Well, that didn’t take long. Just days after the announcement that Simon & Schuster had signed up a Mike Pence book, a petition was circulated by S&S staff members urging CEO Jonathan Karp to cancel the deal. Exactly as I predicted (see last week’s blog).
Karp has been quite busy over the past week managing the cancel culture mob: Last Friday, S&S announced they would not distribute a book by one of the policemen who shot Breonna Taylor, which is being published by Post Hill Press, an S&S distribution client.
So, what’s in bounds and what’s out? Which voices shall we silence and who gets to keep their seat at the table? The explanation in Karp’s widely circulated letter is quite revealing. Here’s how he explained S&S’s decision not to cancel the Pence deal:
“Regardless of where those authors sit on the ideological spectrum, or if they hold views that run counter to the belief systems held by some of us, we apply a rigorous standard to assure that in acquiring books, we will be bringing into the world works that provide new information or perspectives on events to which we otherwise might not have access,” explained Karp.
First, it’s clear that bowing to the mob over a non-celebrity author published by a small press is a whole lot easier than canceling a $2 million deal with the former Vice President. It’s not clear, however, why the rationale for keeping Pence’s book didn’t apply to the Post Hill Press book as well.
Surely, the account from one of the police officers involved in the Breonna Taylor shooting meets the criterion of “new information or perspectives on events to which we otherwise might not have access.” What was the “rigorous standard” applied in this case? S&S didn’t acquire that book, they were simply charged with distributing it (i.e., shipping to retail), so it’s a safe bet that they know a lot less about that book than those they are publishing themselves.
What they do know, however, is that this “new perspective” does not deserve the access they claim to protect. Rather, here is Karp’s description of the decision to withhold all support (despite the contract they have with Post Hill Press) from the Breonna Taylor book:
“That decision was immediate, unprecedented, and responsive to the concerns we heard from you and our authors. At the same time, we have contractual obligations and must continue to respect the terms of our agreements with our client publishers.”
Hm. So, in this case, loud protests carried the day. Make no mistake, this was not an editorial decision, it was a political one. And it seems the only reason they are not canceling Post Hill Press entirely is the contractual obligations and terms of their agreement.
Publishing is more art than science, and publishing decisions are always subjective. I am certainly not saying that publishers do not – or even should not – exercise judgment when they acquire titles. Rather, I have two concerns that are quite distinct from how the acquisitions process works:
1. When publishers do not believe in the message of a book, they have a tough time marketing them well. It’s human nature: We work harder on things we’re excited about. Karp admitted this very truth in his letter to staff:
“When we share an enthusiastic consensus about a title, we are a positive and powerful force in the culture. When we allow our judgment to dwell on the books we dislike, we distract ourselves from our primary purpose as a publisher – to champion the books we believe in and love. “
I agree with Karp: A publisher’s purpose is to champion the books we believe in and love. What does that mean for the books they publish – but most definitely do not love? Mike Pence, Amy Coney Barrett, William Barr — all of these authors have signed contracts in the past week with Big 5 publishing houses, and I assert that almost no one in any of those vast empires loves or believes in the core values and message of those authors. Good luck to you.
2. My second concern is the message conservative authors are sending when they leave the gun and take the cannoli. I realize it’s easy for me to say that a newly minted Supreme Court Justice should turn down the $2 million she just got from Penguin. $2 million buys you a lot of cannolis. But it also undermines conservatives who are fighting the cancel culture and rewards the very people who are actively working to silence less powerful — as well as less cooperative – conservatives.
Some commentators have said that these deals prove New York publishers are not blacklisting all conservative authors. I say: not yet. Check out Karp’s apologetic ending to his letter:
“Over the last year we have done much work to make Simon & Schuster a more open and inclusive workplace. We remain focused on how we can change our culture for the better and improve our publishing programs. The conversations we’ve been having will help us evolve as a company. The pace of change may not be as fast as some of you would like, but we remain committed to progress.”
My guess is that his definition of progress is not the same as mine.
A few years ago, Regnery made the difficult decision to break ties with the New York Times bestseller list, after years of putting up with their heavy bias against conservative titles and authors. When I wrote to our authors, explaining our decision – and the possible repercussions to them – I argued that it was time to stop implicitly supporting an outlet that persistently punished conservatives. I share the same message to conservative authors today: Just as it’s unwise to bite the hand that feeds you, I say it’s equally foolish to feed the hand that bites you.