Publishers Say 'Fact-Checking Too Costly'

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."

Comments

No incentive

[ryanr]

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.

Re:No incentive

[TubeSteak]

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.

Publishers aren't perfect.

[pahoran]

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

Re:Why these examples?

[Derling Whirvish]

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.

Re:AI people have a job to do....

[Athenais]

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