Again The NYT Digs In, Again Offers No Evidence To Support Claim
[guest post by Dana]
The NYT has released yet another defense for having excluded Ted Cruz’s bestselling book from their bestseller list. And again, the paper refuses to provide any evidence whatsoever to back its claim that book sales were due to “strategic bulk purchases” – in spite of investigations by HarperCollins and Amazon revealing otherwise.
In this re-hashing of their previous defense, the paper attempts to deflect any blame by insinuating that HarperCollins is not trustworthy because everyone knows publishing houses want their books on the list. Can you really trust them??
“The notion that we would manipulate the best-seller list to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous. Conservative authors have routinely ranked high on our lists — Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, most recently Ann Coulter, just for a few examples,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said in a statement. “We have also ranked policy books and memoirs in the past by Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, among many others.”
“I can’t speak to the statements by Amazon or Harper Collins — though obviously publishers are always trying to get their authors on our list — but we are confident in our conclusion about the sales patterns for the Cruz book for the week in question.”
“Our system is designed to detect anomalies and patterns that are typical of attempts to manipulate the rankings,” Murphy said. “We’ve been doing this for a long time and we apply our standards consistently, across the board. The goal is to give Times readers our best assessment of what books are broadly popular at any given time.”
The Cruz camp has responded to the latest NYT non-response:
Rick Tyler, the national spokesperson for the Cruz campaign, emails: “It is strange that The New York Times continues to deny what is now abundantly evident to everyone: Cruz’s book ‘A Time for Truth’ is a legitimate best-seller by any standard. But the ‘Gray Lady’ has chosen to purposely keep the book off its list.”
“Accusations that Cruz or the publisher manipulated book sales has now been refuted by Harper Collins, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble,” Tyler continues. “Moreover, the title has been included by other prestigious best-seller lists including The Wall Street Journal. It would seem in the interest of The New York Times to want to preserve its reputation by hiring an outside auditor but instead they have refused to even show a modicum of accountability or transparency.”
Mediaite is calling for the NYT to put up or shut up:
If this had been a simple Cruz-versus-Times political tumble, the Times would have won. Those who are predisposed to believe the word of Tea Party politicians over the so-called “newspaper of record” would have believed Cruz. But those who the Times relies on for its influence– the media, political and East Coast elites– would have inevitably believed them.
But there are now two respected media institutions backing Cruz. No doubt, HarperCollins has a motive to defend its product’s sales, but Amazon has no dog in this fight. And by continuing to include Cruz’s book on their bestsellers lists despite the controversy, respected organizations like The Wall Street Journal and Nielsen are implicitly saying the Times is wrong.
The converse is also true; by continuing to exclude Cruz, the Times is implicitly saying those respected organizations are either incompetent, hoodwinked, or in the tank for the Texas Republican. Either one is a serious charge; serious enough that it requires evidence behind it.
The Times statement argued forcefully that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence” was not in Cruz’s favor. If there’s so much evidence pointing in that direction, it should be made public for other outlets and reporters to judge. But again, with such a strong statement, the Times only raises more questions about why other outlets missed this super-duper obvious smoking gun.
If the Times is reluctant to go public with its methodology, the paper can pull a Rolling Stone and hire an independent third party to go through the evidence and issue a public report. It might cost a pretty penny, but surely that’s better than leaving a dark cloud of suspicion hanging over what was the single most respected and cited bestsellers list in America.
I would ask this of the Times higher-ups: how would you react if a reporter’s source leveled an extremely serious allegation against a presidential candidate, said there was soooooo much evidence proving it, and then refused to produce said evidence? I say “would,” because as history has taught us, the Times has no problem passing along innuendo-laden smears of the presumptive Republican nominee.
May the truth will out quickly. No matter where it falls.
p.s. And not coincidentally, the NYT has an article in today’s paper about Amazon being accused of anti-trust violations…
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:04 pmNYT is a cesspool of lying liars that lie.
JD (ed4da1) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:13 pmMaybe they can whip out a new dust jacket that says “The book the New York Times tried to suppress”.
nk (dbc370) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:46 pmDo you get the feeling that the major newspapers are acting like snotty teenage girls?
When you catch them in a lie, they automatically have another one, even more preposterous,
jakee308 (c37f85) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:58 pmall ready to hand.
“All the Truth that the Gray Lady tried to suppress”
That’s a BIG category.
jakee308 (c37f85) — 7/13/2015 @ 8:59 pmlook , they are just going to list the book next week and the story will be over.
i so hope HarperCollins will sue, but the money is probably in it.
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:02 pmI wonder if the NYT ever checked Hillary or Bill Clinton “bulk book sales”… ever used that as criteria?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:16 pmGoogle app helpfully offered a Salon article that contains the details NYT will not offer.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/conservatives_howl_as_ny_times_calls_out_ted_cruz_for_trying_to_cheat_his_way_onto_bestseller_list/
Orwellian….if enough individual purchases are made, they are not individual purchases.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:26 pmMore good news for Cruz and bad news for the Times. Mediaite is one of Dan Abrams‘ websites. He’s currently with ABC and was with NBC and MSNBC. He’s no conservative.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:36 pmThe Mediaite article was by Alex Griswold, who I think used to write for The Daily Caller.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:41 pmKishnevi,
Did you notice that Salon piece was written by SEK?
Dana (86e864) — 7/13/2015 @ 9:48 pmEven Lefties have been bringing up the First Theory of Holes.
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/13/2015 @ 10:17 pm“Stupid is as Stupid does.”
first rule of holes …
That Slate article (which i did not read, i refuse to give them hits) can not be correct.
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:02 pmat least , the excerpt given has to be an abstract. without a money trail, which NYTimes is not having to have found, kishnevi’s last line is spot on.
The more people talk about what the times says, the longer it will be around.
mg (31009b) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:03 pmIf the terrorists on 9-11 had crashed into the New York Times building (full of idiots who are enablers to such fanatics), they would have caused hundreds of dollars of damage. Okay, maybe a few nickels and dimes worth of damage.
Mark (2857e5) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:17 pmIf you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I don’t think they will learn, since they’ve gotten away with partisan lies and innuendo in the past.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:19 pmAhoy Tanny. Top o the mornin’ to ye!! I’m 100% Irish, except for being American by birth!! Or possibly Kenyan, depending on the COLLEGE GRANT MONEY!!!
Gus (7cc192) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:27 pmThe LEFT. Our MARXIST LEFT, is like RUST. It never sleeps. The LEFT never even considers that they might be wrong. THE END is always JUSTIFIED. Why did Stalin kill 25 million?? Because they wouldn’t listen. Obama is MARXIST, he isn’t playing. A fookwad like Obama should NEVER have power of any sort. He’s EMOTIONALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, MORALLY/IMMORALLY BANKRUPT,and he is CERAIN THAT HIS DRUNKEN FATHER(MAYBE HIS FATHER) is in HEAVEN and has 72 OR MAYBE 71 VIRGINS.
Gus, that’s why we need more oil, it prevents rust.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:30 pmWe need more oil, because oil is the fuel that currently works the best. My best friend married a lovely Brazilian woman last year. I was Best Man. My friend and I have been VERY close friends for 35 years. His new wife whom I love, drives a VOLT!! I once asked her where the POWER that runs her VOLT came from. She (she has a JD), said, “I plug it in, in the garage!”. She’s lovely , I left it well enough alone.
Gus (7cc192) — 7/13/2015 @ 11:35 pmCruz is just a pathetic fraud .
but hey, not everybody on the hard political left is comfortable with slamming Cruz.
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:34 amseeRpea, the MARXIST LEFT, will kill baby seals with razor blades. If YOU get in the way of theirM MARXIST ends. You must be dispatched. There is no love, logic or reason.
Gus (7cc192) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:50 amAnyone ask SEK or the NYT’s about the major retailers don’t buy books – they are on consignment – when they swipe through checkout that week a check is cut
If Walmart BOUGHT 10,000 books then they did for their employees most likely
EPWJ (37d903) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:01 amIn a virtuous world, people (who run companies and organizations) would do things out of a desire for truth and what is good in the long run. In a good reality, people are motivated by their short and long term best interest with at least a modicum of integrity and they counterbalance each other. In one way I think Amazon simply thinks it can be a force in itself without cow-towing to the NYT and is willing to go head to head. They are probably correct.
It is sort of strange, though, that the same technology which allows individuals access to all kinds of things and gives the opportunity for an unknown to make a name for themselves,(e.g. Justin Bieber) allows also for the incredible concentration of power in the hands of a few.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:26 amThe guy who owns Amazon owns the Washington Post, too. Macy’s vs. Gimbel’s?
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:30 amAhha,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:29 ameven more reason to one up the NYT
SEKs’ Salon column was exactly the type of mendoucheous asshattery we have grown to expect from that beta male.
JD (69d190) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:36 amApparently, the New York Times considers its methods for excluding books a trade secret. But a number of other institutions seem to indicate their methodology is flawed.
It really might be something like a computer algorithm “punishing” a book for too many bulk purchases by refusing to count it altogether (possibly on the assumption that, in that case, the identity of sample stores has been leaked.)
I assume there must be some bulk purchases, either by the campaign, by PACs, by some local groups, and by organizations that possibly may be offering it as a premium, so the question isn’t really the existence of any bulk purchases, but how they are handled.
Or it could be they have a relationship with certain stores, and want to keep the names secret, and either those stores were “lucky” enough to get a lot of bulk purchases, or somebody in one or more of the stores is lying.
Sammy Finkelman (be1e2f) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:36 amAs someone who uses a lot of syndicated sales data for work, I’m really interested in this topic.
Just as an example, Billboard magazine has a formula for creating the “top 40” songs – points per play on radio stations which are weighted by listenership, a new formula for downloads and streaming, plus sales data from store POS systems. Nielsen provides scan data for grocery stores, liquor stores, drug stores, even warehouse stores like Wal-Mart. IRI is a competitor of theirs who has census data (complete sales data) for several channels including convenience stores, etc.
What formula is employed to establish the NYT “best seller” list? Enquiring minds want to know.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:24 amMy biggest question – to what level are these sales to consumers or to wholesale?
I suspect that some ratings are “shipments” to bookstores, while others are “sales” over-the-counter to book-buyers. This could be part of the confusion.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:25 amShipments to bookstores are not sales, since they’re on consignment.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:42 amThanks for your opinion, Milhouse. If you have any actual knowledge on this subject, please let me know.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:02 amEileen Murphy has here in her hand a list of 205.
NickM (530322) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:12 amcarlitos,
The New York Times won’t reveal its bestseller process. It claims doing that would enable authors and publishers to game the system. The WSJ, Barnes & Noble, Nielsen’s Bookscan, and Amazon apparently have bestseller lists without so much secrecy, but the Times is special.
I know you care about the reputation of your sources so I must warn you this source is unverified, but she is a published author who understands the process based on her past experiences. It’s a place that may provide some answers, but I link it because it should provoke questions you may not have thought about.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:20 amThanks DRJ. That was great info, and it confirmed a few of my suspicions.
In this case, I suspect that Mr. Cruz’ book might be a victim of their methodology, rather than a specific vendetta. Excluding stores like CostCo would be a serious flaw. If everyone used this measure, mrs carlito’s purchases of James Patterson and Michael Connelly hardcovers would not count as sales.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:29 amThe LAT finally addresses the fracas without mentioning either Amazon or Barnes and Noble. The do, however, go right into how easy it is to game the system.
Dana (7ace16) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:24 pmCarlitos,
Walmart, Amazon, DBalton, are the overwhelming lions share of the bookselling market, they to save warehouse space, increase inventory turns and minimize unsold inventory risk. They try to own as little inventory as possible preferring to only count inventory as purchased when it passes through their registers scanners. Not just books, everything they can. For years Coke and Tide were not available at Walmart, until they succumbed to this process
EPWJ (8f5c4e) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:51 pmcarlitos”
That’s a smart supposition. Too bad the New York Times didn’t come up with it. Instead, the Times apparently acknowledged Cruz sold 11,584 books but claimed his book was not a bestseller because, as its rep told Politico, the high number of sales was due to “strategic bulk purchases”:
Of course, had the Times used your excuse, it would be admitting it’s not really measuring bestsellers, it’s measuring sales at selected stores. That would hurt the New York Times’ brand.
Speaking of hurting its brand, now Barnes & Nobles has issued a statement that confirms what Amazon previously said: There is “no evidence” of bulk sales.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:11 pmI think the New York Times has handled this poorly, and has thereby opened the door to letting other companies muscle in on its previously unquestioned role in anointing bestsellers.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:33 pmcarlitos is inclined to believe the NYT until there is no possibility of innocence,
the rest of us go either on a preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt.
Amazon, B+N, HarperCollins, mediaite, and Cruz say one thing
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:50 pmNYT says another and says they cannot be specific on how they came up with it.
Which begs the question:
Carlitos, in your mind, what does the NYT rate being given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and Cruz not? What specifically weighs the scales in their favor?
Dana (86e864) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:00 pmSince the book was already off shelf I checked out the audio CD version of Cruz’ A Time For Truth at the library. I wonder if the CDs count as “book sales”.
elissa (701910) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:08 pmHa. I just noticed that NYT spokeswoman Eileen Murphy actually tweeted about the Amazon anti-trust story. Of all the stories in all the pages of the NYT to tweet about and she chose this one…
Dana (86e864) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:21 pmI wonder if Costco, Sam’s, Walmart, … use the traditional method of stocking books; perhaps they just outright buy them?
htom (4ca1fa) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:04 pmProbably as ludicrous as covering up reports of genocide
Dan Kauffman (11707a) — 7/15/2015 @ 2:14 amfor political reasons.
Oh wait that is exactly what the NYT did with the Ukrainian genocide
I’m not sure which of my musings above showed that I “believed” the NYT, or gave them the benefit of the doubt. As I said, I’m a consumer of scan and sales data. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if their esoteric formula resulted in Mr. Cruz’ book not being on their best-seller list.
EPJW – I am aware of how stores pay on scan for their stock, but that’s not the same as what Milhouse called “consignment” sales, nor does it explain how the NYT and others measure sales. I’m inclined to believe the Nielsen data over others, but they have huge methodological flaws in the categories in which I work professionally. That said, they do have the biggest sample size as a rule.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/15/2015 @ 7:40 amI think it’s fair to say you don’t believe the NYT when it said it excluded Cruz’s book because of bulk sales, since you’ve ignored that in your comments.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:08 amNevertheless, I am interested in how these lists work. What do you know about this topic that you are willing to share? I’d like to learn more.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:09 amrecall when Weiner was campaigning against Goldline, because they were Beck sponsors, he does get eaten in Sharknado 3, in case you were asking,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:13 amCarlitos
So when confronted with the reality of booksales you point to a “methodology” that has no explanation.
ITs simple – when a check for a book is proffered – its a sale. Bulk can be as few as 3. Its all about a narrative that they cannot justify and are caught.
I also know THAT NO ONE SHARES booksale information secretly to the NYT’s than the public. Long time ago, publishing industry rags – like Variety used to give a BOX office style tracking of leading books, those largely disappeared when cable TV came available – that was the “Extinction Event” for the bookstore.
There is strong legal foundation for reporting real sales as most author compensation is based on sales.
EPWJ (0c89e8) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:11 amHey DRJ,
At the risk of paraphrasing Bill Clinton, it depends on what the definition of “sales” is.
If the Times‘ formula measures (some) shipments (from the publisher to stores), and others measure sales (from stores to consumers), then there is no disagreement between the NYT citing “bulk sales” and the disagreements from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc. Other retailers would have no view of “bulk sales” from the printer to other entities.
Just as a reminder, when I checked the sales figures myself a few days, Cruz’ book was not even in the top 20 in its category on Amazon. Given that statistic, I’m not sure why it “must” have been a non-fiction best seller?
For other categories like stuff you buy in a grocery store, there is what’s called “census data,” which measures literally every scanned purchase in a universe of grocery, convenience, warehouse, liquor, military bases, etc. So, when Kraft runs a coupon for cheese, they can see how much cheese they sold, at what price, etc. etc. As EPJW noted, the retailers even pay their suppliers based on this scan data.
For books, I would have guessed that the NYT had a sample of stores and websites who report their scanned sales, which isn’t at all unusual. But their “bulk sales” excuse makes this a non-starter. “Bulk sales” from the printer to, for example, a church group or the RNC or whatever, would not show up in such sales, since they wouldn’t be scanned as purchases.
A simple analog is the record business. Record companies regularly pre-arrange “sales” so that, say, Lady Gaga or Nickelback have the “#1” album during their debut week. Those “sales” sometimes consist largely what the NYT would probably call “bulk shipments.”
“Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence”
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:21 am–someone
I meant to delete this sentence:
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:24 amCarlitos,
The NYT’s just put Cruz’s book on the list at #7
EPWJ (8f5c4e) — 7/15/2015 @ 4:35 pmDoes the NYT list itself at the top of the “Fiction” category?
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/15/2015 @ 4:37 pmyay my hungry strike worked
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 4:43 pmcarlitos,
Several people linked Amazon’s statement that showed Cruz’s book as #1 in Politics/Biographies, and #13 overall. Why do you keep restating incorrect talking points?
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 5:21 pmHere is a link, again: Amazon = #13 overall. WSJ/Bookscan = #4. Barnes & Noble = #7.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 5:27 pmFrom what little the NY Times has said, I think you are right that the Times samples selected bookstores for its bestseller lists. That strikes me as a way to rig the game, if someone were so inclined.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 5:30 pmNew Cruz/NYT post up.
Dana (86e864) — 7/15/2015 @ 6:07 pm