Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pravda-on-the-Hudson Strikes Again
Like nearly everyone in the presidential sweepstakes, Ted Cruz has published a book. It came out the 30th of June; and, according to Nielsen Bookscan, it sold in the week following 11,854 copies in hardback — which is more than 18 of the top 20 titles on Pravda-on-the-Hudson‘s bestselling list.
But, for the week ending 4 July, you will not find Cruz’ book on that list anywhere. As Dylan Byers reports on Politico,
“A Time For Truth” has also sold more copies in a single week than Rand Paul’s “Taking a Stand,” which has been out for more than a month, and more than Marco Rubio’s “American Dreams,” which has been out for six months. It is currently #4 on the Wall Street Journal hardcover list, #4 on the Publisher’s Weekly hardcover list, #4 on the Bookscan hardcover list, and #1 on the Conservative Book Club list.
And why did Pravda ignore the book?
“We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy explained when asked about the omission. “This book didn’t meet that standard this week.”
Asked to specify those standards, Murphy replied: “Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.”
When pressed further, Murphy emailed Byers: “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”
And what says HarperCollins, Cruz’ publisher?
HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s book A TIME FOR TRUTH and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization.
McKay Coppins at Buzzfeed, who reported this last piece of news, claims that is exceedingly rare for a major book publisher to stand up to Pravda.
Methinks I smell a rat! Pravda follows what Murphy calls “uniform standards” — except when seeking partisan advantage. Remember how George Zimmerman came to be dubbed a “white Hispanic” in Pravda?
Published in General
Why does The New York Times hate Hispanics?
Isn’t Carlos Slim a white Hispanic?
Perhaps they only hate them if they are “white.”
Does it really surprise you that organizations which keep track of metrics manipulate numbers in which customers don’t pay for the data? I question nelson ratings data and their customers pay for the data.
Is it shocking that they do this OR that they lie about it? Very much like the Clinton Crime Family it is.
Dr. Rahe,
The Times the national newspaper of record. Yes, an endless broken record of left wing tripe. They never cease to unimpress.
Regards,
Jim
Strategic bulk purchases. Like the government-funded libraries that bought up extra copies of the Clintons’ books to finance the political machine while the copies sit on their shelves, unread?
“All the news that’s fit to print” leaves them a lot of discretion regarding what’s “fit.”
“All the news that fits, we print.” I believe that was Mad Magazine’s take on the Times.
Everyone knows how much it hurts you in the Republican primary to be dissed by the NYTs.
Who cares about this? The Times is the Times – big surprise!
What is more galling to me, and also something we can effectively protest, is that Michael Medved’s top-rated conservative radio talk show has not had Ann Coulter on to promote her new book.
I certainly know why: Medved is an immigration squish who mouths the platitudes and fantasies of the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican consultant class. But the hypocrisy of shunning Coulter to his program’s motto – “Your daily dose of debate” – is egregious.
Medved should be called on it daily.
Thanks for the report, Paul. Ted Cruz is someone that the left fears and with good reason. If Newt had debated Obama there would have been fireworks — same with Cruz vis-a-vis Hillary.
Let’s not forget that the left is making progress with convincing the Republicans to hate Ted, also. So, until this project is complete they are very wary and play a very careful game. The left is able to take our most capable people down and one of their favorite ways is the easy soft underbelly of the Republicans who want to be liked by the media.
What’s worse, the NY Times ignoring Ted Cruz or Michael Medved ignoring Ann Coulter?
Which one of the two can conservatives do anything about?
Michael is his own man. He feels pretty strongly about immigration and is willing to stand up to any sort of criticism from the right or left.
I gave up listening to MM in 2008 when he supported the worst Republican candidate of all time: John McCain. I couldn’t believe how he switched from being a strong critic of McCain for years to a major booster — right out of the blue. And he went hard against Romney who would have been so much better at that time (before Obamacare).
But, that said, I like and respect Medved. He does far more good for our side than harm. He’s an independent thinker, he’s articulate and passionate. These are my favorite traits in a public intellectual.
I am myself a bit skeptical about Cruz, as I was about Gingrich. But you are without a doubt correct that as debaters these two are formidable. Moreover, when it comes to questions of principle, Cruz is very impressive indeed. When it comes to political strategy and tactics, I find him less impressive.
Medved is weak on immigration, which is why this self-styled strong debater, who will gladly host leftist crackpots and crony liberals (Lanny Davis), refuses to invite Jeff Sessions, Peter Brimelow, or Ann Coulter to discuss that topic on his show.
He’s had Ann on plenty of times in the past; however, now that she is shredding Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio’s platitudes and fantasies about legal as well as illegal immigration, Medved scrupulously ignores her – just like the mainstream media is.
We shouldn’t let “one of ours” get away with that. Immigration is issue número uno (a little Spanish lingo for you).
I’m amazed that anyone buys these candidate books. Every Presidential candidate writes one; or rather, has one ghostwritten. They are pure puffery. Rather than counting them as book sales, they should be counted in with the Hallmark cards.
On the other hand, Hillary’s book Hard Choices didn’t sell anywhere, retail or bulk. I wonder how much Simon & Schuster lost on the estimated $14 million advance they gave her for this turkey of a “book.” But still, Pravda swooned over it.
If any of these books is worth reading, it is likely to be the one by Cruz. He is certainly capable of writing it himself, and his intelligence may shine through.
Then again, it might be pure demagoguery.
As for Simon & Schuster and Hillary. You should think of it as a political donation. They did.
My question is why is the Times promoting Cruz. It is obvious that omitting him would bring him far more favorable publicity, not to mention campaign donations, than including would ever bring. Therefore, I conclude Time views him as as losing candidate if matched against Hillary. Their strategy seems to be working.
“Political donations” go to campaigns, and are subject to laws about how they can be spent. The proper word for payments made directly into the candidate’s pocket is “bribes.”
They can be illuminating, even if unintentionally so. I would say Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope actually reveal far more about the President than he intended, if read with a critical eye. In fact if I recall correctly Dinesh D’Souza used them both as additional source material for his work.
I decided to pick up Cruz’s book myself after hearing a quick review that piqued my interest. So far I have only had time to get through the introduction, a retelling of the debt ceiling imbroglio from 2014, I found it rather… interesting.
I don’t call it a bribe, because it’s not a payment to get her to do something she wouldn’t otherwise do. It’s a way of financing what the donor and recipient both want done.
That raises a pretty good question: who was the last American president that actually wrote their own books… not ghostwritten memoirs or like these, glorified campaign ads? Who actually had intellect and a talent with the pen? Teddy Roosevelt? Woodrow Wilson of course authored several books (one is a text on American Government that I actually own… printed in 1917… part of my weird old textbooks hobby).
I’m sure Bob McDonnell and his wife would have been glad to have you on their jury. Because that jury sure didn’t see it that way.
Obama wrote Dreams For My Father himself. It was a good book—well-written and more interesting than it might otherwise have been because it was written before he was a candidate for president and might have been tempted to skew it more towards an agenda.
Writing isn’t just about talent, it’s about time. Lots and lots of solitary time—there are probably plenty of people with the required level of intelligence (not all that much, really) ideas and facility with language who don’t have the time or, more to the point, are not driven to make the time to do the actual work. And people who are driven to write books may not be suited to public service, being by and large introverts who spend an awful lot of time rummaging around in their own heads. That writing a book remains a sign of Seriousness is a little heartening to those of us who feel themselves to be laboring in a neglected and expiring vineyard.
Re: New York Times Bestsellerdom—-Full Disclosure, one of my books was a NYT bestseller. It was an odd thing. I always assumed that if a book was a NYT bestseller, it meant millions and millions of people had read it. Wrong: millions and millions of people have read the Left Behind books. Or Danielle Steele.
Maybe 40 or 50 thousand people had read (or at least purchased) my book when it hit the list. Which is a lot of people, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not millions. So how does a book make it onto so mysterious and suspect a list? I don’t know…but I still hope to be on it again, very soon.
I share your aspiration, but not your achievement . . . not yet anyway. Hope springs eternal. I have a trade book coming out in November. Maybe, just maybe it will catch the fancy of the public.
Just remember not to take it personally either way—the fancy of the public is a strange and fickle thing!
And; Congratulations!—just writing a book is a huge accomplishment. I find myself staring at a printed-out manuscript and thinking: I can’t even believe I typed that much, let alone actually came up with the words…
And having a book published is huger still. You’ve already won, against enormous odds. Drink champagne and dance all night.
Ve haf uniform standarts unt ve know how to use zem.
Apparently the Times knows more about sales patterns and such than the actual publisher. With that type of reportage and industry expertise it’s no wonder that the grey lady is doing so fantastically we….wait what, she struggles????
Now I feel silly—I looked at your profile, and you’ve got lots of books Paul. More than me, I think, and definitely smarter ones. Oh well. I still think you should drink champagne and dance all night. (What’s the new book?)