Publishers
Weekly: Gatekeepers of Political Correctness
by
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
DIGG THIS
Shortly
before his excellent book Bully
Boy, a biography of Teddy Roosevelt, was published my friend
Jim Powell emailed me that something called "Publishers Weekly"
had attempted a "preemptive strike" on the book by slandering
it on Amazon.com. The obvious objective of this attack was to try
to stifle sales before the book was even released.
I had noticed
this outfit before, and thought it very odd that it often has the
very first comments about newly-published books on Amazon.com and
other book sites, yet the comments are all anonymous. Who
are these people, and why do book sellers give them such a prominent
place?
Searching
the internet, I discovered that its anonymous "reviews"
(which are actually catty little diatribes) are distributed to hundreds
of publishers, libraries, and booksellers. The editor-in-chief of
this shadowy operation is one Sara Nelson, formerly of Glamour
and Self magazines, those pinnacles of American intellectual
rigor and serious scholarship.
It is well
known that the commercial publishing industry in America, like universities,
Hollywood, and so many other institutions, is almost totally dominated
by liberals and leftists. So much so that it was newsworthy a few
years ago when Random House established a division (Crown Forum)
that would publish conservative books, as did a division of Penguin
Publishing. Before that, only Regnery Publishing was known to publish
conservative or libertarian books on a regular basis. So it was
big news when, all of a sudden, there were three – out of hundreds
– of commercial publishers that would not automatically censor manuscripts
submitted by conservatives or libertarians.
The politically-correct
publishing industry apparently uses Publishers Weekly as
an additional censor, or outside filter, that discourages readers
from reading "the wrong" books while lavishly praising
the "right" ones. Hence, one sees vicious, anonymous
attacks on books like Bully Boy or my own books, alongside
ludicrously worshipful comments about some of the most shallow and
talent-less (but politically correct) authors in America.
I decided to
do a brief survey of what Publishers Weekly has had to say
about a few of the more notorious leftists in America, and here’s
what I came up with. Hillary Clinton’s Living
History should "appeal to people on both sides of the
political fence." In the audio version of the book "her
Midwestern accent is evenly pitched and pleasant." "The
casual and straightforwardness of her delivery will engender a sense
of trust . . ." and will leave readers with "a new respect
for the former First Lady." Yeah, whenever I hear the name
"Hillary Clinton" that’s exactly what pops into my head:
trust and respect.
As for her
husband’s long-winded autobiography, My
Life, Publishers Weekly announces that "when
matched against other presidential memoirs . . . [Bill] Clinton’s
scores favorably, certainly exceeding the flaccid efforts of . .
. Ronald Reagan." Nothing "flaccid" about ole Bill
Clinton, according to the feminists at Publishers Weekly.
Mario Cuomo
co-authored a book with Lincoln idolater Harold Holzer a few years
ago entitled Why
Lincoln Matters: Today More than Ever, in which they argue
that if he were alive today Lincoln would be a social democrat like
them. It is, says Publishers Weekly, a "heartfelt moral tract"
by "a centrist Democrat." "One comes away . . . nicely
uplifted by Cuomo’s intentions." So, if you feel the need to
be uplifted, there’s the recipe: Inquire about Mario Cuomo’s "intentions"
and you’ll feel better.
Ted Kennedy
has a new book out this year entitled America
Back on Track. Publisher’s Weekly calls it "An
effort to reawaken the belief in progress . . ." Americans
only believe in "progress," apparently, when far left-wing
Democrats are in power.
Kennedy’s "straightforward
solutions . . . like increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 – are
refreshing." The economics profession discredited the notion
of reducing poverty with job-killing minimum wage laws several generations
ago, a fact the anonymous "reviewers" at Publishers
Weekly are obviously oblivious to.
Then there’s
the book by James Carville and Paul Begala entitled Take
it Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future. This book,
written by two of the more ridiculous political hacks in America,
offers "an intelligent, carefully outlined strategy: to seize
power from the Republicans and restore it to its rightful place
slightly left of center." Why "slightly left of center"
is to be preferred to "slightly right of center" (or the
center itself) is not explained. My guess is that is where the anonymous
Publishers Weekly scribblers see themselves, which means
they are probably in reality miles to the left of center.
The
Carville/Begala screed (a word that is frequently used by Publishers
Weekly to describe books they don’t like) is said to be "remarkably
reasonable," "most persuasive," and "a refreshing
entry" into the field of political books. Yeah, whenever I
want to "refresh" myself I reach for something written
by James Carville, like a Bill Clinton speech.
In
sum, if you want reasonably reliable information about newly-published
books, take everything Publishers Weekly says with a giant
grain of salt. Better yet, ignore them completely.
November
24, 2006
Thomas
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the
author of The
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War,
(Three Rivers Press/Random House). His
latest book is Lincoln
Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
(Crown Forum/Random House).
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives at LRC
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org
|