Consider The Source In Stone’s Book Review

There is an ironic twist to having controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone review any book of history. But it’s especially ironic to have him review a book about John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, as the Los Angeles Times did.

In his review of “Kennedy & Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America” by Christopher Matthews, Stone accuses the author of constructing a “bland argument, not a history.”

Matthews’ book, Stone charges, is “a popular gloss intended for a public that lacks the sophistication to demand more detail, more insight, and more truth.”

Yet Stone, who among his films has directed such history-themed works as “Born On the Fourth of July,” “JFK” and “Nixon,” has himself been accused of hedging the truth. In the latter two, especially, he selectively chose the historical events he wanted to include.

And when the facts didn’t fit his story, he often as not simply made things up.

Stone’s movies have been called, by critics from both sides of the political spectrum, everything from “cleverly deceitful” to “insults to the intelligence of the American public.”

Yes, he may be a great filmmaker, but Oliver Stone shouldn’t be regarded as a trusted guardian of the truth.

, DataTimes