Mitch Albom has apologized for fabricating his column. Where other columnists would be sacked on the spot, Albom, by contrast, has been permitted to continue his career. What’s particularly interesting are the parallels between Albom’s apologetic column and Richard Nixon’s famous “Checkers” speech from 1952:

STEP ONE: Repeat An Adjective Three Times for Emphasis

NIXON: “I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.”
ALBOM: “I felt terrible for the mistake, terrible that my newspaper had to take heat, terrible that my editors were besieged.”

STEP TWO: Acknowledge Yourself as a Public Servant With a Clipped Sentence

NIXON: “I come before you tonight.”
ALBOM: “I write for you.”

STEP THREE: Declare That the Battle Isn’t Over With a Stunning Statement of Personal Strength

NIXON: “But let me just say this last word. Regardless of what happens I’m going to continue this fight.”
ALBOM: “And know this: Just as you can’t assume the future, you can’t always assume human nature.”

STEP FOUR: Underplay the Sin

NIXON: “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret fund.”
ALBOM: “I made a careless mistake in a column. It wasn’t malicious. It didn’t harm the subjects. But it was factually incorrect in four paragraphs.”

STEP FIVE: Refer to Past as “Dark”

NIXON: “I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case…”
ALBOM: “The last three weeks have been the darkest yet most enlightening of my professional life. The dark part is obvious.”

STEP SIX: Respond with Subtle Libertarian Ethical Statement

NIXON: “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”
ALBOM: “Besides, in 20 years of doing this column, I have never written for those people.”

Laila notes that Michael Standaert’s book-length examination of the Left Behind series will be published by the good folks at Soft Skull.

It was too hot to handle for Tanenhaus, but Maud has the goods on a Chris Lehmann essay on Houghton-Mifflin’s “best of” collections.

We haven’t performed our Tanenhaus Brownie Watch yet, but since we’ve discovered that Tanenhaus isn’t interested in critical essays that offer clear arguments and bare a few teeth, we apply a Brownie Bitchslap Factor of -.5 points towards the next test.

Steve Wasserman has resigned from the Los Angeles Times. Wasserman edited the weekly book review section.

The Times staff was informed on Friday. Apparently, Wasserman was upset about not being able to flex his independence and issued an ultimatum. He was particularly concerned with the scrutiny being applied by top brass. His last day is reported to be May 13.

But the question here, given Wasserman’s temperament, is whether this was a fait accompli, albeit a slow one. What’s amazing is that Wasserman has remained something of an outspoken rabble-rouser over the years and yet until Mark started holding Wasserman’s feet to the fire on a weekly basis, I don’t think any of us outside of Los Angeles really had a sense of how little of Wasserman’s fire ended up on the Times‘ pages. If it really was an internecine battle that Wasserman couldn’t win, then the big question was why Wasserman stayed on board like some masochist? And the bigger question is whether Wasserman’s replacement will be able to have a less tempestuous relationship with the managing editors.

Is the Los Angeles Times‘ book section a lost cause? The time has come for Mr. Sarvas weigh in on this question.

RELATED LINKS:

• The Elegant Variation: Home of the LATBR Thumbnail.
• 1996 interview with Wasserman during happier times: just before he landed the LATBR gig.
• Wasserman two years in: facing criticism from many sides.
• Wasserman on the LATBR bestsellers list.

(lead via Sarah)

• The Seoul International Forum of Literature begins this week. Among the dignitaries attending are Kenzaburo Oe, Orhan Pamuk and Margaret Drabble.
• A local movie theatre in Australia seats just 22 people and is well in the running for the world’s smallest cinema. If I had to be an usher, I wouldn’t mind cleaning the minor mess. If I had to be a movie theatre manager, I’d welcome the easy challenge of selling out a show. But if I had to be a moviegoer here, I’d hope there was enough legroom.
• The Shusters, a new comic book award handed out to Canadians, were handed out on Saturday. There’s just one problem: it’s not too difficult to be a Canadian under the rules. Joe Matt, for example, is Canadian because he lived there for 12 years. Next thing we know, anyone who’s ever ordered spaghetti at Mrs. Vanellis will be considered one of Canada’s own.
• Carson McCullers is still being appreciated in Ohio Georgia. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Gag removed, as idiot editor mixed up Ohio with Georgia. Thanks, Matt!]
• I’m all for free expression, but I have to ask: Video games have literary value? If there’s a metaphor in getting repeatedly fragged by a fifteen year old, I’d like to know. Better arguments, folks.
• Can a name shape a child’s destiny? Why, yes. Just ask anyone with a twenty syllable first name.