also if it came down to a choice between you and the London Review of Books, my money would be on you. With your ad hominem attack above, I think I was mistaken...
Posted by: DW | February 26, 2007 at 04:06 PM
I am only having a laugh, I am sure Cohen can take it. My slight piss-take is appearing on a blog with 500 readers a day. His piece on me was in a national magazine with a much wider readership. I am fine with taking a bit of a bashing but I think I can be allowed a response.
I had to chuckle on hearing that he had to issue a correction. I am not surprised any more when journalists make fundamental mistakes or, indeed, get stories completely wrong. Look at Nigel Reynolds' track record at The Telegraph. You'd think he was making it up much of the time.
What Cohen probably didn't realise was the support I had given as a buyer to his book Pretty Straight Guys. Not that my support should stop him from writing a critical piece, but he could have been a little less personal. Bloody book didn't sell either so he scored a double whammy!
Posted by: Scott Pack | February 26, 2007 at 04:16 PM
If Cohen can take the piss out of Scott then it seems fair enough for Scott to take the piss out of him. Shifty looking bugger isn't he?
Posted by: dan | February 26, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Yeah - I guess I posted because of the grief that Cohen is receiving in a number of blogs etc:
check out:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_murray/2007/02/nothing_left_of_cohen.html
including such choice comments as:
------------------
Cohen has no credibility, nada. He can't even configure a rational argument.
If I were unkind enough to employ Cohen's own style, I'd call his silences "shameful".
Funny thing is that everyone at the Guardian and Observer know that our boy Cohen is a total lush - much like his pal Hitchens.
Its the same old story of Jewish survival, the protector Israel verses the Greek (read gentile) concepts of universality.
Nick Cohen is worried about his survival and is sucking up to the biggest bloke in the playground
(plus a number of equally dodgy points which seem to amount to anti semitism).
why does'nt nick cohen, ..et al,-in essence all of these bush/blair arse licking intellectually challenged dung beetles piss off to bagdad for a few months and make certain to live outside the green zone
----------
etcetc
So I waded in feet first when I saw your 'Bit shit' post (helpfully emailed to me by a chum). If he's receiving a kicking from you for being an inaccurate journo & ungrateful basturd to boot, then.. well... that's another thing entirely :¬)
D
Posted by: DW | February 26, 2007 at 06:25 PM
I'm glad that you bookmark me Scott. You flatter me and I am honoured sensai to be featured on your blog, but returning the grace of the link I have had on my blog for you for months now would be fucking grand.
DW, major publishers do not issue Erratums unless they absolutely feel that it is nescessary. End of.
"If the company falters, Ottakar's is ready to take its place. The chain's friendly and knowledgeable staff already remind customers of Waterstone's in its glory days."
Fuck you, Cohen. We are picking up the pace and carrying the less experienced. Neo-con, pro war Dipshit.
Posted by: The Bookseller to the Stars | February 26, 2007 at 08:33 PM
"If the company falters, Ottakar's is ready to take its place. The chain's friendly and knowledgeable staff already remind customers of Waterstone's in its glory days."
Anyone who said something like that can't be all bad...
Posted by: NeoNeoCon | February 26, 2007 at 09:17 PM
I went to see Cohen once do a talk with Francis Wheen. Unbelievably, that photo is actually quite flattering.
Posted by: John Self | February 26, 2007 at 10:18 PM
He does look a bit like the Spitting Image puppet of Lester Pigott.. whereas Francis Wheen is how I would imagine Ian Duncan Smith's slightly less unhinged brother might look (less bulging eyes, more geniality...)
Posted by: DW | February 26, 2007 at 11:38 PM
He is a shifty looking guy. He makes me think of a mupped that has something shoved up it's bum, but that's must my humble opinion. :)
Posted by: Jamieson Wolf | February 27, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Ok Nick Cohen is a Metro-...ker but Bookseller to the Stars which ex Ottakars in London are you carrying? What Nick Cohen said in that sentence was articulated to me in a letter by one of the bestselling authors of the past 30 years just this week - although more passionately. What of this comment from a customer: "Now that you are Waterstones does this mean you will stop helping me?" Although Nick doesnt have a point - he does. But anyway who remembers selling a Nick Cohen book recently? Truce.
Posted by: inahaze | February 28, 2007 at 09:43 PM
I read this post yesterday, and I quite literally had a nightmare about NC's face last night. He visog was plastered on a giant spider that was chasing me round Heathrow airport.
I don't wish to delve into what that says about my psyche too deeply.
Posted by: kirsty | March 02, 2007 at 01:03 PM