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."

28 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. AI people have a job to do.... by Palal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    AI programmers have another job to do.... since machine translation is moving along quite well, why not develop a fact checker based on a similar algorithm, that compiles things from various sources and then presents it to a human to do final checking?

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:AI people have a job to do.... by Repton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Already exists --- we just have to ask google.

      For example: "Global warming is true" --- 774 results. "Global warming is false" --- 352 results. Case closed!

      (in other controversial results, evolution wins by 76,000 to 21,000 and Santa Claus is clearly real.)

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    2. 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. :)

  2. Wait a minute, this is Slashdot by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't the headline read Publishers Admit Wikipedia is More Accurate Than Books?

    1. Re:Wait a minute, this is Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This comment is funny, but unfortunately true. I have nothing against Wikipedia, but being a college student, I find myself going to Wikipedia to get information over my textbooks. Does it make sense to find my $200(USD) textbooks less informative and less accurate than a free website which is more like an informative graffiti board?

      I mean, come on, publishers. What are you doing with my $200 dollars? Last term alone I paid over $600 to book publishers, and you're telling me you can't guarantee their accuracy with this? That's sadly pathetic. I could hire someone to read the text for accuracy myself after a few terms making this kind of money.

  3. 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!
  4. Too costly by ewg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't even have time to fact-check this reply!

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  5. Well, if it's costly, it's clearly bad... by Nato_Uno · · Score: 4, Funny

    Filing taxes is a big pain, too, so maybe I'll just give that one a miss this year and see how that turns out...

    --

    Have fun,

    Nathan 'Nato' Uno
    http://web.unos.net/
  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
    1. Re:Publishers aren't perfect. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't believe you.

      Cause my father taught me not to believe everything I read on Slashdot.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  10. 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.
  11. And the Ambulance Chasers are loose.. by SirFozzie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA

    Late Friday afternoon, plaintiff's attorney Marc Bern said he filed a lawsuit against Random House and its Doubleday imprint in U.S. District Court in Manhattan charging that the publishers misrepresented that book as nonfiction. His client, California resident Karen Futernick, alleges in the suit that she purchased "A Million Little Pieces" on that basis but that the defendants "failed to conduct a reasonable investigation or inquiry regarding the truthfulness or accuracy" of the material. Mr. Bern said that he will seek more than $50 million in damages for the plaintiffs. "Nobody can get away with profiting with a product that you represented as something that it is not," says Alan Ripka, another partner in Napoli Bern Ripka LLP, the New York City law firm that filed the suit.

    Ayup. $50 Million dollars because she bought a book marked as non-fiction that was actually fictional. If she ever went into the Boston Public Library, we could clear the national deficit just from the Natural Sciences section alone!

    --
    People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
  12. Classic Examples: Fortunate Son & Arming Ameri by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is nothing new. Two classic examples of recent vintage are James Hatfield's Fortunate Son and Michael Bellesiles' Arming America.

    Fortunate Son was withdrawn from the publisher because A.) The author was utterly unable to provide a single shred of proof for the only new, "bombshell" revelation in the book, i.e. that George W. Bush was once arrested for cocaine possession, and B.) The author turned out to be a liar and convicted felon. He was an ex-con on parole for attempted murder, had pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $34,000 in federal housing funds, none of which he happened to mention to St. Martin's while pitching the book. Plus he was caught making up stories about his background; as a science fiction writer, I especially liked the one about how he was recipient of "the prestigious international Isaac Asimov Foundation Literary Award for Outstanding Biography," which, oddly enough, doesn't exist.)

    Michael Bellesiles' Arming America was another demonstrable (although initially more believable and well-crafted) fraud that argued gun ownership in early America was rare. Researchers following up on his work found that some of his source material said the exact opposite of what he claimed. That eventually got Bellesiles fired from his university position, and even had the Bancroft prize committee not only rescind the prize it had awarded him, but ask for the prize money back!

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  13. Re:Well by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully people like Oprah will at least fact-check stuff before hanging their credibility out to dry.

    Maybe they'll spell check too

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  14. Why isn't Oprah being scrutinized? by toupsie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oprah ran lies about Hurricane Katrina on her show and she never retracted them. She allowed Mayor Ray Nagin on September 5th claim that "They're murdering people in there (the Superdome)." Louisiana National Guard and State health department officials said no one had been murdered inside the stadium. So what's worse? A book about an addict that was spiced up or a public official using Oprah's airwaves to promote false news to a nation that public policy might have been based off?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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!

  15. Re:Classic Examples: Fortunate Son & Arming Am by SetupWeasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, oddly enough, "The Truth About Hillary", a book that describes Hillary Clinton as a lesbian, has not been pulled off of shelves. Neither has that Swift Boat Veterans book about Kerry. It seems that certain lies are more bothersome to certain people.

    If you want to read a good book by a liar and a convicted felon, I hear G. Gordon Liddy has a new one coming.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Re:Who really gives a fuck? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you had read it, you'd feel duped too.

    This is slashdot. Even if you haven't read it, you'll feel duped in 48 hours.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.