The NYT takes on the NYT

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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.

You had to go all the way back to 2013 to find something?

[crich70]

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.

I'm not saying they can't have an opinion. Of course (IMO) it should be clearly understood that it is an opinion piece in that case and not left for the reader to assume that it is fact.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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

Amazon runs weekly ads in the NY Times Book Review (sometimes more than 1 ad) and frequent ads in the main newspaper during the week. I subscribe to the print edition of the Times (every day at approximately $55/month) and regularly see these Amazon ads, many of which are full-page ads. Yet, there doesn't seem to be any BOGO.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

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

Actually, I don't think they saw it at all. I didn't find the "analysis" very analytical nor did I find any of the "complaints" such as sufficient to demonstrate a level of bias.

I do think the articles could have been more nuanced and perhaps expanded a little. For example, it could have been pointed out clearly in the articles that the petition favoring Amazon was open to anybody to sign and very few significant authors signed it. Even being open to the world to sign, it only gathered 8,000 signatures. In contrast, the 900 who signed the anti-Amazon petition (a) used their own money to buy the ad, (b) are, in many cases, well-known authors, and (c) in most cases are not published by Hachette.

Another significant difference that could have been noted was that the pro-Amazon petition was definitely pro-Amazon and anti-BPH. In contrast, the anti-Amazon petition was anti-Amazon but not necessarily pro-BPH (excluding the idea that if one is anti-Amazon one must be pro-BPH).

I also think the public editor who did the analysis missed the greater concern: Sure Amazon says it wants lower prices, but look at how many ebooks it doesn't discount or doesn't discount significantly; consider that what Amazon wants is Hachette to make up any losses that Amazon would incur from discounting titles; that Amazon has not promised that it would pass on any savings to consumers -- it has only said that discounting should be allowed and that it should be at the BPH's expense, not Amazon's; and that the primary concern of the 900 authors is keeping channels of distribution other than Amazon alive and healthy, whereas Amazon's only concern is to keep Amazon alive, healthy, and in control of the ebook market.

There seems to be running rampant this notion that Amazon is the bookbuyer's best friend when the reality is that Amazon's best friend is Amazon.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

You keep saying it is BOGO but if that were really true, considering the financial problems that print newspapers face, the Times would be publishing daily articles praising Amazon. One or two ads by the 900 group don't come close to the amount of money Amazon spends advertising in the Times.

You want the Times to be unbiased, why not show a bit of objectivity yourself.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by rhadin

There seems to be running rampant this notion that Amazon is the bookbuyer's best friend when the reality is that Amazon's best friend is Amazon.

There also seems to be the notion running rampant that Amazon is against authors and publishing houses. In reality, Amazon is a business that sells books (among a plethora of other products); said books coming from authors and publishing houses.

All businesses want to make more money for their stockholders, increase market share and some even want the customers to be satisfied. I am pro-Amazon as long as they satisfy me. They have done this consistently for years - and not just in their ebook ecosystem. They are my first source to check for hardcovers, used books, etc. They are my first source to check for electronics. I never have problems returning items, getting my items quickly in the condition stated or getting assistance when I have questions.

This is a negotiation process that Amazon and Hachette are pursuing. Amazon negotiates numerous contracts that don't make news like this one has. Why does no one question Hachette's negotiation tactics? Are they the bookbuyers best friend? Are they the authors best friend? Or are they a company like all others?

I understand why the NYT is stirring everything up. That is their business after all.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rhadin

market.

There seems to be running rampant this notion that Amazon is the bookbuyer's best friend when the reality is that Amazon's best friend is Amazon.

Can't that be said to be the case with any business though? I mean they want good relations with their customers certainly, but they are in the business of making money 1st. It's how they stay in business I'd think.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...you forgot Fox News

Yes, they do provide info without the rampant Liberal bias evidenced in many other news sources.

Why the winky?

Oh wait...perhaps you were once again injecting your left-wing political commentary in an inappropriate place?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

Oh wait...perhaps you were once again injecting your left-wing political commentary in an inappropriate place?

One problem with that - I'm not left-wing.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

One problem with that - I'm not left-wing.

But all the commentary you inappropriately inject on non-political forums is.

You may not "be" left wing, right wing, or a flying monkey of any kind, but to paraphrase a wise two-winged bat: "It's not what we are underneath, but what we do that defines us."

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

But all the commentary you inappropriately inject on non-political forums is.

You may not "be" left wing, right wing, or a flying monkey of any kind, but to paraphrase a wise two-winged bat: "It's not what we are underneath, but what we do that defines us."

Fox News is a rag! When I want a conservative slant on things, I read the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. When I want a liberal slant, I read the New York Times and Washington Post. And when I want a slant that reflects my beliefs, I read Reason and Cato.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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

I agree with her; and I'm glad the NYT created that position. If done properly, it helps to keep reporting as fact-based and not editorial-based.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Fox News is a rag!

No, Fox News is not a rag. A rag is a term used for print news. Fox is not print news.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

No, Fox News is not a rag. A rag is a term used for print news. Fox is not print news.

...then it's an eRag

[fjtorres]

Fox News is a gold mine.
The more it's talked about, the more money they rake in.
It's all about making money, on both extremes.