Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
Posted on 07/13/2015 12:29:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last Thursday, The New York Times made a very serious allegation against a sitting Senator and presidential candidate. When asked by Politico’s Dylan Byers why Ted Cruz’s bestselling book “A Time for Truth” was kept of its bestsellers list, they alleged that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence” was that someone (read: someone hired by Cruz) made “strategic bulk purchases” of the book. Essentially, Cruz was accused of using dirty tricks to try to get his book to the top of the bestsellers list.
The next day, Cruz’s publisher HarperCollins has spoken out, saying they reviewed sales data and found “no evidence” of bulk purchases. The Cruz campaign also hit back, noting that other bestsellers lists that omit bulk purchases have included Cruz’s book. But most damning was when respected bestsellers lister Amazon said in a statement that there was no evidence behind the Times‘ charge.
My advice to the Times is simple: put up or shut up.
If this had been a simple Cruz-versus-Times political tumble, the Times would have won. Those who are predisposed to believe the word of Tea Party politicians over the so-called “newspaper of record” would have believed Cruz. But those who the Times relies on for its influence– the media, political and East Coast elites– would have inevitably believed them.
But there are now two respected media institutions backing Cruz. No doubt, HarperCollins has a motive to defend its product’s sales, but Amazon has no dog in this fight. And by continuing to include Cruz’s book on their bestsellers lists despite the controversy, respected organizations like The Wall Street Journal and Nielsen are implicitly saying the Times is wrong.
The converse is also true; by continuing to exclude Cruz, the Times is implicitly saying those respected organizations are either incompetent, hoodwinked, or in the tank for the Texas Republican. Either one is a serious charge; serious enough that it requires evidence behind it.
The Times statement argued forcefully that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence” was not in Cruz’s favor. If there’s so much evidence pointing in that direction, it should be made public for other outlets and reporters to judge. But again, with such a strong statement, the Times only raises more questions about why other outlets missed this super-duper obvious smoking gun.
If the Times is reluctant to go public with its methodology, the paper can pull a Rolling Stone and hire an independent third party to go through the evidence and issue a public report. It might cost a pretty penny, but surely that’s better than leaving a dark cloud of suspicion hanging over what was the single most respected and cited bestsellers list in America.
I would ask this of the Times higher-ups: how would you react if a reporter’s source leveled an extremely serious allegation against a presidential candidate, said there was soooooo much evidence proving it, and then refused to produce said evidence? I say “would,” because as history has taught us, the Times has no problem passing along innuendo-laden smears of the presumptive Republican nominee.
But The New York Times bestsellers list has always been a bright spot that has eluded the highly partisan debates over the paper’s biases. But now, the Times is at risk of losing even its respectability on that front. Their only way forward is clear: silence critics by producing their irrefutable evidence of bulk purchases.
Of course, that’s assuming that evidence exists.
NYT needs to be sues every time they publish something based on their political leanings far to the left.
Hopefully NYT will clear this up today. And everyone screaming may be required.
But now, the Times is at risk of losing even its respectability “
Oh ,please you really didn’t mean that bit of gratuitous crap
They claim to have evidence yet refuse to show it.
hmmmmmm
Ted Cruz Ping! I find it very interesting that HarperCollins and Amazon are sticking their necks out on this one....
Excellent.
Yeah, but I'm guessing they're going to lawyer up.
Tom Lipscomb, a former CEO of Times Books, has written us with his thoughts on the controversy:
“As President of Times Books at the NY Times, I got quite accustomed to arbitrary activities at the New York Times Book Review, usually directed at “politically undesirable” books.
I hate “bulk sales” and fake political bestsellers too, and some right wing publishers are experts at it, but Harper Collins certainly has the internal tools to know where their inventory is going. You might want to ask the NYTBR how the bulk sales influenced their Best Seller List reporting on Hillary’s last bomb.
You might find it interesting to actually sit down with Harper’s sales manager and take a look at their sales outflow on the Cruz book, and then try to go over to the NYTBR and get them to show you their “evidence.” You are likely to find disarming openness at a commercial enterprise like Harper, and a total haughty coverup at what is supposed to be a transparent media company that serves the public.
You’ll also find the NYTBR relies more on self-reporting by bookstores filled with attitude and Harper just relies on boring invoices and numbers. Given the kind of people who run bookstores the results of bookseller attitude are predictable. A heartbreaking story of a one legged orphan in Detroit who became the 3rd string place kicker for the Detroit Lions will rocket up the bestseller list far ahead of its actual sales, while some proto-fascist politician from flyover country will be denied the attention he would get if the thousands of yahoos who buy his execrable book were given their proper due.
The NYT Bestseller list depends on “reporting from bookstores;” not statistics. Harper has cold, hard, figures on actual orders placed, bulk or NOT.
Make them both show down.
No doubt in my mind what we will learn.”
Citation for Post #10:
NYTBR has been a leftist biased vanity fish-wrap for four decades that I know of but about 16 years ago I gave up anything beyond an occasional glance.
I have leftists I read and when it is not on politics I can deal with it. I don’t need a propagandist to tell me how great it is.
But it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters right? Playbook- page 107.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.