"Fear" sells more than 750,000 copies its first day

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As I've said, many of the people who were at the events mentioned in the book have denied the accuracy of the accounts.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd give those denials. Mark Felt denied being Deep Throat repeatedly over the years.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'm not sure how much weight I'd give those denials. Mark Felt denied being Deep Throat repeatedly over the years.

Of course, but then again, Felt denied lying, betraying a trust and breaking the law, i.e. about what he accused Nixon of doing. Somewhat ironic isn't it.

The various people mentioned in Fear are named, are not accused of breaking any laws or lying and denied the accuracy of what some anonymous source or sources claimed to have happened. Given that several are considered very honorable and no one who was actually there have publicly stepped up and said that any of it is true, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to be gained by hiding behind anonymity in this situation, so I wonder why they do.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, but then again, Felt denied lying, betraying a trust and breaking the law, i.e. about what he accused Nixon of doing. Somewhat ironic isn't it.

False equivalence. Do you really think whistleblowers and criminals are equal?

[frahse]

Originally Posted by GreyWolfsGhost

Not just the US, here in Winterpeg there are 168 holds for 8 copies (ebook) and 68 for two audio.

What I found interesting was that Woodward said he had looked hard for "collusion" for 2 years and never found any sign.

..just a bunch of crazies like all politicians

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Catlady

False equivalence. Do you really think whistleblowers and criminals are equal?

I think that people who lie, betray trusts and break laws are criminals, regardless if you agree with them politically or not. Whistleblowers are something very different. If Feld had resigned his post, like the much more honorable Elliot Richardson, and announced that he couldn't work for someone who asked him to break the law, then he would have been a whistleblower. Someone who leaks to the press (which is a felony) in order to back stab someone else because he was bypassed on a promotion and then denies having done it for for 30+ years isn't a whistleblower.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

False equivalence. Do you really think whistleblowers and criminals are equal?

It seems to me that the labels "whistleblower" and "criminal" are of no assistance in determining credibility. They are simply labels. There are so many criminal offences today, many not involving any form of dishonesty. And whistleblowers are generally (but not always) motivated by malice and their allegations suspect. The best starting position is almost always scepticism.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by darryl

And whistleblowers are generally (but not always) motivated by malice and their allegations suspect.

Do you have any statistics or other data showing that?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Do you have any statistics or other data showing that?

Only personal experience, anecdotal evidence and unpublished statistics. In the dim distant past I worked for a time for a large organisation. There was a huge pile of letters, overwhelmingly anonymous ones, suggesting that some particular person or organisation should be subject to scrutiny. I can't recall the exact statistics but the organisation found hardly any of these letters were of any use. Something like 10% to 20%. When I was first told of this I didn't believe it and did my own relatively small sample. I vividly recall being quite hopeful about one matter where the informant was a professional adviser who gave his name and some very general information. When I called I discovered that the informant concerned was no longer the adviser of the particular person, having been sacked. When asked for specifics this so-called professional advised me that his former client had done nothing whatsoever wrong whilst with him, because he had kept him on the straight and narrow. Now, of course, that he could no longer do that he was sure the person must now be cheating! In another one of that sample the informant gave a name with an address that proved to be at the bottom of a lake!

Somewhat to my surprise my own sample was consistent with these statistics. Anecdotally acquaintances in other organisations performing similar functions confirmed their experience was similar.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that people who lie, betray trusts and break laws are criminals, regardless if you agree with them politically or not. Whistleblowers are something very different. If Feld had resigned his post, like the much more honorable Elliot Richardson, and announced that he couldn't work for someone who asked him to break the law, then he would have been a whistleblower. Someone who leaks to the press (which is a felony) in order to back stab someone else because he was bypassed on a promotion and then denies having done it for for 30+ years isn't a whistleblower.

Elliott Richardson was not a whistleblower. Richardson resigned rather than follow an order, as did William Ruckelshaus. They acted honorably, but neither one was revealing secret information. The most notable whistleblower of that era was probably Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

[glow]

Actually got the audiobook from my library (in Northern NJ) on publication date (I put in for it in advance) but for some reason they do not even have the ebook? Seems strange, hope that's not some sort of trend? (I'm not really an audiobook fan but I'm dealing in this instance.)

[stumped]

I wonder what the total sales of all this years trump/white house expose books are?
I'd guess north of 10 million though it could be the same million people buying 10 books each
is there some actual sale/publishing category which would include all the well known ones ?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by stumped

I wonder what the total sales of all this years trump/white house expose books are?
I'd guess north of 10 million though it could be the same million people buying 10 books each
is there some actual sale/publishing category which would include all the well known ones ?

I have no idea of the numbers but I'd bet there have been (and will continue to be) more books about Trump -either pro or con - than any other recent US president.

[darryl]

I doubt we will see many pro-Trump books. This is not a comment on his merit or otherwise, but on the demand for such books.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by darryl

I doubt we will see many pro-Trump books. This is not a comment on his merit or otherwise, but on the demand for such books.

Not see them because they don't come to our attention, or not see them because they don't exist? I don't think I can be bothered to go look for them, but I suspect they exist.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Not see them because they don't come to our attention, or not see them because they don't exist? I don't think I can be bothered to go look for them, but I suspect they exist.

If so, they are not getting any publicity at all. Contrast this with Fear.