Slashdot Mirror
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."
The only people who believed Frey wanted to be fooled: Glory to Dr. Dolan, as they say.
Screw honesty or even decent reporting - to hell with all that! It's too "costly". What happened to the day when it was more important to be right and honest than to sell tons of books/magazines/newspapers?
Disgusting...
My MythTV HowTo
The more people make a big deal of this guy, the more money he makes from publicity. Stop buying his stupid book.
While I think the publishers of a scientific journal bare some responsibility when it turns out an article was entirely bogus I don't understand why people want to blame the publishers of an Autobiography.
Had the publishers known the book was faked, contrived or otherwise bogus they should have refused publishing it as an autobiography. I see no reason for them to go out of their way to prove, or disprove it though.
People take some things far too seriously.
I can't expect honesty from my nightly news let alone a biographical book.
Before anyone worries about the standards of Oprah's latest gem we should have something in place to hold "news" publicists/broadcasters responsible for their tripe.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Of course it should be up to the author to decide whether his/her book is fiction or nonfiction, and that author should be held accountable for it. The publisher takes the risk of looking bad if they invest in a disreputable author. What's the problem here? Exactly how many people do you expect to hold your hand through life? Next we'll be quibbling over whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction.
On the other hand, it's a damn good book, and wouldn't have been as good if I thought it was fake. My girlfriend's English professor went to college with him, and said that the guy was definately a tortured soul. When he spent that 2 nights in jail (which he claimed was 5 years in his book), it really tore him up; for him, it was 5 years.
Regardless, this didn't hurt his book sales too badly! It's still on the top 5 sellers list!
As far as publishers fact-checking: Do we really expect these guys to do this? That could take some digging for them, and we all know how publishers can be.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
In other words, non-fiction books are a worse source of information than Wikipedia, which is constantly open to peer review (unlike dead tree media, which is unalterable once printed).
So, maybe now people constantly slamming Wikipedia for its lack of "fact checking" will stop?
It's only a matter of time before fact checking becomes a pay-for extra even in science journals.
I'm glad she tore into him; he deserved that. Still, why wasn't that her first reaction? What do women really want, then? The cynic in me says that when women complain about finding out that men aren't honest, they're not asking for us to be honest. They're asking us to be better at lying to them, and to create more perfect illusions. So do women want honesty, or do they just want a compelling storyteller- a guy who can tell her she's a princess (when she's not), and that he's Prince Charming (when he's not), and that her ass doesn't look big in those jeans (when it does)?
I find it quite irritating that some books are out to trick their readers, and there are many I'd prefer had never been written simply because it means I spend more time having to argue with and correct people on certain topics if they've been taking rubbish sources seriously. But the thought of non-fiction books having to be factually correct seems quite far-fetched. If publishers and authors could be sued for providing factually wrong books in a non-fiction category, then categories such as "New age" would be illegal, simply because authors who publish in them tend to be out to swindle their readers in one way or another by definition, and the publisher's probably in it for the sales. (Okay, I see New Age as fiction, but many book shops, publishers and people don't.)
Some of the best satire can come from effectively lying to an audience, and I don't see how you could cleanly distinguish it. Peter Jackson is just an example of someone who's done this, having faked an historical documentory (see Forgotten Silver) and lied about its origins to get it on TV. He had a lot of gullible people thinking they were seeing actual history, including the TV network, before he revealed it was all made up. What's the difference? Could he have been sued by the network? Possibly, but he took that chance and he wasn't, and now Forgotten Silver is considered a work of art.
As sad as I think it is that there are some really crappy books out there, and people who believe them, I'm not sure how rules could be made to fairly place responsibility on a publisher. Personally I think that fact checking should come from peers after publication, and it should be the responsibility of the reader to check if the facts have been checked. Hopefully anything that's actually important enough and relied on by enough people will have its facts checked, resulting in either confirmation, or a very embarassed author and publisher. There are always reputations to go on. In the case the article speaks of, the publisher is hopefully now being made to look more than a little stupid, and I'd like to think that Oprah's Book Club reputation is probably suffering a bit more than it was previously if its followers ever cared about this sort of thing. I've never followed her book club myself, but that's for good reason.
Some books, well, you really have to wonder if they're actually intended to be non-fiction in the first place. Biographies - especially unauthorized ones - are sometimes pretty unbelievable. And sometimes you just have to wonder what the hell the editors (yes, plural) were thinking. At some point in time, you'd expect that common sense would kick in and they'd say "Oh come on, that can't be right..."
But no. Time after time, you see all manner of media go through at least three levels of possible sanity checking and bullshit filter, and still somehow the real stinkers get through.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
It matters because the book was billed as an honest account of a serious addiction and how to get out of it. If people's view of addiction is twisted by misinformation, that can lead to misunderstandings and inappropriate methods of coping for addicts and their close ones.
Why, pray tell, did you happen to choose these particular examples? I'd almost suspect that you have a political axe to grind...especially since in your list of cases of "recent vintage" you left off several more compelling, more current, and more significant cases.
--MarkusQ
P.S. And before you start drawing unfounded conclusions about my politics, I happen to be a fiscally conservative registered Republican, who happens to hold my side to a higher standard than the "opposition". Where I was brought up, cheating to win meant you had lost, no matter what the scoreboard said.
Just as well they are fact checking the fiction books!
The mayor of the fucking city has more than a slight responsibility to figure out what is going on in his city before he goes to hang out with Oprah and spread bullshit. If some wild-eyed nutjob hobo claims murder in the Superdome, it can be safely ignored. When the primary governmental authority in New Orleans claims murder in the Superdome, he had damn well better be sure it happened. That's called "responsibility," and it comes with the job. This isn't some international crime ring. It doesn't require James Bond. Either there was murder in the Superdome or there wasn't, and if Ray Nagin can't be bothered to find out which it is before he shoots his mouth off on national syndication, then he's not doing his job.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Most 'news' nowadays is just repeating what other people say, rather than doing original research. After all, if all your news is just "so and so said", then you can't be sued for telling lies, since "so and so DID actually say this, we never said it was true or false."
THAT is the reason I don't bother with MSM anymore. It's all worthless PR.
And perhaps even if it is? Read Navahoax: a story about a very similar situation as this one, where a writer made up supposedly nonfiction autobiographical accounts and was published (the publishers here also say we don't fact check such stories). The stories in this case do deal with child molestation, among other things, and while the stories are not accusations per se, one wonders about the implications of publishing material like this under false pretenses. I tend to agree that it doesn't make that much difference, since one can perhaps get greater truths from fictional works, and if the phony "memoirs" label makes it easier for some people to accept those truths, what's the harm? On the other hand, I would think a publisher should make it their business to know whether this was really a memoir or is a fictional memoir, since it is their decision to market the book a certain way. Of course, even in truthful autobiographies there will be exaggeration and writer's license to interpret things in various ways; I'm not sure there's always an easy line to draw between truth and fiction.
If you had read it, you'd feel duped too.
"I'm glad she tore into him; he deserved that. Still, why wasn't that her first reaction? "
Why does anyone care about what Oprah does or thinks? I'm fascinated why anyone considers her more compelling or important than say, Madonna, Prince Charles, or Winnie the Pooh?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
When did you (or indeed anyone else) determine that there was a direct correlation between what women say they want, what they think they want (you know, deep down inside), and what they actually end up doing?
You have to realize: women and men don't speak the same language. Maybe we speak English, Spanish, German, Russian or what have you, but it dosen't matter where you are, all women speak Womanese. It's not that they're not being honest with you, it's that you're just not listening to what they're saying. When you ask for a number, and they ask for yours instead "because they don't have a phone", it means "Oh goody, another number to put in my showcase of losers so I can show the grandkids how hot grandma once was".
When they say "We need to talk" it means "I need to complain" When they say "Maybe", they mean "No." When they say "We were both wrong", they naturally mean "You were wrong, and if I have anything to do with you in ten years, I'm going to wave it in your face every chance I get!"
When they say "I like nice guys", it really means, "I want to go screw a biker!", and when they say "I don't want to date you because that would mess up our friendship" they really mean "You're nice, but you're a poor, ugly wuss and I'd rather talk to you about the bikers that will be gangbanging me later tonight."
The single biggest one though, and it's clearly the one you missed out on, when they say "Honesty is inportant to me!" they mean "Tell me only what I want to hear; I don't care if you've been with a three hundred women, I like you anyways (but I might not like you so much if you told me) just don't hurt my feelings."
This asshole's mistake wasn't only in not telling the truth, but it was not telling the truth to a vast audience, and misrepresenting reality on such a wide scale. If you're having an orgy on a lighted billboard that's surrounded by a million onlookers, it only stands to reason that you're going to get busted for it eventually. He and his publisher made their millions, and Oprah fans nationwide want to kick him in the nuts. I guess it all balances out.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I tested it out on the US Google, and "cyanide is good" trounces "cyanide is bad." This is true for poison in general. But to be fair, some of the hits may be about the band. Other earth shattering revalations: Food is good. God is good, not great. People loved Brokeback Mountain. And sex is in fact a weapon.
Oprah will believe anything. She exists to frighten stay-at-home midwestern housewives and, simultaneously, sell them a new brand of bleach. If Oprah didn't have her bizarre lies and scaremongering, then the frightened masses would stop watching. As it is, they _have_ to watch, otherwise they might miss the latest news about dangerous shady characters who kidnap little boys from school, mail them to Thailand in small parcels, and sell them into slavery in the broomstick rape industry.
DON'T MISS IT! THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR CHILD!
Have you seen what's being classified as non-fiction? I wish we can sue the garbage that's passed as non-fiction from both extremes. I'm sure the right-wing can spout stuff about Michael Moore's books, and Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? John Gibson's War on Christmas??? Half lies (or half truths, it's the same thing!) to straight up lies. It's all fiction. Check out http://www.mediamatters.org/ and search for ann coulter or rush.
The "Million Little Pieces" incedent is minor as far as I am concerned.
Step into the $2.55 million dollar Manhattan penthouse he bought with his lies and you might just change your mind. There's also mention of a summer home in cozy Amagansett.
It also almost got him a screenplay based on the book, and another based on the Hell's Angels. Look him up on IMDb.
Take Ann Coulter for instance. Her grasp of reality (or at least the difference between truth and fiction) is minimal at best.
I doubt that. I put Ann Coulter in the same bin as professional wrestlers. I have no doubt that Ms. Coulter is indeed a neoconservative (social conservative, fiscal liberal), but when she gets on TV and makes outrageous claims to tick some people off and gratify others, she is being an actor and an entertainer. The majority of what she says is extreme hyperbole. She can make a career off of exaggeration, and is doing exactly that.
Michael Moore does the same thing (though he tends to stick more to specifically attacking Bush and friends than Coulter, who has a habit of attacking this vast and twisted monster that she's built called "the liberal"). He's making a good living doing what he's doing.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Along these lines, Ken Lay's trial has now begun. A theme of his defense is that he was just a good old boy who was misled by evildoers within Enron. Whether or not that's the case
Issues like this pop up fairly often. When does an individual obtain so much power and influence that it becomes not only irresponsible but legally actionable for that person to say "I was misled; and therefore misled you"? One could say, "well, we're all responsible for our own investments," and I guess that's true. All of us reading Slashdot are clearly SuperWise folk who assiduously manage our investments, balance our checkbooks, and clear the cookies out of our browsers every day. But our dear Grandma Gertrude,
In one extreme limit, we protect Grandma Gertrude by creating an oppressive nanny state, in which regulations are thick and heavy
What I am suggesting here is that it might be far more effective to "hang" Oprah --- to stomp her ratings, dent her popularity, deflate her ego --- than it would be to point out that the author of "million little pieces" is an exaggerator. Similarly, it might be more effective to toss Ken Lay in the brig than to contemplate a better regulatory regime.
I've got a lot to learn about women but I can't imagine lumping all females - nearly three billion of them - into one basket like this. Maybe many women want honesty, maybe some have other priorities. They're not a big club though, and they don't all think the same.
You're not paying $200 because it costs $200 for the most cost effective producer to produce the book. You're paying $200 because that's what the only legal producer of the book knows that enough students will pay when their only alternative is to go without the book.
That's the essential difference between a free market and a monopoly. In a free market, competition will set the price near the cost of producing the book. In a monopoly market, the monopoly owner sets the price at the point where many consumers can just barely afford the product, because that's what maximizes total revenue. In one situation, the cost of production has something to do with the price, in the other it has nothing to do with the price.
So, for all you know, and for all you can do, the publishers may be snorting coke for your money. It's not like you can legally obtain a version of that specific book from someone who's actually checked the facts, or who's selling it for $5 when all they're doing is paying for a print run.