The NYT takes on the NYT

[fjtorres]

Margaret Sullivan, NYT Public Editor: "Publishing battle should be covered, not joined."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/pu...ined.html?_r=0

But it’s certainly true that the literary establishment has received a great deal of sympathetic coverage. Authors including Douglas Preston and Philip Roth have been featured giving their allegiance to the complaint against Amazon. But Amazon itself (as well as writers who say legacy publishers have ignored their work while Amazon has made reaching readers possible) is represented less consistently and forcefully. It doesn’t help that Amazon generally doesn’t comment on controversies of this kind. (One worthy exception was Mr. Streitfeld’s July 13 article in the Sunday Business section.)

It’s easier to find Amazon defenders and fans outside the pages of The Times. The tech writer Mathew Ingram, for example, writes that though the conventional wisdom says that Amazon is “an aggressive and possibly illegal monopoly aimed at killing publishers, and that its behavior is also bad for authors and probably consumers as well,” the opposite is true.

“Amazon’s entrance into the book publishing and distribution market,” he says, “has been nothing but good for consumers — because it has meant both lower prices and more choice — and arguably for many authors as well.”

In some Times stories, the Amazon position is summarized in a few sentences, and then it’s back to the opposition’s fears and anger.

Consider an article last week on the business section front headlined “Literary Lions Unite in Protest Over Amazon’s E-Book Tactics.” Quoting the powerful agent Andrew Wylie as predicting the death of literary culture, it reported that many authors — not all of whom are published by Hachette — want the Justice Department to investigate Amazon for illegal monopoly tactics. But it’s not until near the end that doubt is sown: “Whether a viable case could be mounted against Amazon is a matter of debate among antitrust scholars. An earlier effort by Hachette to interest government regulators in a case did not go anywhere.”

In that story, the author Ursula K. Le Guin offered more on the perils of Amazon. “We’re talking about censorship: deliberately making a book hard or impossible to get, ‘disappearing’ an author.”

But Barry Eisler — who writes best-selling thrillers and left traditional publishing for a lucrative deal with Amazon — points out that removing pre-order buttons and slowing shipping hardly amounts to “disappearing” or censorship. On the contrary, he says, Amazon’s self-publishing platform helps many authors who otherwise might never find an audience.

MY take: It’s important to remember that this is a tale of digital disruption, not good and evil. The establishment figures The Times has quoted on this issue, respected and renowned though they are, should have their statements subjected to critical analysis, just as Amazon’s actions should be. The Times has given a lot of ink to one side and — in story choice, tone and display — helped to portray the retailer as a literature-killing bully instead of a hard-nosed business.

I would like to see more unemotional exploration of the economic issues; more critical questioning of the statements of big-name publishing players; and greater representation of those who think Amazon may be a boon to a book-loving culture, not its killer.

I assume the pushback on BOGO Streifield got too strong to ignore.
I still expect the NYT's gold-plated campaign to continue. Those $100k full page ads need servicing, after all.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I assume the pushback on BOGO Streifield got too strong to ignore.

BOGO? As in buy-one-get-one? If that's the abbreviation, what did David Steifield buy and get? If not, please explain otherwise.

Those $100k full page ads need servicing, after all.

This can be tested by taking a random sample of New York Times full pages ads and then looking at related coverage. But before I do, can you also expand on this claim?

I hope you aren't accusing the news and advertising organizations at the New York Times of being in a conspiracy.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I hope you aren't accusing the news and advertising organizations at the New York Times of being in a conspiracy.

Nope. Just accusing them of having picked a side.

[fjtorres]

I'm not the one bringing this up now.
She does:

Then there was the Page 1 article in August about a full-page ad criticizing Amazon, signed by 900 authors, that was scheduled to appear in The Times two days later.
Noting that ads normally don’t become front-page news, some commenters also objected to Mr. Streitfeld’s seeming dismissal of an opposing petition with nearly 8,000 signatures. He described it as a “rambling love letter” to Amazon.

It's been a talking point for months: buy an NYT ad, get fawning editorial coverage for free two day before.
BOGO.

Anybody with a problem, take it up with Streitfield.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nope. Just accusing them of having picked a side.

The way I see it, the New York Times and Washington Post are the umpire for factual US-oriented issues that might be discussed in a forum like this. And the Public Editor is the umpire of the umpires. So, despite liking the side picked, I have no argument with what you write.

When reading at least one the articles in question, I did think it should have been stamped, on the side, with the word "Analysis." Years ago, newspapers commonly did that when an editor noticed, in a reported article, that most of the quotes were going in one direction.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's been a talking point for months: buy an NYT ad, get fawning editorial coverage for free two day before.

Amazon puts multi-page inserts in the Sunday paper before Christmas. Please show me the fawning pro-Amazon December articles.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The way I see it, the New York Times and Washington Post are the umpire for factual US-oriented issues that might be discussed in a forum like this.

...you forgot Fox News

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon puts multi-page inserts in the Sunday paper before Christmas. Please show me the fawning pro-Amazon December articles.

I prefer to consider the anti-Amazon editorials as just another freebie for the BPHs in addition to the weekly NYT Best Sellers list. Does Amazon give the Times their best seller information? If not, that's probably another reason for an anti-Amazon slant.

[Dulin's Books]

The Times has given a lot of ink to one side and — in story choice, tone and display

at least someone over there sees it- and hopefully not just on this particular topic

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...you forgot Fox News

Indeed, Equally credible.


And, seriously?
No amount of money would make either say anything good about Amazon, or Google, or Microsoft.
West Coast Tech companies eeeevile...
They keep disrupting all the sweet little rackets.

[fjtorres]

Here:

http://www.hughhowey.com/standing-ovation/

http://www.hughhowey.com/give-customers-what-they-want/

http://www.hughhowey.com/david-strei...-disingenuous/

There’s also this gem of a piece which ran the day before Douglas Preston and company paid over $100,000 for an ad in the New York Times. It states one side of this debate (much as Douglas Preston has been doing) and serves as an advertising twofer. It’s not reporting; it’s shilling.

Dozens of similar takes all over. Most are less kind than Howey.

That is why Sullivan spoke up.
For what it's worth.

All it'll take is another ad...

[crich70]

I can see their point. The press is supposed to present an objective viewpoint on whatever the issue under discussion is and it's hard to do that if you are taking sides in the argument.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

I can see their point. The press is supposed to present an objective viewpoint on whatever the issue under discussion is and it's hard to do that if you are taking sides in the argument.

Report the news, don't create it.
Unless you're William Randolph Hearst and you wsnt to start a war.

Selling an advocacy ad and then reporting the ad on the front page is a wee bit unethical. But business as usual.

It's all click bait in the end.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by crich70

I can see their point. The press is supposed to present an objective viewpoint on whatever the issue under discussion is and it's hard to do that if you are taking sides in the argument.

I don't remember the press losing the right to produce and publish their own opinion pieces.

In any case, none of this rises to near the level of the 1920 NYT blunder of lecturing Robert H. Goddard on rocketry.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I don't remember the press losing the right to produce and publish their own opinion pieces.

In any case, none of this rises to near the level of the 1920 NYT blunder of lecturing Robert H. Goddard on rocketry.

Not at all. But mark them as editorial; don't try to pretend it is factual reporting. We're not as stupid as they are.

Oh, they've done far worse and more recently. That is why Sullivan's job exists:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...garet-sullivan

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No amount of money would make either say anything good about Amazon, or Google, or Microsoft.

This is both inconsistent with what you wrote in #4* and mistaken:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/bu...anted=all&_r=0

________________________________
* Everyone is entitled to change their mind, but I didn't read a statement that you had.