Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Publishers Say 'Fact-Checking Too Costly'

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the time-to-write-my-memoirs dept.

Mr. Ghost writes "Members of the book publishing industry say that profit margins are too small to fact check "non-fiction" books. Instead they rely on the "honesty" of the authors submitting the book. This has come to a head with the revelation from the author of "Million Little Pieces" that he lied about the accounts in his memoirs."

6 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. No incentive by ryanr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Standard author contract says that the author warrants that their writing is original, factual, etc... and that the author will pay for as many lawyers that the publisher feels their need should there be legal trouble. So there's not a lot of risk for th publisher, and not a huge amount of incentive to spend a lot of effort fact checking. There's still the risk that the author goes bankrupt, and the publisher is back to paying for their own lawyers still, I suppose.

    My publisher does some checking for plagarism, since that has come up a couple of times.

    1. Re:No incentive by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative
      In this particular case, there's the possibility that the publisher lady already knew that Frey's book was BS.

      This article here http://www.slate.com/id/2135069/ refers to a 2003 article http://www.startribune.com/389/v-print/story/20927 9.html entitled
      Memoir writers walk a wavy line between reality and invention: What author James Frey and others said in 2003 about challenges to the truthfulness of his bestselling nonfiction memoir.
      Oprah's Book Club should have stuck to the classics.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. Publishers aren't perfect. by pahoran · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know about yours, but my mother taught me not to believe everything I read / hear / see on TV.

    --
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
  3. Re:Why these examples? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 4, Informative

    None of the four you mention as alternatives have had a book they wrote pulled by the publisher because of inaccuracies in it. Both of the books in the parent comment have been. That's why "those" examples.

  4. Re:AI people have a job to do.... by Athenais · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or to make it a single result with a nifty flash anim, GoogleFight. :)

    --
    Bored With ProgressQuest?
  5. Re:Who really gives a fuck? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Informative
    Enron had little to do with deregulation, and everything to do with accountancy rules.

    Accountancy rules are incredibly complicated, and as a result, allow distortions to be created. When a rule is complicated, the number of people who are likely to understand it is less than if the rule is simple. These experts are then typically employed by large corporations and accountancy firms, in part because they want to ensure compliance, but also because they want the accounts to tell the best story.

    Accounts are often not a true reflection. A lot of companies hit the wall after a few years of good accounts. The accountants broke no rules, but instead had made them look as good as possible by using the rules to their advantage.

    Savvy businesspeople will tell you to "look behind the accounts" because they know what a distortion they can be, and yet they are presented as a government-approved view of a public company. The only way this will change is if the rules are made simple in terms of what you can do in a company, and how accounts are reported.