New York Times: Even Though Ted Cruz’s New Book Is A Best Seller, We Refuse To Put It On The Bestseller List
[guest post by Dana]
That Ted Cruz. Can he be any more of a thorn in the side of Democrats and the Republican professional political class, as well as being a tough challenge for the major media outlets whose pressing mission is to smear him? He’s blunt, articulate, savvy to the media games, maintains his composure during “gotcha” interviews along with compelling interviewers to stay on point, and most frustratingly of all, he remains faithful to the Constitution and to the core principles of conservatism. Without shame, without reservation, and without hesitation. He is everything the left and the GOP elites hate. He speaks truth to power, and that is simply unacceptable. Further, to their chagrin, Cruz welcomes any challenges to his positions and uses them as opportunities to spread the message of conservatism, and to get the facts out and set the record straight.
The unmitigated gall.
Now, to top it off, Cruz has written a bestselling biography. And how seemingly irked is the New York Times by this? Enough to not add the book to their bestseller list:
Cruz’s “A Time For Truth,” published on June 30, sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan’s hardcover sale numbers. That’s more than 18 of the 20 titles that will appear on the bestseller list for the week ending July 4. Aziz Ansari’s “Modern Romance,” which is #2 on the list, sold fewer than 10,000 copies. Ann Coulter’s “Adios America,” at #11, sold just over half as many copies.
“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.
This week, HarperCollins, the book’s publisher, sent a letter to The New York Times inquiring about Cruz’s omission from the list, sources with knowledge of the situation said. The Times responded by telling HarperCollins that the book did not meet their criteria for inclusion.
“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.”
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 6:19 pmReal take away…how pitifully small is the sales figure required to qualify as a best seller.
The Amazon rankings are rather slippery.
They have changed since you took that pulse. Now, at 9:47 PM EDT, the figures are
I think even one or two units sold will dramatically impact those rankings.
kishnevi (294553) — 7/9/2015 @ 6:50 pmWhat’s the difference between an authentic and inauthentic best seller??
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 6:54 pmI bought my copy two days ago.
aunursa (be35b6) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:05 pmThe authentic best seller is ghost written for a leftist and distributed by the DNC to boost circulation. An inauthentic best seller is actually written by the author but he/she happens to be right of Castro.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:08 pmIt is an excellent book. I know because I bought one of the copies that doesn’t count.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:14 pmI will order mine now. Thanks for the update.
bald01 (f38852) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:18 pmNot a new problem iirc the grey lady won the law suit mostly based on the judge saying “it it sht ny times, ipso facto they are in the right”
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:36 pmFor those who want a taste of Cruz’s book, this is the first paragraph from the Introduction entitled “Mendacity”:
It gets better and better from there.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:45 pmOh, that’s great a intro, DRJ! Compels me to purchase the book.
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:03 pmOT: there was another data breach of 20 million federal employee records or was the number of the publicized breach increased from 4 mil to 20 mil ?
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:07 pmDana, all your observations about Ted Cruz were also true about Ronald Reagan.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:31 pmOrwell was right!
The New York Times is playing MiniTru….who will be our Winston Smith?
JSF (53caf4) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:39 pmTimes spokesperson Eileen Murphy explained when asked about the omission. “This book didn’t meet that standard this week.”
Yes, this is very nasty snark, but since many of the idiots at the New York Times have soft spots in their hearts for characters like Nidal Hassan and the specter of Islamfascism, why couldn’t the terrorists at least have included one more building in Manhattan on 9-11, a place a few miles to the north of the twin towers?
Mark (a5c255) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:50 pmSeems like they are implying he is into some sort of Jim Wright scam. For those of you too young, or educated in public schools, he was a Democratic Representative from Texas, and the Speaker of the House after Tip O’Neil retired. He wrote a book about his life in politics, a nothing book – he wasn’t seeking higher office. It didn’t sell, needless to say.’
But his wealthy backers figured out they could channel money to him by buying his book, so they would buy them by the truckload to be given away. The scheme turned out to be illegal, forcing Wright to resign his seat.
Sounds to me as if NYT is accusing Cruz of a similar scam. If true, they should report it on the front page. If not, they should list his book.
Estragon (ada867) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:12 pmFascists.
AZ Bob (34bb80) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:57 pmCruz wants to double legal immigration, including a 5x increase of H1-B visas.
– link
This is what conservatives want?
scrutineer (b7d257) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:29 pmI’ve been reading about what gets a book on the NYT bestseller lists. According to this NYT best selling author of 10 books, it’s a bit more complex than just how many books sell. A few points:
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:33 pmWhat’s the difference between an authentic and inauthentic best seller??
An authentic best seller is one that sells well at Upper East Side book stores.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:37 pmAlso, and this is from the New York Magazine (no friend of conservatives):
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:44 pmGiven that books by Dana Perino and Ann Coulter made the list, it gives one pause in assuming it’s because Cruz is a conservative that his book was left off the list. But then again, neither Perino nor Coulter have campaigned for the job of president.
The very fact that the NYT keeps their bestseller formula top secret gives them every opportunity to be subjective in their decision making for who makes the list. Frankly, they don’t even really have to have a formula. Whatever person or politic they want to push, they can. And they can also make a point to periodically throw a bone to conservatives just to keep the noise down.
Dana (86e864) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:56 pmIt’d be so cool if Sen. Cruz would make it a condition for his sitting down for an interview with any national print or tv “journalists” that they have read his book first. That way they might be less likely to embarrass themselves by asking what flavor ice cream he likes, what he thinks about the confederate flag, and if he’d love his daughters if they were gay. That way they would be better equipped to ask him relevant questions and follow ups about his philosophy and policy goals for the country. 🙂
elissa (507b55) — 7/9/2015 @ 11:24 pmOr, as an alternate tack, he could answer the first question he is asked after “how are you?” by smilingly saying ” first, I’d like to ask you a question—have you read my book as preparation for our interview, today?” And then if they stumble around and and say yes they have, at a later time in the interview he could jump in and ask “I’m curious, now, what thing about my book interested or surprised you the most?” Either they’ll answer, expose themselves for their bias, admit they only skimmed it, or huffily retort, “Sen. Cruz, I’m the one asking the questions here.” Any of those responses would serve him well.
If it makes anybody feel better, the Clinton expose book “Clinton Cash” debuted at #2 on the NYT bestseller list.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/14/book-hillary-clinton-campaign-called-a-dud-debuts-at-2-on-nyt-bestseller-list/
elissa (507b55) — 7/9/2015 @ 11:34 pmall he had to do was put in a chapter on sparkle vampires
happyfeet (831175) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:43 amAsked 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.”
I don’t see how Cruz’s book can be considered a bestseller. Nobody I know has read it.
nauline kael (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 4:27 amnauline, was that intended as serious, or sarcasm as in “I don’t know how Nixon won, I don’t know anybody that voted for him”? (I think it was Nixon)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:30 amThe commenter’s pseudonym should have given that away, Doc.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:42 am“In the case of this book [Cruz’s], the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,” she wrote.
This is Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy clarifying their rationale for keeping Cruz’s book of the list.
Mike (7c4039) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:42 amReally, Doctor! Everyone knows who reads books and who does not, and if the ladies in my book club are not reading a book I cannot see how it could possibly be a bestseller. Obviously, if any of Cruz’s supporters are buying it, it is as gift premium at a gun store to accompany the purchase of a pistol and they use it for target practice. See, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0620223/ King of the Hill: Season 7, Episode 8, “Full Metal Dust Jacket”
nauline kael (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:47 amOops.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:50 amYes. This is what actual conservatives want. People who oppose immigration are not conservatives, they’re union shills.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:51 amHillary did it smarter with her ginormous ($35 million?) advance.
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:53 amSmarter than Wright.
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:54 amForbes reported on bulk sales and how to game the NY Times bestseller list in 2013. It says the Times surveys various sellers to determine whether a book is selling across the nation.
It would be interesting to learn what regions, cities and booksellers were surveyed. I doubt the book is selling well in blue states and urban markets. It probably is selling well in red states like Texas. Does selling well in some places and not in others constitute a “bulk sale” by the Times’ standard for conservatives?
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:29 amConsidering all that’s been said about the nyt’s ranking process, I think I prefer the Amazon method, which is based on a category assignment (which can be jiggled) and a count. This is yet another nail in the coffin of the establishment media. It is also a reminder of the utility of money, prices and the free market. The ranking that Cruz will pay attention to are his royalty payments from the publisher, and these will be determined by hundreds of thousands of individuals who choose to purchase the book. The nyt be damned.
bobathome (5b5810) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:34 amThat’s called the bottom line and bobathome and I are on the same page. Screw the NYT, show us the money!
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:38 amThe Wall Street Journal addressed the same topic in 2013, apparently because bulk sales were used to put some business books on the bestseller lists.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:41 amMilhouse-sometimes I’m kind of slow on the uptake
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:55 amAn OT(I meant that to mean off topic, but it is also “Old Testamant”) question for you, BTW,
I recently became aware of something called Ezekiel 4:9 bread, which purports to be especially healthy…
My take is that at the very least, in context it signifies famine and a need to scrounge up whatever one can find, including things people would not normally eat, and has nothing to do with some “special recipe” that was especially good for Ezekiel to eat. Would you agree with that? Is there any violation of diet regulations in the mixing of the various things as well?
“it it sht ny times, ipso facto they are in the right”
There is occasionally a day when the NYT is correct, but it is a foregone conclusion that they will never, ever be in the right.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:24 amre #39: lots of Bible readers look at that bread and laugh. Bible knowers just roll their eyes.
The bread mentioned in those sentences is, as you correctly point out, meant to be disgusting if not inedible in normal circumstances.
why would you think there were any prohibitions involved in mixing the grains?
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:27 amYes, seeRpea but now it’s called artisan and they charge double.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:29 amAbsolutely. On the contrary, it was supposed to be bad. The original recipe was so bad that Ezekiel couldn’t bring himself to eat it, so God moderated it for him.
No.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:33 amAnd yet I’m told by those who eat the stuff that it’s quite tasty. I’ve never seen any reason to try it myself.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:36 amWell, at least she masked it by going through a real publisher. There were probably shenanigans behind the advance, but it would be difficult to prove. (When Newt Gingrich was offered a $5M advance for a book back in 1995, it was because his agent held an auction between publishers, and they genuinely bid it up to that level. There was no secret deals to overpay as a bribe. I don’t believe that’s what happened with Hillary!, but how can anyone prove it?)
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:41 amthat bread is awesome somebody from here got me on it
it has many proteins!
i love it very much especially for the tuna sammiches
also it doesn’t toast very well so you’re less likely to abuse it
try looking in the freezer section if you’re having trouble finding it
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:42 amDuring the Nazi Occupation, my mother ate bread from acorns and lupins because the Germans confiscated all the regular grains. For that reason, she would never have anything but white bread in the house. No bread from whole wheat, oat, barley, rye or corn. Those would only go into puddings, pies, and porridges on occasion, but were mainly animal feed.
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:42 amI just purchased the Kindle edition. Latest Amazon rankings:
The kindle ranking was 544 prior to my purchase … I suspect there are a few more like me online this morning!
bobathome (5b5810) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:44 amWell you can bet that when Hillary’s tome was headed straight for the remainder pile (although leaden in style, it wasn’t quite firm enough to be used as a door stop) the NYT trumpeted every sale of the book. Course that trumpet didn’t make much noise.
Comanche Voter (1d5c8b) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:00 am“Cruz wants to double legal immigration, including a 5x increase of H1-B visas.
– link
This is what conservatives want?”
Scrutineer – in what world are conservatives opposed to legal, orderly immigration?
JD (8c5938) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:05 amre #44: of course it tastes good , they are in the business of selling.
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:13 amthey cheat on the beans , they use malted barley in addition to regular barley and they add salt.
Ken Stabler (1945-2015), RIP. The Snake died of colon cancer. At Alabama he quarterbacked the Crimson Time to an undefeated season in ’66 and was named an All-American in ’67.
He spent 10 years with the Oakland Raiders, won Superbowl XI in ’77 against the Vikings, was the league’s MVP in ’74, and was named to the Pro-bowl 4 times.
John Madden said that if he had one drive to win a game he’d want the Snake pulling the trigger.
ropelight (c07eb2) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:17 amYou know, the additional information about the list and how to get on it that you provided in the comments – that actually makes a little sense – just a question here but why didn’t you do that tiny bit of digging BEFORE posting your column?
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:23 amI mean, not to be snarky but that’s kind of important. It seems strange to me that you would not do the minimal homework for your work. I know this is just a blog and all but as an writer and an editor, it is indefensibly lazy.
if I wrote a book and it sold enough copies to be a Bestseller and the New York Times said no way you are simply arbitrarily not included
I would go to my room and cry
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:25 amTom M – thanks for being a douche.
JD (8c5938) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:29 amThere are really simple and kind ways to make the exact point you tried to make, without being an ass.
JD (8c5938) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:30 amI like how every other week some ad hoc claim made by the last Anointed, Romany, has been vindicated vis a vis the riposte of SmegmaBreath.
Like 10 million Amerikkkans committed to clearing the sh!t from their mouths would not have done every inch as well.
NYT: Not committed.
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:31 am53. The ‘digging’ only reveals practiced slime-buggery–so what, pray, is your point?
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:52 amI found a modern version of the Ezekiel bread and am going to try it (probably next week.) It’s rather like some of the other “enhanced” breads I make. (Note, recipe makes 4 9″x5″ loaves.) http://allrecipes.com/recipe/ezekiel-bread-ii/detail.aspx
htom (4ca1fa) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:56 amI would go to my room and cry
Being careful not to let the tears fall on your pile of money, right?
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:56 amThe US takes in about 1mm legal immigrants a year. More than any other country. If it were not for the multi-millions of illegal immigrants we could take more. Conservatives are for legal immigration just not lawless illegal immigration. We also believe as a sovereign country we have the right to choose just who gets to immigrate. If you are a leftist you most likely have been brainwashed into believing because we don’t want illegal immigrants invading our country some how that means all immigrants. It does not. BTW, my wife is an immigrant from South Korea.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:58 amTom M #53,
Dana may or may not respond but I’m going to respond to your comment seriously, even though I suspect you are not sincere.
First, good blogging isn’t easy but good bloggers make it look easy. Patterico and Dana are good bloggers. They communicate in an understandable and often entertaining way, and inspire discussion and further ideas that enlighten us all. One thing I learned from blogging is not to make a post too long or burden it with lengthy detail. There are exceptions but typically blog posts are not intended to be authoritative references on a topic. They present an event or topic to serve as a springboard for discussion.
Second, Dana’s comments concern impressions, opinions and views regarding the New York Times’ rules for its bestseller lists, not the rules themselves — to my knowledge, the NY Times hasn’t released the rules to the public. These views may be right or wrong, so I think it makes more sense to explore them in the comments. You are certainly free to disagree. You might even think about starting a blog yourself. It’s fun and rewarding, despite the occasional snarky commenter.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 9:20 amAnd speaking of liberal pettiness (slightly O/T) I just heard audio of the flag lowering ceremony in SC. The liberals were singing “Sha na na na, hey hey, goodbye”!
Good Lord, talk about sore winners!
Patricia (5fc097) — 7/10/2015 @ 9:33 amI saw that on FOX Patricia. I know full well some people are offended by the old rebel flag and I understand why. There are things I could say offend me but nobody would care so why bother. But I can’t help but think and feel I just lost some small part of my American heritage. Unlike leftists I do not think nor expect America should or could be perfect. But we are correctable and redeemable and shunning part of our history to me seems petty and classless.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/10/2015 @ 9:46 amThe Snake died of colon cancer
You realize that no one should die of colon cancer. A (real) colonoscopy at age 50 will prevent most cases.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:02 amThanks Milhouse and seeRpea
My asking whether there was a dietary prohibition being violated was for 2 reasons; first, I know there are many things I don’t know, I thought there might have been something involved, second, there is discussion of “defiled” food in the passage, which appears to be linked to cooking it over human waste rather than what was in the food, but I wanted to make sure
As feets notes, it advertises having a very high quality protein content from mixing the various things. To give the benefit of the doubt, I suppose some could realize the odd circumstances Ezekiel was in and figure maybe God was giving some special food to allow him to endure, but as we discussed, that seems to be ignoring what is pretty plain.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:10 amYou know, the additional information about the list and how to get on it that you provided in the comments – that actually makes a little sense – just a question here but why didn’t you do that tiny bit of digging BEFORE posting your column?
I mean, not to be snarky but that’s kind of important. It seems strange to me that you would not do the minimal homework for your work. I know this is just a blog and all but as an writer and an editor, it is indefensibly lazy.
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:23 am
Good morning, Tom. I just got online (and not because I was being lazy and still in bed!) and saw your comment. It’s funny you see me as a lazy writer, because in a recent conversation with our host, Patterico, I told him the very same thing!!
Thank you for your advice on how to become a better blogger. I am always looking for ways to improve and I trust that you as “an writer and an editor” are drawing from your own experience in such matters.
With that, it took me so long to write opening of this post, that I chose to simply go with all the information Dylan Byers, who is a professional writer of some note and reputation and has his own column at a very popular and go-to successful new media outlet, had provided readers. Personal commitments kept me from digging more deeply into the matter until later in the evening. But given that this is a blog and not the WaPo or NYT, I didn’t hesitate to publish the piece because I knew the very intelligent and curious commenters here would be digging up information and coming up with stimulating possibilities and assessments of the situation. All, of course, leading to a stimulating discussion. Which is sort of the point.
If you note my comment at #20, the formula for NYT decision-making is a well-guarded secret. Ultimately, no one but a select group know for sure why his book has been omitted.
Clicking over to the original report by professional writer Dylan Byers, I am just now seeing this this update: UPDATE (9:42 p.m.): Murphy emailed late Thursday night to further clarify the reasoning behind the Times decision.
“In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,” she wrote. I suspect Murphy was feeling the sting of the angery masses who don’t trust the NYT for a second and called her out on her vague and unacceptable justification for Cruz’s omission.
Anyway, I hope this all relieves some of your concerns.
Dana (86e864) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:11 amI was a Bengals fan back in the 70’s, having lived outside of Dayton for a number of years. I watched the Bengals get “Snake-bit” more than once with the Bengals playing “prevent” in the last 2 minutes.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:13 amKevin, I keep an sharp eye on my PSAs (0.2) with a blood test every 3 months, and I have a colonoscopy consultation scheduled for early August. I’m doing my best and thank you for caring.
ropelight (c07eb2) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:16 amThere’s this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:25 amnk…
on your link….
I found this…..
Soylent is now available
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)
what were they thinking?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:34 amlike naming a real medication “Soma”…
I think Huxley got “soma” from a tea made in India and Afghanistan from boiled poppies(?), which is like a non-alcoholic wine. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=soma
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 10:55 amSo really, a New York Times bestseller is anything they say it is, given any numbers and standards they choose to use that week.
rochf (f3fbb0) — 7/10/2015 @ 11:19 amKen Stabler started off the infamous Holy Roller forward fumble play, which led to a new rule on forward fumbles.
Gerald A (e1ec12) — 7/10/2015 @ 11:33 amDFR 62
Yes, I know it’s hard and all to blog, and I’m responding to you sincerely.
But be honest here – posting something and then amending it within hours to include information that was pretty easy to get, and that information at least somewhat (or substantially, YMMV) uncut the main thrust of the point of the column (in this case the Times was unfairly treating a conservative), makes it simply look like this is an easy, kind of cheap shot (and the Times is low hanging fruit, for sure).
Some sites have “quick thoughts” kind of posts, that are musings, and then also have longer more thought-out posts alongside. Maybe that’s the case here…
Apologies to Dana if I offended her and perhaps it was a bit harsh.
I get that some (many) blogs are pure partisan sites of dubious information and bias-confirmation, but this site usually is better than that. That’s what I meant.
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 12:07 pmDana – I don’t know your writing well enough to know if you are a “lazy” writer, and as I mentioned about, maybe I was harsh, and I apologize.
I’m a very slow one. From what I’ve seen of your writing you’re a good one though, and clear, and perhaps that’s why it stuck out so… clearly.
This blog, while being pretty conservative, tries to figure stuff out without simply trying to push a narrative.
The thing is – I didn’t think too much about the premise of the article other than as sort of boiler plate “Times bias” thing until I read the update in the comments, and that’s why I even bothered to post a comment.
The Times Best Seller list has tried for a while to keep bulk buyers off the list, for exactly the reasons noted in the update… it’s not really news – (as several commenters pointed out, they had lots of problems going back to Jim Wright and more recently with Jerome Corsi and others).
How they score and decide what is a best seller is some sort of trade secret.
I guess I though you knew that and ignored it for the low hanging fruit.
Thanks for the response, though.
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 12:33 pmTom M,
I’m glad to hear you intend to be sincere and not snarky. I’d like to talk to you about this topic cease I’m having a hard time seeing your point. Do you believe the additional links fully explain why the NY Times refused to include Cruz’s book in its bestseller list, thus effectively making this a non-story? That’s how I read your comments, and why I think you feel like Dana was remiss in not including the links on her post.
If so, I completely disagree. We do not know why the Times did this — apart from a self-serving after-the-fact statement that may or may not be true — nor do we knw if the books sold were largely bulk sales that should be excluded. Excluding bulk sales to a Cruz-sponsored Pac is understandable, but what about bulk sales to Walmart or a bookseller in Houston that had a lot of pre-orders?
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 12:55 pmSince, not cease.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 12:55 pmIn addition, part of why this is a good blog is also due to commenters engaging in the back and forth of exploring stories, and posters like Patterico and Dana who often read and learn from the comments. Our role as readers and commenters isn’t solely to be critics. This is interactive and we are part of the process.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:00 pmFinally, full disclose: I don’t think I’m being biased on this story but I am a Cruz supporter.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:02 pmIf anything, Tom M, I commend Dana for including other points of view. But she gets to have an opinion, just like the rest of us. If her opinion is that this smells, I expect her to make that the focus of her post. What the NY Times did here smells fishy to me.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:11 pmIf the NYT has evidence to support their claim, it should be easy enough to present it, yes?
It seems strange to me that you would not do the minimal homework for your work. I know this is just a blog and all but as an writer and an editor, it is indefensibly lazy.
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 8:23 am
I don’t know your writing well enough to know if you are a “lazy” writer, and as I mentioned about, maybe I was harsh, and I apologize.
Tom M (b4bc99) — 7/10/2015 @ 12:33 pm
Hmmm, admitting not doing one’s homework after blasting someone for not doing their homework.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:19 pmHarper Collins, the publisher of Cruz’s book, says there have not been bulk sales. Barnes and Noble, the Wall Street Journal, and Nielsen also track book sales and omit bulk sales from consideration, and they show Cruz’s book is one of the top sellers.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:45 pmThis is the best publicity Cruz could hope for. I might even think it was a PR stunt if i didn’t know how much the liberals at the Times hate Cruz. It will be a pleasure to watch this by backfire.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:50 pmRe #73: Yes. the NYTimes chooses whom to poll and what results to pay attention to.
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:53 pmIf they claim in this case a ‘preponderance of evidence’ they need to show their evidence , as all other lists showing actual sales to buyers have the book highly ranked.
NYT follows Obama transparency standards.
JD (4a8717) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:55 pmTomM, you need to explain why you think the later post contradicts the point of the OP.
I’d also like to know if you send it complaints to newspaper editors when they do same-day updates that completely obviate the original article. If you do , more power to you and keep up the criticism (though a change in tone would be good).
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/10/2015 @ 1:56 pmTom M, imagine that, all those strategic bulk purchases being processed one at a time on Amazon. And Murphy is on to it. Investigative reporting at its finest, I’m sure.
Just checked, and Cruz is in 433rd place amongst all books in the paid kindle store. And, in category rankings, he is:
In my previous post I didn’t realize that I had first viewed the “paid in kindle store” and then confused it with the category rankings. So he did not leap from 544th into 1st place this morning. But at #433 this afternoon, he’s making progress. By the way, #1 on the paid Kindle list is 50 Shades of Grey and #100 is Girls Like Us. I didn’t see any other books by political figures, but I scanned the listing rather quickly. I’d guess there were about 10 non-fiction books, one was about Cary Grant and another was titled “Food: Your Miracle Medicine”.
If you include Cruz’s CD, his rankings are:
But again, this may be due to clever strategic bulk purchases if we are to believe the nyt.
bobathome (5b5810) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:04 pmI confess, I bought 435,768 for Christmas presents.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:11 pmThat bit seems to be not so much about ritual defilement as about sheer disgustingness. Bread baked over a fire fueled with human dung would be kosher, but who would want to eat it? Ezekiel is saying “I’ve always been very particular about what I eat, and I’m not sure I could bear eating this, couldn’t You please not require this of me?”
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:34 pmZeke needs to buck up or stay in the truck
i’m very disappointed with his attitude
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:39 pmThanks, Milhouse. So not defiled in any ritual sense, just the general sense.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:44 pmI love the little back and forth, “OK, Ezekiel, you can use cow dung.”
Besides, cow dung has more undigested vegetable material and probably burns better.
The Daily Caller takes a tongue-in-cheek look at why the New York Times blocked Cruz’s book from its bestseller list.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:46 pmYour wish is Ted Cruz’s command.
http://twitchy.com/2015/07/10/the-new-york-times-is-lying-cruz-camp-fires-back-at-nyt-over-bestseller-b-s/
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:47 pmIt’s essentially what the plains Indians used for their cooking fires, doc.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:48 pmBuffalo chips…known about them for almost 40 yrs. several tangential stories could be told at this moment.
Are people getting the sense that our visitor Tom M may have been a deliberate disinformation ploy?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/10/2015 @ 2:51 pmre #92: oh, you mean the verse after the instructions.
Yes, that “unclean” means the physical sense. The whole point of this section, with the roped off room, lying down for over a year, etc is that of physical discomfort – ‘cuase whats coming is going to make this look grand.
When Ezekiel complains that as a Priest who was careful about the avoidance of “defiled” foods, it is a play of words for the Hebrew terms. He didn’t do the spiritual “uncleanleness” things so why make him do the really disgusting physical thing.
(btw: there is a major dispute in Jewish commentary about what really is going on here)
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/10/2015 @ 3:00 pmre #93: what makes you think it was tongue-in-cheek?
[gotta love that line , “Oprah!”]
😀
Re #94: they need to be more forceful. sheesh, has none of them learned anything about how not deal with media relations from MitRom?
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/10/2015 @ 3:06 pmIt would be interesting to learn what regions, cities and booksellers were surveyed. I doubt the book is selling well in blue states and urban markets. It probably is selling well in red states like Texas. Does selling well in some places and not in others constitute a “bulk sale” by the Times’ standard for conservatives?
Does the NYT even include Texas locations in its data? (Or other conservative areas?
On the issue of bread…worst tasting bread I ever tasted was tapioca bread.
kishnevi (294553) — 7/10/2015 @ 3:39 pmO/T the #LoveWins crowd shows its tolerance once again:
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/10/2015 @ 4:55 pm72. More likely the classic white-flecked red-capped Asian variant of Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric, named for its effect on insects nibbling on the cap which then fall off, unconscious.
The psychotropic qualities are first reported in the Rig Veda. I’ve read whereas LSD makes one feel an integral part of the universe, soma imparts the feeling of being the universe.
I once found a perfect solitary specimen of the American solid white variant under dense spruce on the southern Superior shore. I did not have the balls to partake, however, as Amanita Is the most poisonous genus extant, with virtually all white species considered deadly. Of the colored caps only the forest green phalloides Is so designated.
Ah, well, that was 30 years ago and on the whole I’m glad to be hanging on.
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:48 pmEven this from the Daily Beast:
Dana (86e864) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:12 pmInteresting to note that while the article claims the NYT takes their responsibility in this very seriously, they also have been known to bow to pressure from publishers:
72. Cont. Re: etymological note. Muscaria Is among the few members or the genus achieving cap diameters greater than 12 inches and stems 10 inches tall and of similar circumference. A thin yellow juice is squeezed or beated from the stalk. For those eschewing the gastric discomfort of its insecticide, muscarine, the toxin is filtered by the body and the psychotropic effect preserved so drinking the urine of the ingester was often practiced.
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:15 pmAnd I thought I was daring when I drank village-made tsipouro and raki; white brandies made, respectively, from grape squeezings and a variety of sweet fruits like peaches, plums and raisins.
nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:22 pmCorrect link to Daily Beast
kishnevi (93670d) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:23 pmhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/is-ted-cruz-a-bestselling-author-or-isn-t-he.html
Thanks for catching that, kishnevi.
Dana (86e864) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:26 pmCruz’s campaign is also pushing back at the NYT:
Dana (86e864) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:36 pmI thought I was daring when I drank the habu sake.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/97/212158887_c0e5cbd4b2_z.jpg
As an aside, anybody who thinks they’re tough because they eat the gusano after finishing a bottle of tequila, give that a try.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:50 pm104. Four-way blotter acid was a very physical endeavor. Even if I had the classic unmistakeable Hindu-Kush variant in my hand now I’d probably chicken out.
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 6:51 pm108. Mezcal, tequila’s big brother has them too.
DNF (208255) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:02 pmAce, my fave conservative, proposes “restricting legal immigration too, for a 5 or 10 year pause.” Your question suggests you find this unimaginable.
scrutineer (b7d257) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:22 pmscrutineer, you must be under the idea that like leftist lemmings conservatives are in 100% agreement on all issues all the time. Some conservatives endorse a moratorium on all immigration for some time, others want increased immigration. We are entitled to our opinions and somewhere in the middle I assume there is a compromise. Your friend Ace seems to want some restrictions but not termination of legal immigration and that’s quite an acceptable view. It is not unimaginable at all. The thing conservatives do all agree on is illegal immigration is bad for America, Americans and American culture. It’s also dangerous for our security and threatens our sovereignty.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/10/2015 @ 7:49 pmRe that Daily Beast article, check out the one below it, by one Cliff Schecter, which is an insane rant against Bernie Sanders for being a moderate supporter of gun rights. Complete with outright lies that he pulled out of his inner anatomy, such as the existence of “bullets designed specifically to kill cops”.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/11/2015 @ 9:34 pmDid this NYTimes deception get discussed on the Sunday “news” shows?
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/12/2015 @ 4:10 pmIt’s now #9 on Amazon for “biographies and memoirs,” and #32 in hardcover books.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Biographies/zgbs/books/2/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_1_b
The NYT list is only 20 books long, right? They have Anne Coulter at #11 in non-fiction hardcover, so they obviously include right-wing stuff. I’m not sure what the deal is with Nielsen, but record companies regularly game the system to achieve BillboardⓇ rankings, so I wouldn’t be surprised if book companies did the same thing, and the NYT has some kind of way to eliminate these from their listings.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:36 amTo my point – From the link in the original post:
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:38 amWell, if the 433rd best-selling book isn’t on the nyt top 20 list, there must be a conspiracy.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:40 amAmaxon says Cruz’s book is #13 with no bulk sales. With over 11,000 books sold in the first week, NPR reports that would have placed Cruz’s book at #2 on the NY Times’ list.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:51 amcarlitos , are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just not following the story?
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:55 amSorry for the formatting mistake. Let me try that again.
Amazon says Cruz’s book is #13 in hardcover books, and there is no evidence of bulk sales.
And with over 11,000 books sold in the first week, NPR reports Cruz’s book wood have been #2 on the NY Times’ list, if it hadn’t been excluded.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 6:56 amWould, not wood. I should turn off auto-correct.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:00 amSomebody’s not being truthful about the Cruz book sales, Carlitos. I think people here are just trying to figure out who that is.
elissa (1fa22f) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:19 amIt is confusing, elissa. There are multiple booksellers and each one has its own ranking that may or may not be public. In addition, the sales numbers are constantly changing and the categories vary. For example, Amazon currently shows Cruz’s book at #4 in Hardcover and #11 in Kindle Biographies, #9 in New Releases, and #1 in Political books. And, as I linked above, Amazon told Politico that yesterday it was #13 in nonfiction sales .
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:34 amBut the New York Times is the only source that says there have been bulk sales. The publisher Harper Collins, Nielsen’s Bookscan, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon all say there is no evidence of bulk sales.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:37 amcarlitos , are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just not following the story?
Considering the way he’s responded in the past to the issue of the horrors! and tragedy! of anthropogenic global warming, you can never be sure what exactly is motivating his desire to give the benefit of the doubt or not.
Mark (aa035f) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:45 ami say we give him the benefit of the doubt
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/13/2015 @ 7:47 amI’ve put up a new post following up on the Cruz book exclusion…
Dana (86e864) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:04 amThanks for the update, Dana.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/13/2015 @ 12:03 pm