THE POINT about the Paris Review/CIA story is that American literature degrades itself when it distorts its own history. If it can't be believed about this, then how can it be believed about anything?
There are writers out there whose brains are so diseased by postmodern philosophy that truth has no meaning to them. They disqualify themselves to speak as America's voice.
Daniel Handler, one of America's most successful writers-- bonded member of literature's Inside game-- posted hundreds of comments on this blog the last few years under his "Jimmy Grace" identity trying to squelch the PR/CIA story, and this campaign against corruption which led to its revelation. If the story is unimportant, why the bother? Why did James Linville send me over 100 crazy emails on the topic, and travel from London to NYC in 2007 to consult Paris Review editors on how to play it?
If it was unimportant, why did they not from the beginning admit the claim?
To them it's very important. The George, Being George book worries over CIA "contamination" of the journal's reputation.
The matter is important for what it says about what American literature became.
(Watch for some quotes at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com which give an indication of the sea change in perspective and focus undergone by American literature over the past six decades.)