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."

10 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. A million little pieces of shit by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only people who believed Frey wanted to be fooled: Glory to Dr. Dolan, as they say.

  2. Ha! by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  3. irony by icepick101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more people make a big deal of this guy, the more money he makes from publicity. Stop buying his stupid book.

  4. Well hell... by east+coast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Who really gives a fuck? by pilkul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Why isn't Oprah being scrutinized? by karmaflux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Why isn't Oprah being scrutinized? by Chmarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Why isn't Oprah being scrutinized? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  9. Re:Not a new thing. by stonedonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Who really gives a fuck? by Inspector+Lopez · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It matters because the book was billed as an honest account of a serious addiction and how to get out of it.
    I don't completely disagree. However, one of the principal reasons for prominence of this particular book was the air of authority lent it by Oprah. Oprah might herself say, "I was misled," but her stature as a recommender of books does, I think, impose upon her a certain responsibility. If she had liked the book very much, but said, "actually, it's more like fiction than fact," then she wouldn't be in a pickle. Perhaps we should dump upon the author, but Oprah herself deserves a little of the blame, here.

    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 ... if you're the CEO of a company that is worth such a stupendous amount, can it really be the case that "I was misled" is an allowable defense?

    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, ... perhaps there's a different level of sophistication that we expect of her. If a charming gent like Ken Lay says, "Enron is da bomb!" and subsequently takes Grandma Gertrude to the cleaners, whom are we more angry with, Ken Lay, or Grandma? Ken Lay made in a week what Grandma made in a lifetime. He made in one afternoon what his charwoman made in a year. Doesn't that affect the meaning of "I was misled"?

    In one extreme limit, we protect Grandma Gertrude by creating an oppressive nanny state, in which regulations are thick and heavy ... and fallible. Or, we could take a Victorian British model of dealing with its naval captains; hanging a few of them from time to time when they fail to stomp the French, "to encourage the others."

    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.