If you’re reading this, you probably run a book publishing company. And you probably have strong ideas about your company’s role in society. Most of us do.
I ask you to consider it explicitly today, in the light of recent political assassinations in the US and elsewhere.
It is my opinion that we in the media bear a responsibility to our societies. It may be that citizens ultimately control the type of government under which they live, but it is the media that make it easy for demagogues to operate, or who hold their shabby tricks up to the light of day.
When we publish at book-length, we are uniquely able to ensure that political discourse stays away from fear-mongering, and to cry “Foul!” when public figures substitute appeals to emotion for logic.
Unfortunately, recent politics in the US and elsewhere have become increasingly driven by hate and fear. The results are not only that the unstable among us are driven to horrendous crimes, but also that we are not dealing with the enormous problems that confront our world and our countries. Very little substantive progress has been made by the right or the left in the US. No visible attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions are being made. And in other areas of the world (the Middle East springs vividly to mind), the situation is far worse.
We are letting our politicians and pundits get away with this. We are letting our citizens look past it, and see only the facts and figures that support their prejudices.
Of course, in shaping our readers’ world views, we must also find a market for our books. And being didactic won’t sell. But well written exposes of the cheap tricks used by both sides of any major issue just might. They’d certainly be easy to publicize! So, I challenge you to challenge your authors, editors and readers. Make them think instead of feel. Don’t let the demagogues win. We can be, we should be, the guardians of rationality and our books, even novels, can add to the light instead of the fog of fear.
Ideas and arguments are encouraged. As always, do tell me where I went wrong!
Hello Marion
I agree with you that as writers and publishers we need to accept personal responsibility for what we produce for public consumption.
However, I was sickened by how fast the blame game began with the politicos and media pundits.
This killer knows right from wrong and chose to murder and injure the victims of his horrendous killing spree. No one made him choose to do what he did. He is acountable for what he did and it is time for society, media, writers to place the ‘blame’ squarely’ on the person responsibile. He has spent his life choosing to flaunt the law with drug and alcohol abuse and creating difficulties at the college he attended…why? To satisfy his wants and needs and his muderous actions were to gain attention.
Blaming society, a political party, organization or person has too long fuled the belief by these killers and played out in our judicial system that they (killers) are justified in harming and taking lives because they were made to do this by someone or something else. BS is what I say. We need to stop pandering to this wrong headed way of thinking.
This man is a cold blooded killer who cares only for himself and we should say so and stop blamming everyone/anyone else to score points for our own agendas.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak my piece.
The man is responsible for his own actions, I agree with you absolutely. And the blame game is part of what I’m ranting against. It’s just that hot-button, knee-jerk kind of answer that is the problem on both sides of the debate. It doesn’t matter which part of the spectrum you’re on, you can look across the aisle and see the hate and demagoguery. It’s harder (and more useful, I think) to look at the people you agree with and see how they do the same thing.
My basic point, however, is that we all create a climate where the lunatics among us find more food for their delusions by not calling out the people we agree with, as much as those we don’t, on their cheap rhetorical tricks and emotional manipulations.
We can’t prevent mental illness from occurring, but we can reduce the virulence of the delusions and try not to accidentally aim these loose cannons.
The fundamental problem is that readers tend to buy political books that they expect to agree with. See
http://www.orgnet.com/divided.html
Fred, you’re absolutely right.
So — let’s either call out both sides equally, or the people on our own side who are using these appalling tricks to manipulate us.
Of course, a book that does only that probably isn’t going to be very readable. (Or would it? Depends on the writer, I suspect.) But we can ensure that all the books we publish include such material as an aside, or in examples, etc.
It’s a thought, in any case.
The truth of this is, very nearly, self-evident. Easily shown in one’s own first instincts when responding to an angry challenge. Ancient understanding of this is readily shown in the Biblical aphorism “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” And perhaps the saying is directed to one’s own potential wrath even more than that of the originator’s.
We have witnessed lowered standards in public discourse, both in your own US and here in the UK. This has been trend over some decades and may be a cause for social study.
Here, in our leaders debate leading up to the General Election last year, there was a refreshingly serious debate – within the special definitions one applies to politics
. Also a level of courtesy quite unexpected in advance.
This made no difference to the unrealibility of statements made – but that is a different topic.
I have watched the growing vituperation in political debate in the US with some alarm; it has seemed more an exhange of ballistic missiles of propoganda. I have found it to frustrate attempts for serious discussions with Americans.
In our own more reserved way, we have also reached a nadir of civility.
Yet this tragedy seems to point to something slightly different – if still tightly connected. It is the unwillingness to engage in normal democratic process. A revived old and dangerous belief that “might is right”.
In many ways it is a pity that Sarah Palin stands at the centre of this. For what should be a fast reality check on standards itself risks descent in to political haranguing.
But I believe it very hard to refute the charge that the poster, that stands at the apex of bad taste, was an invitation to someone sufficiently motivated to kill.
Whether Americans like it or not, there is a case for regulating the levels of rhetoric, not just calling for calmer debate. Calling for reason, though, has not gone down well in my experience.
I think we need to regulate those on our own side of the political debate, rather than calling out the opposing side. It’s harder to do (because their manipulations call to our own assumption set and emotions), but more powerful when done well.
I think that we’re descending to might makes right in many arenas, and in many countries, because of fear. While it’s often unacknowledged, that gut-level insecurity drives horrendous actions. Hitler could never have risen to power, were the Germans not scared senseless by their recent defeat and their economic disaster.
The rise of terrorism in the Middle East seems to me to be grounded in desperation and fear. The Israelis also have crossed lines, although I don’t generally see most of their actions as being as heinous as their opponents’ have been. And they have a perpetual ground level of fear that drives those failures.
And the list drums on. The fear is most powerful when it remains unfaced. Here in the US, we’re terrified on many levels. But we don’t talk about that. And we don’t realistically assess the grounds for our fears, or deal substantively with the grounds for the fears felt by our political or national opponents. Classic denial on a mass-psychological scale, generating classical symptoms, seems to be the order of the day.
I agree completely.
What a wonderful summary of the challenge we face. We need to be engaging, brisk and amusing, while making our audience think thoughts that they’d rather not face.
Personally, as a congenital optimist, I think there are plenty of people here and elsewhere, who are more than up to it!
And as for getting sales, I think books that do this should at least be easy to publicize. And that’s a big step on the road to sales.
Every once in a while, someone will get rich by not underestimating the public, contrary to the established wisdom. Those flashes and sparks have always seemed to me to be like lighthouses showing the way to a safe (civil) harbor.
Marion, I have no argument on where you “went wrong” in your opinion piece but instead, I find you have expressed a valid commentary on the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in present day America.
Unfortunately, the animal trait of fear and a laziness in thinking is predominate in many (most?) Americans and psychologically the politicians and pundits have found playing upon people’s animal fears works wonders in getting their desired results. Also unfortunately, writers and publishers who produce rational ideas and arguments in their books will have a beautifully produced and intelligent book but probably low sales. The dumbing down of America has permeated all facets of our society, including publishing.
Look at the past few days and the denial from those who make such hate and fear filled incendiary remarks and symbols that their words have any consequences at all. They claim they are simply exercising their first amendment rights of expression and those of us who are concerned are all twisting the meanings into something they never meant to be. Lies have become the new truths. Black is white. Front is back. Forward is backward. Simply, rationality and logic has no place in the world of fear and hate.
So I wish you only good luck in publishing books with intelligent content, rational thoughts and higher ground but the paying audience for reading such writing is, sadly, rapidly dwindling.
I agree that publishers need to assume responsibility for the potential impacts of the words we print. There is, of course, no way to enforce this in a free society; censorship is evil in itself even when its advocates are well intentioned. But it is something we should reflect on from time to time. After all, even though your column is called “The Profitable Publisher,” no sane person would go into publishing for the money. We obviously all, at very least, think we have a higher purpose.
It is important to emphasize that one does not become responsible by just choosing a middle-road position. Often, one side of the argument is a lie and the other is truth. Mainstream media today too often try for “objectivity” by choosing something in the middle, somewhere between a lie and the truth, as if each is an equally valid position. This encourages extremists to speak louder with ever more outrageous claims, in order to move the “middle” or “moderate” position closer to their beliefs. Those most successful at this technique at present are on the right, but that has not always been the case.
Where do we as publishers fit in? Particularly, little independent publishers like me, who consider a book a success if it sells 5,000 or 10,000 copies? Are we relevant at all when Glenn Beck is broadcasting his rants to millions every day? I think we are. Well-written books still exert influence well beyond their readership. Good books on any subject will be read by the opinion-makers on that subject, including some of the opinion-makers who have audiences in the millions. And by average well-informed people whose opinions are trusted and valued in their local communities.
I don’t think the crazed killer in Arizona was heavily influenced by books. The books he has mentioned reading are mostly very good, and others are just the standard classics of old-time fascism and communism. I have no doubt that he was aroused by angry and hateful rhetoric that predominates on some of the broadcast media and Web sites, rhetoric spewed by people who didn’t much care what effect they might have on a mentally ill person. But book publishers are still an important part of our national conversations, and I hope that as an industry, we can play an increasingly positive role in promoting civil discourse.
All of us are influenced to some degree or other by everything we experience. Yes, even those of us who consider ourselves rational and skeptical are influenced. Think then of those who are not always rational and/or have trouble dealing with the vicissitudes of life or simply with people who have different opinions. The rest of us can’t always predict what will help to send them down a horrific path. Therefore, we must be circumspect about the terms we use to express ourselves and not use words or pictures, such as cross-hairs, that might incite an unstable person to violence. It is simply good, mature judgment to avoid doing something so provocative. For some people, the opportunity to gain momentum and media coverage seems to trump mature judgment. When the chickens come home to roost, some of these people attempt to duck all responsibility. Let us view their denials as what they are: an attempt at self-preservation at all costs. This time, the cost was high.
I agree with both you and Steve, Barbara. Thank you both for commenting.
If you do not mind me asking, just what are you utilizing to prevent spam comments? I noticed your blog is good and free from all the spam bots leaving comments. I own another site myself, and I just like to keep comments open so I never have to come on and approve them all the time, however the spam plugins I have tested out are generally failing to prevent even the most obvious and basic spam responses. Is there anything at all decent out there that does a good job or is my only hope to keep them moderated or simply just close them all together? Thank you, Israel Higbie
I have a spam-detecting plug in, but I approve all comments before they’re posted.
I know that it slows things down, and it certainly takes time, but it’s the only way to ensure that things stay on an even keel.
We should not blame the media for the tragedy in Tucson, the attempted assassination of President Reagan, the Kennedy’s, and others less publisized. What is wrong is the lack of the gun control enforcement.
It is certainly true that the easy availability of powerful weapons will amplify the effect of madmen upon the world.
There are always many contributing factors in any human situation.
Walking in the presence of giants here. Cool tihknnig all around!
Demagogue… There’s a word I haven’t heard for a long time.
I personally think the kind of writing you speak of here is best for a column. A relevant and very successful column.
The reason I say this is because times are changing so fast that you have to write a book about Mandela or Mugabe or maybe an expose about Mubarak to have success. I touched on the Mandela situation here:
http://authopublisher.com/general/mandela-as-publishing-leverage
This is not spam, I have you on my blog roll. I hope you’ll share your thought there.
I agree that breaking news is handled best in periodicals and blogs, rather than books, for obvious reasons. But I believe that we can effectively combat demagoguery in books, as part of our analysis of whatever topic the book covers. And if we ask that all of our authors dissect and debunk whatever are the most influential of the ways that politicians and pundits have used emotion to short-circuit rational thought.
Perhaps if people get that type of commentary interwoven with their more influential and logical reading, they’ll get used to the thought pattern, and start using it.
It’s hard to do that well in a very short piece, though. I’m sure those pieces are more timely, and reach larger audiences, but I’m not sure that the debunking wouldn’t be glossed over.