There have been two interesting publishing controversies recently, one involving a book that a publisher chose not to publish, and one involving a book that a publisher did choose to publish.
The not-published book, of course, was THE JEWEL OF MEDINA, which Random House canceled after concerns were raised by an Islamic scholar about its contents. Random House was worried about a backlash and possible acts of violence, while some people were disappointed by the decision, such as Salman Rushdie, who charged that they gave in to “censorship by fear.”
Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster recently published a, shall we say, less than truthy smear of Barack Obama called OBAMA NATION, which promptly went straight to the top of bestseller lists everywhere. The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal and the book has been criticized in the press, prompting the Observer and Politico to wonder if Simon & Schuster will have to answer for the book and suffer a backlash.
So, with all of that fresh in your brain, here’s what I’m wondering: how much responsibility should a publisher bear for what they choose to publish and choose not to publish?
Is a publisher morally responsible for the content they publish, or should the publisher respond to public demand, stand back, and let the public and marketplace determine the merits of the books they publish?
Do publishers have a civic responsibility or should they let the public decide?
Nathan Bransford says
I think anon raises an interesting point — why are memoirists (and the publishers who publish them) held to a higher standard than political authors (and the publishers who publish them)?
Arjay says
You bet your sweet bippy they’re responsible!
Anonymous says
So, what about Comrade Pelosi’s book? Why didn’t that sell? Don’t inquiring minds want to know, or at least discuss? How are you going to explain that? Crappy marketing? LOL
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
What does that have to do with anything?
Can the political trolls of both stripes please stand on the sidelines so we can talk about books? I’m going to be wielding the delete button liberally (and I don’t mean that in a political sense) from here on out.
r.c. says
“Do publishers have a civic responsibility or should they let the public decide?”
Don’t we all have a civic responsibility? Isn’t it kind of a sad reflection on the business that you have to ask this?
Erik says
I believe very strongly that the printed word has and will continue to have a tremendous affect on what could be called "culture", and that this is something which should be taken seriously.
Now, back to the biz. A publisher exists to make money. In order to do that, they can go with the quick-hits of what they know will be fashionable, regardless of veracity. But their reputation suffers in the long run for doing so.
S&S can publish whatever they want, and I will kvetch about it endlessly. If I can make use of this as an example as to why the public needs to support works of cultural value, I will. I hope that the backlash is more powerful than the $$$ they got by publishing it.
But it's their call as to what kind of publisher they want to be. I hope to be part of a movement that shows them that this was the wrong call.
Anonymous says
Nathan, my post was about a book. I got the impression that some people are trying to blame the best-selling status of Obama Nation on its publisher being “conservative.”
Personally, I think that’s a ridiculous premise. IMO a lot of liberals tend to overlook the fact that conservatives are readers, too, not just publicists or what have you! They buy books, a lot of books. I think a lot of conservatives would have bought the Jewel of Medina, too, and will once it finally gets published.
But, Nancy’s flop really does stump me. I know liberals are readers, too. So why didn’t her book sell?
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I think people have a handle on why Obama Nation is a bestseller, but that’s not what we’re talking about. The discussion isn’t about why it has sold well but rather about what responsibility a publisher has to publish a nonfiction book that is accurate, and whether a backlash against inaccuracy is justified. Politics doesn’t really have anything to do with this, we could have the same discussion about an inaccurate liberal book. But OBAMA NATION happened to be in the news, so there you go.
R. Daley says
A publisher’s decision is based on finances…will the book make money. Especially if it is a public entity, then it is beholden to its shareholders, and all decisions are based on top line revenues and bottom line earnings.
As a reader, I am comfortable in choosing what I do and do not read.
sex scenes at starbucks says
But what is civic responsibility? Can you even define it in today’s America? Where are the lines drawn between responsible and irresponsible? And, really, does a publisher have more civic responsibility than a writer, the bookseller, or the reader?
Anonymous says
I should have said “Shouldn’t it be libel?” rather than “… slander”.
Marva says
Better to keep the fiction (IT’S FICTION, YOU DUMMIES!) and not print the non-fic book laden with lies.
The responsibility of the publisher lies on that line. Is the book supposed to be ‘real’ or not? If ‘real’ then it’d better be true.
Okay, liberals need to start being suicide bombers to get any respect. Apparently, being a freakin’ nutcase is what’s needed to enforce your POV on the public.
Edith says
I think the publisher’s responsibility is to fact check. If what’s printed is a lie–then that’s libel and the publisher, as well as the author should be responsible. With all the fictionalized memoirs being published of late, one has to be seriously concerned about publishers ability to conduct simple fact-checking. I would think it should be a routine procedure for every book. Heck, even fiction books usually have a fact or two that needs verifying. Who’s the weak link? Is it being left to the underpaid copyeditor who could care less? Obviously authors are supposed to do their own due diligence before turning the book over for publication, but as we’ve seen authors aren’t always honest.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Check this out:
The Middle East Book Award
https://socialscience.tyler.cc.tx.us
/mkho/MEOC/
middle_east_book_award.htm
Haven’t found one yet for adult fiction…anyone know of any such awards?
JES says
Anonymous@ 3:37 PM and Nathan@3:42 PM — I almost brought that up before (non-fiction publisher vs. memoirist). Put OBAMA NATION up against, say, the James Frey mess from a year or so ago — A MILLION SHINY PIECES or whatever it was. The publisher flipped, and rightly so, when JF was exposed as a liar. At the time, at least as I recall, there was no outcry about the publisher’s responsibility. They were embarrassed as bejeezus, sure, and they took their embarrassment out on Frey. I thought that was a justifiable response on their part.
But if a publisher hasn’t taken explicit steps to protect itself — by contractually holding the author to some standard of truth (as any smart publisher would, I’d think) — I don’t see that the publisher deserves a pass. If they have taken those steps, then it’s on the author.
Nathan, isn’t this what… uh… is the term “indemnification” relates to? like holding a publisher harmless for factual errors in material which the author has averred to be “true”?
gsavorgnan says
Although I am opposed to censorship, I am also in favor of responsible reporting. If an author promotes his work as factual, then perhaps the author and publisher should be held to the same standard of due diligence as the news industry.
strangerface says
To the Anon who said : With the Obama smear book out there, did the author open himself up to a possible libel suit? How could a publishing house knowingly publish materials that were not true, unless they waived their liability in the contract with the author?
Yes, the author opened himself up to a possible lawsuit. Whenever you publish something that someone will disagree with, you take that risk. However, with the Corsi book it is a different situation than with a regular memoir. The difference is that Barack Obama is a public figure (legally speaking) which makes it harder to sue for libel. Obama would have to prove "actual malice" if he were to sue Corsi. And Corsi has pretty much covered his ass by citing "sources" for his claims. He can then say he just didn't know they weren't true (for all we know, he really does believe all this crud).
Legal departments in publishing houses are trained to look for the sort of thing that could bring a lawsuit like this. That's why they change names in memoirs, etc. When a person isn't a public figure, they can sue for invasion of privacy.
The author also makes certain reps and warranties when they sign a contract (Nathan can probably speak more to that). I wouldn't be surprised if the S&S contract with Corsi was very specific, to protect the house.
Betty Atkins Dominguez says
Simple answer, publishers should publish what they want to publish.
Anonymous says
Wasn’t it called “yellow journalism” when the press tried to get involved in creating gossip about political candidates?
Mary
katherinelw says
This may seem naive in the wake of all the previous comments but I feel strongly that publishers should stand behind the books they choose to publish.
Publishing is a huge investment of time, money and expertise. If you’re going to make that sort of investment then you should believe in your book and your author. And that means you don’t back down to fearmongers who say that the sky might fall. Neither do you publish something that you know is inaccurate and market it as fact.
Of course publishers can be duped by authors – we see it happening all the time with memoirists – but they should go into the process in good faith and believing in the book and the author. A publisher who publishes a smear campaign knowing that it’s full of inaccuracies and also knowing that it will sell millions of copies should be held accountable for any distress caused by their book.
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
M Clement Hall says
Nathan has thrown out a real “Hail Mary” and the players are scambling after the ball.
A writer will have a problem if
(s)he doesn’t grasp the elementary fact that the publishing industry is controlled by the rules and laws of business.
It is not a public service.
It is not a charity.
It is not a rich man’s playground.
It’s purpose is to make money for the owners. If it fails in that purpose, it becomes a part of history.
Inner Child says
The author and the publisher have strong Republican ties and are unapologetic about the intent of the book – to discredit Senator Obama. The book should be printed, if at all, as a piece of fiction. To represent it as fact is dishonest and disgraceful.
Gabrielle says
I think they are two separate problems. Censorship, with the Medina novel, is awful. Of course there are lots of iffy and potentially offensive books. They should still be published.
The second– publishers should do their job in making sure the facts are CORRECT. They stand behind the book if it’s in the Nonfiction section as saying the facts (not opinions) are correct. If the facts are incorrect, they haven’t done their job. *Especially* with such a high profile book as Obama Nation.
Mags says
Why’d it get picked up?
Jewel of Medina? Topical, but how’s the writing? Fabulous? Okay, decide whether to publish and stand by it. Not fabulous? Acknowledge that you’ve stepped into heated waters and take responsibility.
The Obama tome? You chose to grab, you knew money would follow, don’t complain if you’re held accountable for the fallout. You’ve got fact checkers.
Like everything, a publisher’s responsibility slides around, depending on the situation.
IM(so very)HO.
sex scenes at starbucks says
the same standard of due diligence as the news industry
What if the news industry was held to any standard of due dilligence??
Ok, that was rhetorical, just to bug Nathan. Heehee.
Anonymous says
Publishers, especially the good people at S&S whom I've worked with and adore, have a moral responsibility to publish the truth, and I don't think they take that lightly. I don't think their laywers take that lightly either.
Ben says
This is a tough call. I am against censorship–however, that is a personal standpoint. In the publishing industry, I’m given to understand that the driving force is book sales. If an agent, editor, or publisher doesn’t believe that a book is going to sell, then it uses that as a criterion for rejecting an author’s book. One could describe that as a sort of censorship.
It would be absurd to say that publishers must publish all books, of course. So some censorship is required to keep the industry practical.
I don’t like the fact that Random House pulled The Jewel of Medina. I think that it is within its rights as a publisher to refuse to publish something on moral grounds. However, if the Random House holds the rights to The Jewel of Medina, then that’s just mean. If a publisher refuses to publish a books for moral reasons, the author should have the right to seek another publisher or publish it online. Otherwise, a publisher could just buy a book, refuse to publish it for moral reasons, and leave it sitting in a shelf forever. That’s unfair to the public and unfair to the author. Random House should have rejected The Jewel of Medina outright if it had concerns because of its content.
Vieva says
I think that if they’re publishing nonfiction, they have a moral responsibility to at least TRY to make sure it’s honest – so the Obama book is a problem on that front. Because it’s known bull.
As far as refusing to publish based on fear – I think it was the wrong decision, but an understandable one. After all, they didn’t want their people getting targeted, and that’s another admirable trait. It’s two goods in opposition, and that’s the hardest thing to judge. It’s two good things. And while I might decide *for myself* to take the risk to publish and take the consequences, that’s a pretty difficult thing to take for *other people*. I think that’s an important distinction.
Anonymous says
The publisher, especially one in the supposedly “free and home of the “brave” USA, should have published the book about Mohammed’s mistress. It wasn’t even a Muslim who said there would be violence, it was a professor at a Texas college (not Muslim.) ANd even if it were a threatening Muslim, what happened to free press, free speech and that this IS AMERICA? NOT a fascist country who bows down to terrorists. I guess shopping is in order, but not book publishing and book reading. The PC police are at it again – conservatism in the guise of extreme politically correct liberalism.
What next, if I write a book about a government agency, the publisher will be scared that some corporate-sucking bribe-taking Congressman is going to blow them all up? Give me a break.
This is America. Random House should act like it. They are cowards and going against all that America stands for.
Anonymous says
from what i’m reading lately – a few memoirs – I don’t think they are truthful – people remembering in detail conversations, chair cushions, mom and dad’s conversation, what they wore, etc when the writer was 3 years old – give me a break!
Kristin Laughtin says
I’ve got to agree with JES here re: the responsibility of fiction publishers. RH is doing this based on something that “might” happen, and has happened before. (And the person it happened to, Salman Rushdie, is still against it!) But are they willing to do this any time any author writes something offensive? Because if something’s offensive, someone somewhere will be willing to kill because of it. Censoring works like this puts us on a slippery slope–how controversial does a work have to be before it becomes too “dangerous” to publish? How many people does it have to potentially offend? Does it matter who those people are, or are all demographics equal? There have been many books published that insult my religion/religious figures, and while I may dislike the content, I never expect any publisher to stop putting out such works out of fear. There’s freedom of the press in America, so publishers are free to publish (or not) whatever they want, but selective censorship still annoys me. It’s caving in and it’s cowardly and I wonder if it will start a new trend and how far that trend will extend.
Jeff says
I think publishers of non-fiction have a responsibility to make a minimal effort to check the facts of the nonfiction they publish. I wouldn't want to see a pubishing world like it is in Great Britain, but at the same time, far too much garbage has been published in the name of the free market.
As for the threat of terrorist actions against a publisher for publishing a work of fiction, I'd say the chances of that actually happening are miniscule. Terrorists have much juicier targets. I would have to say that we aren't being told the whole story here. My guess is S&S wanted out of this book, for whatever reason, and this is a handy excuse.
Jeff says
Sorry, that should have been Random House, not S&S.
kai says
Yes, I think the publisher is responsible for the content they publsh. If they choose to publish degrating, prejudice material shining a light on how all 5 year old blonde children should be eradicated, then they must stand behind that decision. This is no different. However, if they choose to publish it and the public doesn’t like it, the publisher should suffer the consequences. Just like they ‘suffer’ them when the public loves it, eats it up and reccommends it to all their friends. To break under pressure and retract a book after publishing seems wrong to me. They should have done all the research and made all the decisions about content BEFORE the book was published.
clindsay says
Re the Random House decision…well, that’s a hard one.
While the decision to not publish makes me personally uncomfortable, I can also see the other side of the situation. I was a bookseller in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1988 and 1989, during the time of the Satanic Verses/Salman Rushdie fatwa and the subsequent paranoia that ensued. I had good friends who worked at Cody’s Bookstore when it was firebombed for carrying the book. A lot of booksellers were (justifiably) frightened after that. Some bookstores chose not to carry the book.
Ultimately, our bookstore – a tiny independent – chose to carry the book but I do remember thinking to myself at the time “Yeah, censorship sucks, but at $3.95 an hour, does a bookseller really earn enough money to justify putting his or her life at risk to simply make a point?”
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
markwise says
Publishers are there to make money and not decide morality. If the public wants to buy it, then there will be a publisher out there to print it.
If publishers were meant to be guardians of our moral conscience, then there would be no Romance section in the bookstores.
putzjab says
I’m in complete agreement with markwise. Publishers are in it for the money. If they deem a story is not going to give them enough buck for all the banging they have to do to get the story on the shelf, they won’t bother. Obama stuff sells regardless of whether or not there’s an inch of truth to the content.
Sincerely,
Frustrated Struggling Wannabe Published Author…(Lena)
wafla says
Publishers and authors can publish whatever they please. Similarly, they are free to take the consequences. Corsi and his publisher should be sued into oblivion by the wounded parties. In that regard the system works just fine.
The question gets more difficult when people like Corsi incite murder. By de-legitimizing progressive views and dehumanizing progressives, we get credulous Republicans shooting unitarians in churches, killing Democrats, and blowing up buildings. In these cases Corsi and other profiteers are essentially steadying the shooter’s aim and pointing out targets, and then laughing all the way to the bank.
If the publishers didn’t want money so much, they would have no motive to publish these books. Fewer conservatives would be misled, and more Americans would be alive today. I know that money is awesomely cool… but it’s only one consideration in a decision, ergo the publishers aren’t really thinking this through.
Anonymous says
I don't think it's a question of morality. Nobody is saying publishers shouldn't publish immoral tales.
It's about lies. It's about deliberately publishing falsehoods. There are plenty of rag magazines and rag publishers to publish the lies, but they are known for publishing lies and nobody should take anything they publish seriously.
What Simon and Schuster does is hurt the reliability of all their other non-fiction. That's why most publishers take getting it right very seriously, because why should I believe anything S&S publishes if they are willing to publish a book full of lies? Where does it stop?
If they want to join the ranks of Regenery Press, they are welcome to do so. There's a lot of right-wing billionaires out there to buy up books and put them on the bestseller list.
But if they want to remain a reputable publisher, they should stand behind what they publish. If they can't do that, if right-wing billionaire money is just too tempting, fine, that's there business decision. But I hope they don't get offended if peope begin to doubt the reliability of the remainder of their book list.
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Anonymous says
Are (read here conservative)cable news networks morally responsible for misleading millions of viewers by putting their own spin (read here agenda) on programming and so called breaking news? Are newspapers morally responsible for printing misleading headlines, which less than savy readers scan and call themselves informed, and putting the truth in fine print on page 14B?
Or, is it up to the reader or viewer to fire up brain cell number two and actually incorporate their own thoughts, morals and values in deciding what to read, what to believe, and how to act and react?
On the other hand, morals rarely have a place when we’re talking bottom dollar. Publishers will publish what they believe will make them money, and they will back out on what they believe will cost them money.
Paula says
Being alive means accepting responsibility for one’s actions, Nathan. I strongly support the right to free speech, but just because we are free to say anything doesn’t necessarily mean we should.
Maripat says
I hate censorship in all of its ugly disguises. Afraid to publish a book? Shame on them. As for Obama Nation, well, it is the political season. I would’ve found it stranger if no such book even existed. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but there have always been books published on candidates, presidents and other world leaders. I’m sure most (if not all) have been less than credible. And sometimes it’s not done deliberately. If I wanted the truth I’d look toward the newspapers and hope they were honest. But books? Nah. Not even autobiographies or memoirs.
From where I’m standing, let the books be published. Publishers have the right to print what they want and readers have the right to read it or not.
M Clement Hall says
The repetitious claims of a country that prides itself on free speech should refer to Kurzita’s entry at 11.50.
Scott says
Publishers should make their own choices, and we should cast our consumer votes accordingly. If we're lucky, the reaction will right the ship by itself.
But that's my head talking.
My heart tells me the title alone is worthy of a resounding and very public box to S&S's corporate ear.
Anonymous says
Gosh, anyone else super curious about all of those ‘comment deleted’ entries? 🙂
Looks like you’ve been busy, Nathan! Great question. It got us all going.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@10:33-
Well, I guess I’ve learned by now learned that when politics is even tangentially involved it brings the tinfoil hat types out of the woodwork.
Nathan Bransford says
(I meant that in reference to the deleted comments, not the very good and non-deleted discussion)
Steppe says
I think the fact checking argument is unnassailable. Fact checking is fact checking…etc.
Obama fired off a 40 page rebuttal.
So the controversy must have been on characterization and inference building.
The Liberals should have had such a political weapon deployed or deployable.
The lady who got her fiction yanked made a bold artistic foray and she did get to keep the money and the rights to her book. I would think someone would come along and exploit the publicity factor.
The lemmings factor is in play.
The hidden factor in the equations is the
Russians are behaving in the way they are behaving to promote the Republican
image and standing not just to keep up the price of gas.
That’s tangential to the production of tombes of overt and subtle political
persuausion but it plays into the idea of manipulating cause and effect on the subtle difficult to find motivation levels.
The old “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” theme.
Just_Me says
I like to choose my own books.
I understand the publishers need to have veto rights. There are some things that aren’t ready to be published. They aren’t written well or no one will read. But when it comes to politics the publishers need to pick one side or the other: they either publish everything and let people decide or they censor everything.
Of the two books mentioned I did want to read Jewel of Medina. The topic is interesting to me. I couldn’t care less about Obama… that’s Just Me.
But imagine what would happen if publishers started censoring material based on reader backlash-
Have you read 1984?
How many books would be pulled off the shelves?
– Every single religious work, because it offends someone.
– Every science text, because that offends people.
– Most of the romance genre would be down the drain (heaven forbid adults talk about sex).
– Most mysteries, sci-fi, and fantasy books for being too violent
I really don’t know where you would end with that. Every book has the potential to offend someone. Random House has started a very dangerous trend.
Anonymous says
For obvious reasons, I’m going to post this anonymously.
Why is this particular publisher being vilified when religious ones publish what could be considered lies, too?
These latter aren’t called upon to verify the “facts” in some of their titles, are they?