Regnery Publishing's 'politically incorrect guides' accused of being factually incorrect

[ck4829]

Regnery Publishing, the RW Publisher which published the Anti-Kerry 'Unfit for Command' is also publishing books which are supposedly too cool for PC, but apparently these books are also too cool for the facts and objectivity too. One has even been accused of being a potential recruiting tool for Islamic Extremists.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)
Tom Palmer of the Libertarian Cato Institute calls this book wrong and also a recruiting tool for radical Muslims, "Spencer’s book has one and only one effect. It doesn’t illuminate. It doesn’t explain. But it does enthusiastically endorse the interpretation of Islam offered by al-Qaeda. Robert Spencer is a one-man recruiting machine for Radical Political Islam."

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
Historian David Greenburg says that the book is written to conform to a right-wing position. He rejects the claims that the assumptions made by Woods, such as his representation of European explorations as being by people who had the same language and religion, are conservative.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
The Panda's Thumb reviewed the book, giving a synopsis that says "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, is not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally."

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/041174.php
Chadwick, Alex. "Commentary: New book reduces American history to right-wing dogma", NPR Special, National Public Radio, Inc., March 16, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-10-20. (in English)
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically.html

[SharonAnn]

1. I've been pointing out to people that Regnery "books" aren't valid.

Not valid in many ways. They're actually like a failed authors "rescue mission". These people can't get published elsewhere because they're not reputable.


Regnery:
They have an agenda.

They state untrue things.

They don't do fact-checking.

They don't correct errors.

etc., etc.,

When anyone recommends a book to me, I check to see if it's published by Regnery, the home forotherwise unpublishable right-wing authors.

[BOSSHOG]

2. But they do have a market

The ignorant trash which comprise bush's base and who stare into the radio each afternoon as limbaugh tells them what to think and who to hate. Regnery sets the bar very low and breaks no sweat going under it.

I recall a few years ago one of their books about kerry had come out. On the back cover someone (dumbass right wing pun-dit) said it was "well-researched." Bob Novak repeated that same line on Crossfire. In my watering hole, one of the right wing yahoos was blathering on in an anti-kerry diatribe, devoid of substance or fact. He mentioned the book, said it was "well researched." I asked him if he had read it. He said, not yet.

[never cry wolf]

3. Regenry factually incorrect? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

I am surprised they can stay in business seeing as how their target audience does not exactly count "reading" as one of their pasttimes.

[MH1]

5. They don't read, but they buy copies and donate them to the local library.

Something to think about.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Our job? Educate people about Regenery. nt

[ck4829]

6. Self-Kick for the evening crowd