text:
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
A Publisher's Responsibility?
The not-published book, of course, was THE JEWEL OF MEDINA, which Random House canceled after concerns were raised by an Islamic scholar about its contents. Random House was worried about a backlash and possible acts of violence, while some people were disappointed by the decision, such as Salman Rushdie, who charged that they gave in to "censorship by fear."
Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster recently published a, shall we say, less than truthy smear of Barack Obama called OBAMA NATION, which promptly went straight to the top of bestseller lists everywhere. The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal and the book has been criticized in the press, prompting the Observer and Politico to wonder if Simon & Schuster will have to answer for the book and suffer a backlash.
So, with all of that fresh in your brain, here's what I'm wondering: how much responsibility should a publisher bear for what they choose to publish and choose not to publish?
Is a publisher morally responsible for the content they publish, or should the publisher respond to public demand, stand back, and let the public and marketplace determine the merits of the books they publish?
Do publishers have a civic responsibility or should they let the public decide?
111 comments:
- ORION said...
Personally I think it's reprehensible for them to publish a book like that BUT I abhor the idea of any kind of censorship.
It does seem to be a subjective decision by editors whether to go with something or not- It appears to be easier for publishers to nix a fiction book tho...BUT
any publicity is good publicity.
I am curious about any recourse Obama has to obvious untruths - and wondering about the motivation of the editor not to fact check like - say - if it was a memoir. An interesting double standard.
- August 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I want to have the right to choose what to read. Period.
I think the publisher's job is to publish books, and the public's job is to choose which ones to read.
Just my 2 cents.
- August 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
"I think the publisher's job is to publish books, and the public's job is to choose which ones to read."
I agree with amber
- August 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
- slcard said...
Wow! I am beginning to feel rather strongly about a notion of shared subconscious (everyone deciding to have their home burn down for a recent example), as for months I have been considering the etiquette on how to write to you to ask you to post such a question. I look forward to the debate.
I believe we are all absolutely responsible for what we put our names on. Think long and hard about it, make your choice, then stand up for it. If future evidence proves you were wrong then say so, but we must take responsibility for what we say, do, write, publish, represent. Whether we like it or not, history will peg it to us anyway. If we must be damned, let us at least be damned for honesty.
- August 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Well, if it's full of fabricated "facts" then that's all on the author. Publishers, I'm sure, don't have time to do research on everything their clients write about. If the content is offensive, but not because the facts are screwed up, then I don't think that's the publisher's problem either. If someone doesn't like the content of a book, they shouldn't read it.
So, basically all I'm trying to say is that the AUTHOR should really think about what they're writing and be wise about it, and the PUBLISHER should select projects they believe in , but do so carefully. The public's reactions to the books aren't the publishers fault. That's all I have to say :3
- August 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
"Civic responsibility" sounds like something the old Soviet Union would have used as an excuse to publish their govt propaganda. I wonder if the Chinese use something quite similar.
So, comrades! Is "civic responsibility" not just for communists anymore?
- August 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I agree with Amber about censorship, BUT if I maintained an office with several hundred employees under my charge and I recieved councel that something I was about to do might put any of them in actual physical harm (especially in a city like NY where 9/11 still shows scars)I would much rather be crucified in the press for succumbing to "censorship by fear" than not be able to sleep at night with real fear for myself or my employees.
Let Salmon Rushdie publish the book himself and then NOT go into hiding, if he's so concerned about it.
Anyway, aren't there are far more cases of books being published that shouldn't have been than there are of actual censorship in the publishing world?
ps - (In a horrble transition of topic) - Nathan - How about The Hills launch this week? "I will never be your friend."
- August 20, 2008 at 1:59 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
Sadly, it's still waiting to be watched on my DVR.
- August 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM
- Scott said...
I think this might be your stickiest question yet, and I don't have enough hands to come to a conclusion.
On one hand, censorship is bad. Really bad. On the other hand, among its many responsibilities, a publisher is responsible for the safety of the people who work for it, and if there's good reason to expect that they might be putting it's people at risk, the publisher should choose safety.
On the other hand, changing the way you do business, or the way you do anything, out of fear of terrorist gives a victory to the terrorists. If you admit terror and act out of fear, terrorists win.
And, on another hand, a publisher should be at least partly responsible for making sure non-fiction books are non-fiction. On the other hand, they can't check everything, and so, if I understand correctly, the contract usually assigns the responsibility for truth to the author.
I could pile on more hands, but these hands are supposed to be working.
- August 20, 2008 at 2:05 PM
- Morgan Dempsey said...
I believe that publishers do have a responsibility to their public, which extends as far as publishing the truth, and apologizing and retracting when they failed to do so (and, in a perfect world, giving the money earned from the lies to public libraries--well, I can dream).
Outside of that, it's the public's responsibility to not be assholes when things get published. If it's a supposedly factual encounter that was a pack of lies, I hope you kept your receipts. If it's a work of fiction and it rubs you the wrong way, simply say, "Not for me."
What ever happened to the old kindergarten lesson of "Use your words, not your fists" ?
- August 20, 2008 at 2:09 PM
- Sharpmetal said...
Tough call here, though it occurs to me that if a publisher required absolute truth in its non-fiction releases, we may never see another book from a politician or pundit from either side of the aisle on the shelves again! On second thought, maybe the call isn't so difficult...
- August 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM
- Kat Harris said...
Well said Morgan Dempsey.
And sharpmetal...that probably wouldn't be a bad thing. ;-)
- August 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM
- Dan said...
At first this struck me as a catch-22 situation, but after some thought, I'm going to agree with my mom - if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.
If Random House's decision was based purely on anticipated reaction and not the content of the book (how many Islamic scholars raised concerns, btw?) - then that might be a little weak.
BUT if you hesitate to censor yourself, not only are you contributing to dropping media standards to somewhere between irrelevant and drivel - but you're also knowingly capitalizing on the mis-education of the public, which is even worse.
Nathan, how would you react if you had a hypothetical client who wrote either book?
- August 20, 2008 at 2:48 PM
- J.P. Kurzitza said...
Good point Amber. We should have more books about how the holocaust never took place, or perhaps how to make a bomb out of materials in your shop class.
C'mon girl. :(
- August 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM
- RED STICK WRITER said...
Generally, I think publishers will err on the side of what will sell. That means that untrue stuff will get published. That part of the question is easy. The part that is hard is public safety in the face of terrorist threats. It's a Hobson's choice. You lose either way.
- August 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
- JES said...
Two different discussions: the responsibility of a fiction publisher, and the responsibility of a non-fiction publisher.
In the Simon & Schuster case, what Lauren Fobbs said: publishers bear SOME responsibility, but it's limited by their resources. Their main weapon is (or should be, I think), a contractual agreement that a work of non-fiction is exactly that, with the burden of proof and heaviest responsibility on the author.
Random House wasn't in the same situation. Because "someone" voiced "concern" that "something" "bad" "might" happen, well, we better act on it as though the "threat" were imminent rather than merely possible. RH and its offspring publish thrillers every year, in effect templates for violence, which suggest various ingenious ways to kill people, to carry out acts of terrorism, to torture victims, and so on. Like, okay, RH -- so the mere possibility of actual human pain and death is sufficient to stop publication of a work of fiction? Then put your money where your mouth is: don't publish ANYTHING that might lead to such an outcome. Stick with children's, pallid YA, textbook, and reference products.
- August 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
- Katie Alender said...
Publishers should be free to publish or not publish as they please. Readers are free to buy or not buy as they please.
But the ultimate fallout of all these falsified memoirs and smeary political books remains to be seen.
Publishers will have to deal with decreased credibility, in the long run. And my instinct is that ultimately it hurts not only publishers but authors as well--by alienating readers, even in tiny doses.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM
- Jeanne Ryan said...
Individual publishers have the right to say and not say what they want within the existing laws. We have laws against libel and the publisher has an obligation not to pass on information they know is false. It cannot hide under the skirts of "it's just a business decision." There is no such thing. Every action has a moral component to it. If it can be shown that 1) the information is false and 2) the publishing house knew the author was acting in a malicious manner, they should be held accountable for they are an accessory.
As for Medina, unfortunately Random House has a right to be a coward. It is shirking its responsibility that everyone has to create a society we want to live in. Does it want to live in a world where we are scared to publish certain books? Every time someone does that, it becomes a little easier for people to accept and we fall down that very dangerous slippery slope.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Re: "Well, if it's full of fabricated "facts" then that's all on the author. Publishers, I'm sure, don't have time to do research on everything their clients write about."
I completely disagree - a political candidate for the US President? You can put anything into print by a reputable publisher about a candidate? Simon & Schuster lend credibility to untruth when they publish books like Obama Nation.
I agree with Orion - this is a double standard - the lies in Margaret Seltzer's book did not have GLOBAL implications, the way lies in a book about a presidential candidate does. It's Swift Book rather than Swift Boat - I mean, will Simon & Schuster pick up my potential bestseller about the other presidential candidate, entitled "Armageddon's Grandfather?" Please, Nathan, cut me a deal.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
- nomadshan said...
Publishing houses are businesses, and I expect them to act like businesses.
I expect houses to choose what they publishes based on market appeal.
In the case of an author whose book is yanked just before it's offloaded from the truck (as seems to be the case with Jewel of Medina), I expect the publisher to (a) compensate the author for any work they were directed to do on the book, and (b) NOT hold the author to paying back an advance.
If a house's Board of Directors or stockholders want the house to have a moral stance, I expect them to publish that stance on their website -- and then stick to it.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
- Dennis Cass said...
Bump to Jes on bringing up the apples and the oranges.
Also, Jack Shafer did a piece on Slate on how book publishers and newspaper publishers have different standards when it comes to factual accuracy.
Putting the shoulds aside, book publishers simply do not have a mechanism in place for ensuring accuracy for nonfiction.
They do, however, have a system for protecting themselves against legal troubles.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM
- Sharpmetal said...
Wanda, that book has already been written: The Real McCain by Cliff Shecter. That the market for liberal attack books is a fraction of the conservative market doesn't make the lies/propaganda in that book any less onerous.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.." First Amendment to the Constitution.
"Truthiness" as defined by Colbert, has to do with wanting something to be true. If a book has been published with smears against someone that are unsubstantiated, it would appear to be loaded with truthiness, not lacking it.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Poor planning in regards to Jewel of Medina: Before they even got around to announcing the book was coming out, why didn't they sponsor a panel discussion on CSPAN with novelists, scholars etc, on "Contemporary Depictions of Islamic Woman in History," or something like that - start the dialogue MONTHS before you go sending out review copies or asking for blurbs. I mean, you didn't do your homework if you send your book to a scholar you thought would have a positive response, and it turns out she hates the book, the whole concept of the book. Wasn't there some other way to ease into it? Maybe there wasn't. But it just seems like the proper groundwork wasn't laid, to give you a soft (somewhat softer) landing when news of the book came out.
But then maybe the reasoning was, harder landing = bigger bucks?
Or maybe a panel discussion about free speech LAW in the Middle East - publishing in the Middle East, creative writing in the Middle East (is "creative writing," as in
creative writing MFA, just a Western Christian concept? seriously, I don't know...), women writers in the Middle East...Muslim women novelists...I think you get my drift...
- August 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Nathan (or readers), maybe you could address this question as well?
I'm kind of new at this writing gig, so patience is appreciated...
With the Obama smear book out there, did the author open himself up to a possible libel suit? How could a publishing house knowingly publish materials that were not true, unless they waived their liability in the contract with the author?
(I hope that makes sense - my real question follows...)
What do you do then, if you are writing a memoir based on someone and while the information paints them in a very ugly light, the information is all TRUE? Obviously, some of it is opinion/perception, but the facts stated can easily be backed up with evidence. Is the author putting himself/herself at risk for a lawsuit?
Gosh, I hope that came out clearly. I do believe that country has become ridiculously litigious. Our constitutional rights should trump any level of publishing censorship AS LONG AS the information is accurate.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Re: "Wanda, that book has already been written: The Real McCain by Cliff Shecter. That the market for liberal attack books is a fraction of the conservative market doesn't make the lies/propaganda in that book any less onerous."
No, it hasn't been written. I don't mean a book directed at liberals. I mean, an attack book directed AT the conservative market - with a picture of John McCain superimposed on a nuclear bomb going off - and then in the book, it makes the argument that John McCain wants thermonuclear war, i.e., he is Armageddon's Grandfather.
Please, a book with McCain embracing Bush, and THAT'S supposed to be "a liberal attack book." Quite lukewarm I would say. Kindly even.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if The Real McCain does indeed have "lies/propaganda" in it.
- August 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
- Sam Hranac said...
Do publishers have a civic responsibility? I think that is secondary to the fact that everyone has a moral responsibility to shoulder the consequences of their actions.
Is it a civic or a moral decision to not stage dog fights to the death? That's what the publication of some material amounts to. Free speech is one thing, but if you just like to drop bombs in a crowded room, you have a moral responsibility for the consequences. Saying you didn't write it shouldn't let you off the hook.
To rightfully publish a book that will stir controversy or violence, the publisher should feel that it was necessary. That decision is on them. They make the call. They need to live with it. I'm not advocating censorship - it is up to each of us to write and publish what we believe will make the world a better place.
(Pardon me while I step off of this rickety soapbox.)
- August 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
- Dave F. said...
Well, nothing like TWO controversial books to spice things up.
#1 - I think that Random House was wrong for not publishing "The Jewel of Medina." They gave into fear and threats. They cluck. Their pants drip from something other than fear. The Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie has been lifted and violence toward him renounced. They should have stood up to the bullies. It's sad they didn't.
#2 - Jerome Corsi's own history proves him a less than truthful or even moral person. "Obama Nation" is a compilation of lies, smears, innuendos with nothing new or even startling in it. The only person he could get to publish it was the "lean and hungry" (think Shakespeare) Mary Matlan (spelling), a well known opponent ofr everything liberal, Democratic or progressive. She's also got that "new imprint" under her control and needed a book that sells. Ah what greed can spawn....
Far be it from me to say that political screeds shouldn't be published. Abe Lincoln was reviled for having "smelly feet" - some of our founding father were accused of fathering illegitimate offspring, cross dressing, being less than men (eunuchs) and other such vile nonsense that yellow journalists blush. There is a grand tradition of smutty political mud-slinging. Why should we start behaving now?
AS one of the other commentators said - I want to be able to read anything. Of course I may choose not to read it, but I want the choice.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
- Luc2 said...
As a European, i was brought up with a mix of the socialist liberalism roughly inspired by the French revolution) and the individual-based freedoms of the American constitution.
I do believe in the importance of these constitutional freedoms and rights, like the freedom of speech, but it does bother me that in today's society, everybody is only interested in their rights, and nobody cares about responsibilities and obligations.
The ever-expanding individualism is great, and I enjoy many aspects of it. But we are part of a community, which should be steered mostly by manners, moral consciousness and mutual respect, and not by civil lawsuits (and I'm a lawyer!).
When i get off the soapbox, and look at these two cases, I believe that one should be mindful of others when publishing something that may be hurtful to others. There's nothing wrong with self-censure. we apply it every day in our social behavior.
A publisher makes money from the books it sells. IMO, that also brings with it a moral responsibility (moral, not legal) to be accountable for the books it publishes. Hiding behind the author is too easy. It reminds me of officers in violent conflicts who hid behind the mantra of taking orders from higher officers.
The issue raised by Rushdie is the most difficult. I don't think one should bend to the threat of violence. I don't know much about the books in question, but if they consciously entices hate or violence, I think the moral obligation to act respectfully towards others is more important than the freedom of speech.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
- SAVanVleck said...
I too abhor censorship, but I think any publisher/journalist has the responsibility to check their facts.
I do not expect a respectable publishing house to take part in Tabloid journalism. When they put their imprint on a book, their reputation is a factor in my purchase.
There are plenty of publishers out there who want to publish, and have the reputation of publishing, grist for the rumor mill.
At election time, it is even more important to stick to the facts to help people make an informed decision.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
- Jen Turner said...
Whatever happened to everyone being responsible for their own words and actions?
I also agree there is a difference here between non-fiction and fiction.
In the case of Obama Nation - I think it really has to do with the intelligence of the person picking up the book. I would like to believe that any person reading a book as such, wouldn't necessarily believe every word found inside, unless the author is Obama. If it's written by anyone else, it's simply an account, given by a person who interpreted events in their own personal way. No more, no less.
In terms of The Jewel of Medina...it's fiction. The thought that anyone would raise a torch and pitchfork over a fictional novel, boggles the mind.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
- sex scenes at starbucks said...
I think the individual publishers must decide, based on their own mission statements and standards, what to publish. I abhor censorship as well, but having recently turned down an intriguing story for content, I know that I have to decide what I'll pay for and what I won't.
I think it's a crying shame that Random House 1. let such a book get so far without pulling it long ago, or 2. didn't just go ahead and publish it. Letting it get so far and then pulling it just chalks one up for Islamic terrorism. In fact, I'd say RH just let them strike at the heart of what makes the US great. Cheesy, I know, but I believe that strongly in Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, capitalism is often at odds with it, as is wanting to live safely.
As for the other, I wonder if the book had been "McCain Nation" whether there would have been as much stink over it. I don't worry about it too much. I'm guessing intelligent, thinking readers can smell strong bias in the media by now. If not, then shame on us.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
It's a business. When we set up a business to guard our moral and civic responsibilities, we all lose in too many ways to describe. Why are books regarded so differently to other media, is the question I ponder. Books have a nationwide institution dedicated to doing exactly what Napster did. No one can deny that libraries push someone else's hard work to others for free. Just imagine Microsoft's response to "Office" free from any library. And think about it, does it cause nationwide uproar to prosecute (literally or otherwise) DIRECTV for broadcasting pornography, or choosing not to? (Should I begin my next query with that rhetorical question? How about some more?) Do we prosecute newspapers for publishing someone's opinion, so long as it's properly ascribed to that individual? Are you weary of this rhetorical rant yet? Folks, business is business and businesses are there to make money and protect themselves from risks they cannot stomach. Any other expectation is an excuse to disagree with a choice -- censorship, in other words. Thanks for listening.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
- superwench83 said...
Not publishing The Jewel of Medina is kind of like the gun-prevention rules in some schools. You can only carry a clear bookbag because someone might try to sneak a gun in with a bag you can't see through. If you get cold in class, you can't put on a jacket with a hood because you might be concealing a weapon in there. Such rules are silly. If people want to commit acts of terror, they're going to do it sooner or later no matter what preventative tactics you put in place. And if you put those tactics into place, all of those people who have no intentions of hurting anyone are going to be the ones affected, not the ones you're trying to stop. That being said, Random House has every right to make the decision they did. I just don't agree with that choice.
Regarding the Obama book, it's hardly the first or last book to contain blatant lies about a person. I'm kind of torn about how accountable I think the publisher is. Reading the comments has given me some food for thought. I'll ponder it.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Re: "In the case of Obama Nation - I think it really has to do with the intelligence of the person picking up the book."
"As I understand it, these books are propelled to the top of the best seller list in large part by bulk purchases from interested groups. A conservative group will purchase a large quantity of the books (for far less than the cost of, say, a TV ad - they get the books at a discount), then hand them out to people who might be susceptible to the lies in the book. [...]
The New York Times best-seller list does count corporate sales, etc., in its rankings, but it notes when a book's sales have been influenced by these factors. Unsurprisingly, Corsi's book has a footnote attached to it saying "A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." So they're at it again."
- August 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
- Sharpmetal said...
Wanda - so the equivalent response to a book claiming Obama is a Muslim who belonged to a radical church is a book claiming McCain desires thermonuclear war and the destruction of manking? Okay...not the bar I'm looking to set for politcal discourse but to each his own. That's why we live in America.
- August 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
- Jen Turner said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Well, right at the moment S& S is on my loser list because of a "teen" book that I just read that should be X rated. If you're going to market it as YA, it should be so, and there should be no lines from a drag queen about wanting sperm in your scrambled eggs (yes, really. And that's not even the worst line. Plus, the book just sucked.)
So as much as I abhor censorship, I do think that writers and publishers have to have some sort of moral obligation to the public. If something is marketed for teens, there should be certain guidelines to follow. If a book is published as factual, then it should be just that. Otherwise, they are lying through their (in this case) swiftboating teeth.
In this day and age, most facts can be checked by a click of the keyboard.Al Franken checked all facts in his book about Rush (checking facts not being something Rush would know about).And doesn't this set them up for a huge slander suit? Isn't writing and publishing a book of lies about a LAWYER probably the most stupid thing to do ever?
Are there not any standards of decency left in this world? Greed, terror, thank goodness I have my writing to keep me going. Now if you will excuse me, my protagonist's house is just about to be set on fire by overweight Mayan vampires...
- August 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
- Jen Turner said...
Re: Wanda - "A conservative group will purchase a large quantity of the books (for far less than the cost of, say, a TV ad - they get the books at a discount), then hand them out to people who might be susceptible to the lies in the book."
I'd be interested to know how one is identified as a susceptible/gullible target.
Personally, I admit to having a moral compass stuck firmly in the grey, and to not believing anything unless presented with proof. But someone would have to be lacking something necessary for survival to believe anything printed in a political book is 100% true.
I just can't get on board with the publisher being held liable for this one.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I think what "should" happen might be irrelevant since many, many books have been published which do tell outright lies and slant the truth to fit their political or moral or historical agendas.
Responsibility for what a company publishes does land square on their shoulders, but it's their company after all so they can spend the money to publish truth or lies. The dynamic of specific contractual responsibilities adds another dimension for the legal crowd.
Readers have a responsibility as well. They can read back cover copy, scan reviews and interviews, etc. The decisions to buy are in their hands.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM
- Dave F. said...
Remember the old joke about the politician who screams: "My opponent is a philatelist" knowing that his audience will not understand and think the worst sexual acts possible? And remember that some political groups tried to use Rick Santorum's last name for a subject/object I can't even hint at in polite company? Politics is filled with mud.
We reward politicians with attack ads by voting for them. Who are we kidding?
Paul Vitello of the International Herald Tribune writes:
When Thomas Jefferson found himself accused of planning to burn all Bibles and legalize prostitution if elected president in 1800, he was ready with a counterpunch that might make today's most vitriolic campaign operatives stop short.
Jefferson's rival, President John Adams, was endowed with a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." If re-elected he would crown himself king, and, by the way, he was "mentally deranged."
The author of the attacks was not Jefferson himself, of course, but a master poison-pen pamphleteer named James Callender, who, historians have since determined, was bankrolled by Jefferson.
Jefferson? Our beloved Jefferson? The one with that big stone memorial on the river in DC?
YES! Jefferson.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM
A publisher has a responsibility to make sure that the nonfiction they publish is substantially true. A book can be offensive, but only if its targets are offended because it's true.
A publisher does not exactly have a responsibility to publish books like the Medina one, but I sure wish someone would have the guts to do it.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:36 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
Wildly off topic. Let's stick to books.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I just have one questin. Why are we decidieng that the book about Obama is a stack of bovine wast but the rebuttal is only supassed in truth by the bible?
- August 20, 2008 at 5:54 PM
- Nikki Hootman said...
I don't think a publisher has any moral responsibility to publish or not publish any book, at any time. They make choices every day - reject one manuscript, make an offer on another. They don't really have to justify those choices to anybody.
On the other hand, however, when it comes down to it, what is a publisher but a group of people?
So the question is not, "Do publishers have a responsibility..." but, "Do *people* have a responsibility...?"
Do people have a responsibility to stand up to terrorism?
Do people have a responsibility to tell the truth?
My answers are yes and yes. I don't think threats of terror are a valid excuse for not publishing a book, and I don't think lack of veracity (in non-fiction) is a good reason TO publish a book. Neither one are acceptable criteria for rejection or acceptance, from my moral standpoint.
- August 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I think it all depends on how the book is marketed.
I don't know much about the Random House title, so I'm not going to address that one directly, but in the case of the book on Obama (or any other public figure)-
If a book is a "less than truthy smear" then it should not be marketed as a hard hitting, factually accurate piece. These facts are verifiable, and it is the responsibility of the editor/publisher to either 1) verify them 2)request re-writes to come into factual truth or 3) not market the book as either factual or truth. The Obama book could still have been published under a different flag; Satire, Humor, edtiorial/perspective. (Though I've not read the book to know if any of these are appropriate)
In general terms regarding the Random House piece, I agree that censorship is not to be desired. But at the same time, Random House has the right to publish or not publish as it see's fit and so long as it can do so within the terms of the contract. Assuming the contract allows it, there is nothing stopping the author from marketing his book elsewhere should he/she so choose.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
- Nikki Hootman said...
Incidentally I find it a little odd that people are referring to a publisher's decision not to publish a particular book as 'censorship.' Simply because a certain business - not the government, mind you - declines to spend their own money making a book available to the public for purchase does NOT mean that author is somehow prohibited from going to another publisher, self-publishing, e-publishing, or distributing his/her ideas in some other fashion. Claiming that this IS censorship is not only silly, it's a bit insulting to authors and other artists who endured great suffering for their work under totalitarian regimes.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:05 PM
- Steppe said...
Tough questions always cause me to eliminate the weirdest possibilities first.
Maybe the character of the fictional novel is out there somewhere reincarnated and put the old whammy on the book by throwing a space alien monkey mind meld on the writer.
Maybe Obama's ID jumped ship and the spectre went south for the election and as Obama tried to track it down ,it start retaliating by blabbing all kinds of previously secret information.
One way or another Random House would never have published the Obama book. But, Simon an Schuster might have published the fictionalized historical novel about Mohammed's nubile concubine.
Random House is Liberal
Simon and Schuster are Conservative
The rest is just a chess game.
Although I do check out if an agent is selling to both sides being the machievellian space monkeey that I am.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:19 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Check this out:
From March 2005:
"Mary Matalin, right, the political strategist, will oversee a new imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.'s adult publishing group that will specialize in books about conservative politics and current events, executives said yesterday. The imprint, which has yet to be named, will publish 6 to 10 books a year and will be jointly managed by David Rosenthal, the publisher of Simon & Schuster, and Louise Burke, the publisher of Pocket Books." Etc.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM
- Timothy Fish said...
A publisher is under no obligation to publish a book. A publisher does has a responsibility to stand behind anything they publish. Knowingly publishing inaccurate content is no better a gossip repeating the latest rumor or a supermarket tabloid. Even worse, one inaccurate book can hurt the reputation of all of the books they publish.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Since Simon & Schuster promotes Obama Nation as nonfiction, as a "thoroughly researched and documented book," shouldn't they be held accountable? Why should memoirists be held to task, but a publisher, who labels and promotes the book, be let to slide? Shouldn't it be slander!!
- August 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
I think anon raises an interesting point -- why are memoirists (and the publishers who publish them) held to a higher standard than political authors (and the publishers who publish them)?
- August 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM
- Arjay said...
You bet your sweet bippy they're responsible!
- August 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM
So, what about Comrade Pelosi's book? Why didn't that sell? Don't inquiring minds want to know, or at least discuss? How are you going to explain that? Crappy marketing? LOL
- August 20, 2008 at 6:46 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
What does that have to do with anything?
Can the political trolls of both stripes please stand on the sidelines so we can talk about books? I'm going to be wielding the delete button liberally (and I don't mean that in a political sense) from here on out.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 20, 2008 at 6:52 PM
"Do publishers have a civic responsibility or should they let the public decide?"
Don't we all have a civic responsibility? Isn't it kind of a sad reflection on the business that you have to ask this?
- August 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM
- Erik said...
I believe very strongly that the printed word has and will continue to have a tremendous affect on what could be called "culture", and that this is something which should be taken seriously.
Now, back to the biz. A publisher exists to make money. In order to do that, they can go with the quick-hits of what they know will be fashionable, regardless of veracity. But their reputation suffers in the long run for doing so.
S&S can publish whatever they want, and I will kvetch about it endlessly. If I can make use of this as an example as to why the public needs to support works of cultural value, I will. I hope that the backlash is more powerful than the $$$ they got by publishing it.
But it's their call as to what kind of publisher they want to be. I hope to be part of a movement that shows them that this was the wrong call.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Nathan, my post was about a book. I got the impression that some people are trying to blame the best-selling status of Obama Nation on its publisher being "conservative."
Personally, I think that's a ridiculous premise. IMO a lot of liberals tend to overlook the fact that conservatives are readers, too, not just publicists or what have you! They buy books, a lot of books. I think a lot of conservatives would have bought the Jewel of Medina, too, and will once it finally gets published.
But, Nancy's flop really does stump me. I know liberals are readers, too. So why didn't her book sell?
- August 20, 2008 at 7:05 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
I think people have a handle on why Obama Nation is a bestseller, but that's not what we're talking about. The discussion isn't about why it has sold well but rather about what responsibility a publisher has to publish a nonfiction book that is accurate, and whether a backlash against inaccuracy is justified. Politics doesn't really have anything to do with this, we could have the same discussion about an inaccurate liberal book. But OBAMA NATION happened to be in the news, so there you go.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM
- R. Daley said...
A publisher's decision is based on finances...will the book make money. Especially if it is a public entity, then it is beholden to its shareholders, and all decisions are based on top line revenues and bottom line earnings.
As a reader, I am comfortable in choosing what I do and do not read.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM
- sex scenes at starbucks said...
But what is civic responsibility? Can you even define it in today's America? Where are the lines drawn between responsible and irresponsible? And, really, does a publisher have more civic responsibility than a writer, the bookseller, or the reader?
- August 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I should have said "Shouldn't it be libel?" rather than "... slander".
- August 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM
- Marva said...
Better to keep the fiction (IT'S FICTION, YOU DUMMIES!) and not print the non-fic book laden with lies.
The responsibility of the publisher lies on that line. Is the book supposed to be 'real' or not? If 'real' then it'd better be true.
Okay, liberals need to start being suicide bombers to get any respect. Apparently, being a freakin' nutcase is what's needed to enforce your POV on the public.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM
- Edith said...
I think the publisher's responsibility is to fact check. If what's printed is a lie--then that's libel and the publisher, as well as the author should be responsible. With all the fictionalized memoirs being published of late, one has to be seriously concerned about publishers ability to conduct simple fact-checking. I would think it should be a routine procedure for every book. Heck, even fiction books usually have a fact or two that needs verifying. Who's the weak link? Is it being left to the underpaid copyeditor who could care less? Obviously authors are supposed to do their own due diligence before turning the book over for publication, but as we've seen authors aren't always honest.
- August 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM
- Wanda B. Ontheshelves said...
Check this out:
The Middle East Book Award
Haven't found one yet for adult fiction...anyone know of any such awards?
- August 20, 2008 at 7:59 PM
- JES said...
Anonymous@ 3:37 PM and Nathan@3:42 PM -- I almost brought that up before (non-fiction publisher vs. memoirist). Put OBAMA NATION up against, say, the James Frey mess from a year or so ago -- A MILLION SHINY PIECES or whatever it was. The publisher flipped, and rightly so, when JF was exposed as a liar. At the time, at least as I recall, there was no outcry about the publisher's responsibility. They were embarrassed as bejeezus, sure, and they took their embarrassment out on Frey. I thought that was a justifiable response on their part.
But if a publisher hasn't taken explicit steps to protect itself -- by contractually holding the author to some standard of truth (as any smart publisher would, I'd think) -- I don't see that the publisher deserves a pass. If they have taken those steps, then it's on the author.
Nathan, isn't this what... uh... is the term "indemnification" relates to? like holding a publisher harmless for factual errors in material which the author has averred to be "true"?
- August 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Although I am opposed to censorship, I am also in favor of responsible reporting. If an author promotes his work as factual, then perhaps the author and publisher should be held to the same standard of due diligence as the news industry.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:05 PM
- strangerface said...
To the Anon who said : With the Obama smear book out there, did the author open himself up to a possible libel suit? How could a publishing house knowingly publish materials that were not true, unless they waived their liability in the contract with the author?
Yes, the author opened himself up to a possible lawsuit. Whenever you publish something that someone will disagree with, you take that risk. However, with the Corsi book it is a different situation than with a regular memoir. The difference is that Barack Obama is a public figure (legally speaking) which makes it harder to sue for libel. Obama would have to prove "actual malice" if he were to sue Corsi. And Corsi has pretty much covered his ass by citing "sources" for his claims. He can then say he just didn't know they weren't true (for all we know, he really does believe all this crud).
Legal departments in publishing houses are trained to look for the sort of thing that could bring a lawsuit like this. That's why they change names in memoirs, etc. When a person isn't a public figure, they can sue for invasion of privacy.
The author also makes certain reps and warranties when they sign a contract (Nathan can probably speak more to that). I wouldn't be surprised if the S&S contract with Corsi was very specific, to protect the house.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM
- Betty Atkins Dominguez said...
Simple answer, publishers should publish what they want to publish.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Wasn't it called "yellow journalism" when the press tried to get involved in creating gossip about political candidates?
- August 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM
This may seem naive in the wake of all the previous comments but I feel strongly that publishers should stand behind the books they choose to publish.
Publishing is a huge investment of time, money and expertise. If you're going to make that sort of investment then you should believe in your book and your author. And that means you don't back down to fearmongers who say that the sky might fall. Neither do you publish something that you know is inaccurate and market it as fact.
Of course publishers can be duped by authors - we see it happening all the time with memoirists - but they should go into the process in good faith and believing in the book and the author. A publisher who publishes a smear campaign knowing that it's full of inaccuracies and also knowing that it will sell millions of copies should be held accountable for any distress caused by their book.
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:23 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM
- M Clement Hall said...
Nathan has thrown out a real "Hail Mary" and the players are scambling after the ball.
A writer will have a problem if
(s)he doesn't grasp the elementary fact that the publishing industry is controlled by the rules and laws of business.
It is not a public service.
It is not a charity.
It is not a rich man's playground.
It's purpose is to make money for the owners. If it fails in that purpose, it becomes a part of history.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM
- Inner Child said...
The author and the publisher have strong Republican ties and are unapologetic about the intent of the book - to discredit Senator Obama. The book should be printed, if at all, as a piece of fiction. To represent it as fact is dishonest and disgraceful.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:35 PM
- Gabrielle said...
I think they are two separate problems. Censorship, with the Medina novel, is awful. Of course there are lots of iffy and potentially offensive books. They should still be published.
The second-- publishers should do their job in making sure the facts are CORRECT. They stand behind the book if it's in the Nonfiction section as saying the facts (not opinions) are correct. If the facts are incorrect, they haven't done their job. *Especially* with such a high profile book as Obama Nation.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:36 PM
- Mags said...
Why'd it get picked up?
Jewel of Medina? Topical, but how's the writing? Fabulous? Okay, decide whether to publish and stand by it. Not fabulous? Acknowledge that you've stepped into heated waters and take responsibility.
The Obama tome? You chose to grab, you knew money would follow, don't complain if you're held accountable for the fallout. You've got fact checkers.
Like everything, a publisher's responsibility slides around, depending on the situation.
IM(so very)HO.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM
- sex scenes at starbucks said...
the same standard of due diligence as the news industry
What if the news industry was held to any standard of due dilligence??
Ok, that was rhetorical, just to bug Nathan. Heehee.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Publishers, especially the good people at S&S whom I've worked with and adore, have a moral responsibility to publish the truth, and I don't think they take that lightly. I don't think their laywers take that lightly either.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:46 PM
- Ben said...
This is a tough call. I am against censorship--however, that is a personal standpoint. In the publishing industry, I'm given to understand that the driving force is book sales. If an agent, editor, or publisher doesn't believe that a book is going to sell, then it uses that as a criterion for rejecting an author's book. One could describe that as a sort of censorship.
It would be absurd to say that publishers must publish all books, of course. So some censorship is required to keep the industry practical.
I don't like the fact that Random House pulled The Jewel of Medina. I think that it is within its rights as a publisher to refuse to publish something on moral grounds. However, if the Random House holds the rights to The Jewel of Medina, then that's just mean. If a publisher refuses to publish a books for moral reasons, the author should have the right to seek another publisher or publish it online. Otherwise, a publisher could just buy a book, refuse to publish it for moral reasons, and leave it sitting in a shelf forever. That's unfair to the public and unfair to the author. Random House should have rejected The Jewel of Medina outright if it had concerns because of its content.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM
- Vieva said...
I think that if they're publishing nonfiction, they have a moral responsibility to at least TRY to make sure it's honest - so the Obama book is a problem on that front. Because it's known bull.
As far as refusing to publish based on fear - I think it was the wrong decision, but an understandable one. After all, they didn't want their people getting targeted, and that's another admirable trait. It's two goods in opposition, and that's the hardest thing to judge. It's two good things. And while I might decide *for myself* to take the risk to publish and take the consequences, that's a pretty difficult thing to take for *other people*. I think that's an important distinction.
- August 20, 2008 at 8:53 PM
The publisher, especially one in the supposedly "free and home of the "brave" USA, should have published the book about Mohammed's mistress. It wasn't even a Muslim who said there would be violence, it was a professor at a Texas college (not Muslim.) ANd even if it were a threatening Muslim, what happened to free press, free speech and that this IS AMERICA? NOT a fascist country who bows down to terrorists. I guess shopping is in order, but not book publishing and book reading. The PC police are at it again - conservatism in the guise of extreme politically correct liberalism.
What next, if I write a book about a government agency, the publisher will be scared that some corporate-sucking bribe-taking Congressman is going to blow them all up? Give me a break.
This is America. Random House should act like it. They are cowards and going against all that America stands for.
- August 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM
from what i'm reading lately - a few memoirs - I don't think they are truthful - people remembering in detail conversations, chair cushions, mom and dad's conversation, what they wore, etc when the writer was 3 years old - give me a break!
- August 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM
- Kristin Laughtin said...
I've got to agree with JES here re: the responsibility of fiction publishers. RH is doing this based on something that "might" happen, and has happened before. (And the person it happened to, Salman Rushdie, is still against it!) But are they willing to do this any time any author writes something offensive? Because if something's offensive, someone somewhere will be willing to kill because of it. Censoring works like this puts us on a slippery slope--how controversial does a work have to be before it becomes too "dangerous" to publish? How many people does it have to potentially offend? Does it matter who those people are, or are all demographics equal? There have been many books published that insult my religion/religious figures, and while I may dislike the content, I never expect any publisher to stop putting out such works out of fear. There's freedom of the press in America, so publishers are free to publish (or not) whatever they want, but selective censorship still annoys me. It's caving in and it's cowardly and I wonder if it will start a new trend and how far that trend will extend.
- August 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM
- Jeff said...
I think publishers of non-fiction have a responsibility to make a minimal effort to check the facts of the nonfiction they publish. I wouldn't want to see a pubishing world like it is in Great Britain, but at the same time, far too much garbage has been published in the name of the free market.
As for the threat of terrorist actions against a publisher for publishing a work of fiction, I'd say the chances of that actually happening are miniscule. Terrorists have much juicier targets. I would have to say that we aren't being told the whole story here. My guess is S&S wanted out of this book, for whatever reason, and this is a handy excuse.
- August 20, 2008 at 10:53 PM
- Jeff said...
Sorry, that should have been Random House, not S&S.
- August 20, 2008 at 10:57 PM
- kai said...
Yes, I think the publisher is responsible for the content they publsh. If they choose to publish degrating, prejudice material shining a light on how all 5 year old blonde children should be eradicated, then they must stand behind that decision. This is no different. However, if they choose to publish it and the public doesn't like it, the publisher should suffer the consequences. Just like they 'suffer' them when the public loves it, eats it up and reccommends it to all their friends. To break under pressure and retract a book after publishing seems wrong to me. They should have done all the research and made all the decisions about content BEFORE the book was published.
- August 20, 2008 at 11:09 PM
- clindsay said...
Re the Random House decision...well, that's a hard one.
While the decision to not publish makes me personally uncomfortable, I can also see the other side of the situation. I was a bookseller in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1988 and 1989, during the time of the Satanic Verses/Salman Rushdie fatwa and the subsequent paranoia that ensued. I had good friends who worked at Cody's Bookstore when it was firebombed for carrying the book. A lot of booksellers were (justifiably) frightened after that. Some bookstores chose not to carry the book.
Ultimately, our bookstore - a tiny independent - chose to carry the book but I do remember thinking to myself at the time "Yeah, censorship sucks, but at $3.95 an hour, does a bookseller really earn enough money to justify putting his or her life at risk to simply make a point?"
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
- August 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM
- markwise said...
Publishers are there to make money and not decide morality. If the public wants to buy it, then there will be a publisher out there to print it.
If publishers were meant to be guardians of our moral conscience, then there would be no Romance section in the bookstores.
- August 21, 2008 at 1:28 AM
- putzjab said...
I'm in complete agreement with markwise. Publishers are in it for the money. If they deem a story is not going to give them enough buck for all the banging they have to do to get the story on the shelf, they won't bother. Obama stuff sells regardless of whether or not there's an inch of truth to the content.
Frustrated Struggling Wannabe Published Author...(Lena)
- August 21, 2008 at 7:00 AM
- wafla said...
Publishers and authors can publish whatever they please. Similarly, they are free to take the consequences. Corsi and his publisher should be sued into oblivion by the wounded parties. In that regard the system works just fine.
The question gets more difficult when people like Corsi incite murder. By de-legitimizing progressive views and dehumanizing progressives, we get credulous Republicans shooting unitarians in churches, killing Democrats, and blowing up buildings. In these cases Corsi and other profiteers are essentially steadying the shooter's aim and pointing out targets, and then laughing all the way to the bank.
If the publishers didn't want money so much, they would have no motive to publish these books. Fewer conservatives would be misled, and more Americans would be alive today. I know that money is awesomely cool... but it's only one consideration in a decision, ergo the publishers aren't really thinking this through.
- August 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM
I don't think it's a question of morality. Nobody is saying publishers shouldn't publish immoral tales.
It's about lies. It's about deliberately publishing falsehoods. There are plenty of rag magazines and rag publishers to publish the lies, but they are known for publishing lies and nobody should take anything they publish seriously.
What Simon and Schuster does is hurt the reliability of all their other non-fiction. That's why most publishers take getting it right very seriously, because why should I believe anything S&S publishes if they are willing to publish a book full of lies? Where does it stop?
If they want to join the ranks of Regenery Press, they are welcome to do so. There's a lot of right-wing billionaires out there to buy up books and put them on the bestseller list.
But if they want to remain a reputable publisher, they should stand behind what they publish. If they can't do that, if right-wing billionaire money is just too tempting, fine, that's there business decision. But I hope they don't get offended if peope begin to doubt the reliability of the remainder of their book list.
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
- August 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Are (read here conservative)cable news networks morally responsible for misleading millions of viewers by putting their own spin (read here agenda) on programming and so called breaking news? Are newspapers morally responsible for printing misleading headlines, which less than savy readers scan and call themselves informed, and putting the truth in fine print on page 14B?
Or, is it up to the reader or viewer to fire up brain cell number two and actually incorporate their own thoughts, morals and values in deciding what to read, what to believe, and how to act and react?
On the other hand, morals rarely have a place when we're talking bottom dollar. Publishers will publish what they believe will make them money, and they will back out on what they believe will cost them money.
- August 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM
- Paula said...
Being alive means accepting responsibility for one's actions, Nathan. I strongly support the right to free speech, but just because we are free to say anything doesn't necessarily mean we should.
- August 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM
- Maripat said...
I hate censorship in all of its ugly disguises. Afraid to publish a book? Shame on them. As for Obama Nation, well, it is the political season. I would've found it stranger if no such book even existed. Not saying it's right or wrong, but there have always been books published on candidates, presidents and other world leaders. I'm sure most (if not all) have been less than credible. And sometimes it's not done deliberately. If I wanted the truth I'd look toward the newspapers and hope they were honest. But books? Nah. Not even autobiographies or memoirs.
From where I'm standing, let the books be published. Publishers have the right to print what they want and readers have the right to read it or not.
- August 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM
- M Clement Hall said...
The repetitious claims of a country that prides itself on free speech should refer to Kurzita's entry at 11.50.
- August 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM
- Scott said...
Publishers should make their own choices, and we should cast our consumer votes accordingly. If we're lucky, the reaction will right the ship by itself.
But that's my head talking.
My heart tells me the title alone is worthy of a resounding and very public box to S&S's corporate ear.
- August 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Gosh, anyone else super curious about all of those 'comment deleted' entries? :-)
Looks like you've been busy, Nathan! Great question. It got us all going.
- August 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
Well, I guess I've learned by now learned that when politics is even tangentially involved it brings the tinfoil hat types out of the woodwork.
- August 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
(I meant that in reference to the deleted comments, not the very good and non-deleted discussion)
- August 21, 2008 at 1:38 PM
- Steppe said...
I think the fact checking argument is unnassailable. Fact checking is fact checking...etc.
Obama fired off a 40 page rebuttal.
So the controversy must have been on characterization and inference building.
The Liberals should have had such a political weapon deployed or deployable.
The lady who got her fiction yanked made a bold artistic foray and she did get to keep the money and the rights to her book. I would think someone would come along and exploit the publicity factor.
The lemmings factor is in play.
The hidden factor in the equations is the
Russians are behaving in the way they are behaving to promote the Republican
image and standing not just to keep up the price of gas.
That's tangential to the production of tombes of overt and subtle political
persuausion but it plays into the idea of manipulating cause and effect on the subtle difficult to find motivation levels.
The old "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." theme.
- August 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM
- Just_Me said...
I like to choose my own books.
I understand the publishers need to have veto rights. There are some things that aren't ready to be published. They aren't written well or no one will read. But when it comes to politics the publishers need to pick one side or the other: they either publish everything and let people decide or they censor everything.
Of the two books mentioned I did want to read Jewel of Medina. The topic is interesting to me. I couldn't care less about Obama... that's Just Me.
But imagine what would happen if publishers started censoring material based on reader backlash-
Have you read 1984?
How many books would be pulled off the shelves?
- Every single religious work, because it offends someone.
- Every science text, because that offends people.
- Most of the romance genre would be down the drain (heaven forbid adults talk about sex).
- Most mysteries, sci-fi, and fantasy books for being too violent
I really don't know where you would end with that. Every book has the potential to offend someone. Random House has started a very dangerous trend.
- August 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM
For obvious reasons, I'm going to post this anonymously.
Why is this particular publisher being vilified when religious ones publish what could be considered lies, too?
These latter aren't called upon to verify the "facts" in some of their titles, are they?
- August 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- August 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM
- Chatty Kelly said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- August 23, 2008 at 3:10 PM
- Chatty Kelly said...
If people could police themselves, we wouldn't need the police. If people could govern their actions, we wouldn't need the government to create laws.
In a perfect world, publishers could let the public decide. We don't live in a perfect world. I believe publishers do have a civic responsibility.
- August 23, 2008 at 3:14 PM
One of the precepts of the American Civil Liberties Union, freedom of speech under the Constitution, has a nifty spin-off here. If you let the skinheads out in public in Skokie Illinois and actually listen to what they say, any glamor of being a secretive, fringe organization disappears as you realize their message is idiotic.
Let the idiots out of the closet, so that we can dismiss them and put their message behind us.
- August 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM


text:
The way to stretch is to do joint rotations first, then warm up progressively, then stretch. It's how almost all high level sports people do it.
The way to stretch is to do joint rotations first, then warm up progressively, then stretch. It's how almost all high level sports people do it.
How do you warm up in sub 0 degree weather? Tried it this morning and I couldn't. After 50 mins hard rolling the only moisture on me was a damp forehead.
So on one hand you are saying that you did your "allotted running" and on the other you are saying "you are going to try and do some serious running."
So the Allotted running that you done, was that not serious running? or did you just not really do it?
Also , there is far more to BJJ fitness than Running, which is probably why an instructor will use a different warm up, Explosive power techniques and sprints are better than just running!
An instructor will base the warm up and techniques around the needs of a class and it sounds like thats what was needed.
Two pairs of socks, leggings, gi trousers,
Rash guard, t-shirt, hoody, gi top.
Jog for a bit, side step, shoulder rotations, hip rotations, rolling over my shoulders.
Get warm enough to take off hoody, t-shirt and socks (both pairs).
Continue as normal from there but make sure I'm always active, no slow drilling.
http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/
Good advice, a few months ago I thought that I had found the perfect venue as I happily converted a barn. Now winter has come and its bloody freezing. You live and learn!
Hi Iconclast, I'm looking into those gas cylinder heaters, fingers crossed that it will make a difference.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Two more commitments sign on for 2012 Women's Soccer teamMarch 27, 2012
Griffis and Holt will join Coach Shinohara and the Tornados on the field
Brevard, N.C. - Brevard College Women's Soccer Coach Shigeyoshi Shinohara is pleased to announce that Alexis Griffis and Maddison Holt have committed to come to Brevard and play on the 2012 Brevard College Tornados women's soccer team.
Griffis comes to Brevard from Rowlett, Texas and Sachse High School where she played under Coach Kirsten Campbell. She was a member of the varsity soccer team at Sachse from 2008-2010 where she lined up at defender and centerback. From 2009, Griffis started 99 percent of all games she played in, and 90 percent of all games she played the full 90 minutes on the pitch. She was also an untitled captain for her club team, focusing more on club play after suffering an injury in her sophomore season at Sachse. With the club team, she played a major role in her teams' successes in the Dallas Cup in both her junior and senior seasons, as well as the Texans hosted tournament in her senior year. Off the pitch, Griffis is graduating on the Distinguished Honors Graduation Plan. At Brevard, she plans on pursuing a degree in Criminal Justice as her future plans include earning a law degree and opening her own law firm. She is the daughter of Leigh and Greg Griffis.
"Alexis is one of the best defenders we have ever signed here in the history of the BC women's soccer program," said Coach Shinohara. "She reads the game well, and with her great athletic ability and natural instincts, she will be a key player in our defensive line. A born leader both on and off the field, she will help the team and the players achieve their goals and successes."
Maddison or Maddi Holt, comes to Brevard from Cedar Park, Texas and Cedar Park High School where she played in the midfield under Coach Jennifer Womack. Holt led her club team's scoring efforts in the Fall 2011 season, leading the team in both goals scored and assists in her senior season. On the field, her club coaches describe Holt as an athletic and versatile player, who they believe can make an impact anywhere on the field. In addition to soccer, Holt also was a member of the Timberwolves Track team where she competed in the 400m, 800m and the 4x400 relay, earning an invitation to the Texas Relays in her freshman year. Off the pitch, Holt actively supports local youth organizations, including serving as a camp counselor for her church's young women's program, and as a soccer trainer for a recreational soccer club. She is daughter of Louise and Owen Holt, and has three siblings, two brothers and a sister.
"Maddi is the player we've been looking for, bringing great physical and athletic ability to the field, as well as a strong desire to do her best every game," said Coach Shinohara. "She is a very smart player, both on the field and in the classroom, and is always willing to go above and beyond what is asked of her, to both better herself and the team. As a coach, it makes me excited to bring a player of her character and caliber to the team."


text:
Forum's FOREVER Now on iTunes
Forum's 6th team-inspired snowboarding film FOREVER is now available for download on iTunes. For just $6.99, don't miss Pat Moore's all out slaughter of everything from park to backcountry lines, John Jackson's best part to date complete with five double corks and good vibes all around, Nic Sauve's technical urban assault, plus much more from the rest of the Forum crew.
To FOREVER add this movie to your video collection, click here.
Forum's Forever Available On iTunes
Forum's FOREVER Now on iTunes


text:
Trisha Yearwood explains SeaWorld cancellation
Listen to Trisha Yearwood on iHeartRadio
Trisha Yearwood says she's neither a SeaWorld supporter or hater.
The country star tells Connecticut Country's "Electric Barnyard" she was erring on the side of caution when she cancelled last month's appearance at the Florida park, because she "didn't know all the facts" and "didn't want to be involved in a controversy" she "was not educated about."
The singer admits she's "not even a fan of zoos," because she doesn't like the idea of keeping animals in captivity. But Yearwood adds that she understands the benefits of such facilities and how they're saving some species from extinction. She also points out that she's performed at SeaWorld before.
Photo Credit Getty Images


text:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
4th September 2013 10:03 PM #1
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Posts
- 6
Could i give pacifier into my 16days old baby?
I have my 16days old baby and she always want to something. I am sometimes breastfeeding her and sometimes give her feeding bottles. The problem is that she's only playing with the milk and that makes her choke. could i start giving her a pacifier?
19th September 2013 07:04 AM #2
Dear Kristel,
How are you getting on with your new baby? I hope all is well with you. Apologies for the delay in replying to your post.
The problem with giving a pacifier (dummy) to a breastfed baby is that it can reduce the amount of time the baby spends at the breast. This can reduce a woman's breastmilk supply (because breastmilk is produced on a supply and demand basis) and this becomes a vicious circle where less breastmilk is produced so the baby is on the breast less so less breastmilk is produced etc.
I commented on one of your previous posts that it is best if the baby only has breastmilk in the first 6 months of life. In particular, introducing artificial teats (including bottles and pacifiers) before breastfeeding is fully established (at around 8-12 weeks depending on the mum and the baby) can cause the baby to have 'nipple confusion' and so find it difficult to latch on to the breast. This is because there is a different technique required for a baby to latch onto the breast compared to drinking from a bottle.
You say that you baby is 'only playing with the bottle' and that is why you are considering introducing a pacifier. However, what about offering your baby the breast on these occasions? A baby gets a huge amount of comfort and contentment from being on the breast (even when they are not feeling hungry).
What are your thoughts on all this now?
Best wishes,


text:
Week in Review at BSU 10/7-10/13
News & Events
This edition of the week in review features the thoughts of Dr. Brian Frederick, associate professor of political science on the budget crisis in Washington, a visit to WBIM's hip-hop show, a visiting Harvard professor teaching physics with frying pans, a man who's made a life of bringing peace to war-torn regions of the world, and more.
See more at the News & Events page.
(Video and images by BSU students Shane Lamarre, Nicholas Allende, Matthew Weatherbee and Steve Rowell, edited by Nicholas Allende, University News)


text:
Subtotal (ekskl. moms)
Forventet forsendelse
Beregnet ved kasse
I alt
Adobe Access software provides the most scalable and efficient workflow to help you deliver and protect premium video across more devices and platforms, including iOS and Android™. It extends your audience reach and enables additional revenue streams such as HD rental, subscription, and electronic sell-through.
You can distribute content protected with Adobe Access by streaming via HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS) from Adobe, Apple HTTP Live Streaming (HLS), Real Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP), progressive download, or downloads to a content library for local playback at the consumer's convenience. For apps on the iOS platform, use new Adobe Media Server 5 Professional software to package the content for protection by Adobe Access.
Adobe Media Server encrypts streaming content between server and client using encrypted RTMP (RTMPE), Protected HTTP Dynamic Streaming (PHDS), or Protected RTMP (PRTMP). Adobe Access is a complete digital rights management (DRM) solution based on persistent content protection and usage rules that can be enforced on the client.
The main features added to Adobe Access 4 are:
Content owners and publishers can use Adobe Access to generate revenue through a variety of business models, including:
Yes. Enterprises can use Adobe Access to protect the integrity and privacy of their training or announcements delivered via video. Studios can use Adobe Access to develop "e-screener" solutions that allow protected distribution of prerelease content to retailers, reducing costs and piracy. Educators can use Adobe Access for training and remote curriculums. Service providers can deploy Adobe Access as part of a white label offering to content owners.
Adobe Access is offered as a Java™ based software development kit (SDK) that provides a number of APIs, permitting smooth integration into your existing infrastructure. It also includes reference implementation and sample code for ease of development and deployment.
You will need Java Development Kit (JDK) 1.5. A hardware security module (HSM) is recommended, but not required.
Adobe Access will work with Adobe Flash Player 10.1 or later and Adobe AIR 2 or later. Android "captive runtime" applications and iOS native applications do not require a runtime to be preinstalled to support content protected by Adobe Access.
You can use Adobe Access to encrypt content before it is made available for distribution. Protected content can be accessed only on trusted devices. In addition, Adobe Access allows you to check user credentials.
Yes. Adobe Access supports digital and analog output protection technologies — including HDCP, CGMS-A, and Rovi (formerly Macrovision) ACP. It consistently enforces policies for analog and digital outputs across all platforms, but currently only Windows® platforms and digital home devices can verify output protection when required.
Adobe Access associates content with devices, so users cannot play content on devices that have not obtained a license. In addition, usage rules are tied to the content and are enforced by the client. For example, an end user renting content may be given the right to view the content on his or her computer during a 72-hour playback window, after which time the content will no longer play. Adobe Access also protects against deep linking by managing a whitelist of approved SWF or AIR applications. You can also define output protection controls to guard against recording. And you can set limits on how much users can set their computer clocks backward, thwarting attempts to extend rental periods indefinitely.
Adobe Access employs a number of security methods besides encryption. It associates usage rules with content, which can help control piracy. For example, a user renting content may be given the right to view the content during a 72-hour playback window, after which time the content will no longer play. Adobe Access also protects against deep linking by managing a whitelist of approved SWF or AIR applications. You can also define output protection controls.
You can use the SDK to integrate with any of your business logic, user authorization, and order management mechanisms, including those using Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).
Yes. Content publishers can incorporate protected content into their own Adobe AIR applications or deliver content to Flash Player. Both Flash Player and AIR support customizable interface elements and backgrounds, so content publishers can deliver content that coordinates with their brand.
Yes, the content license may specify time-limited or open-ended offline playback. Content providers have the option of configuring Adobe Access and an AIR application to download the license together with the content, so no additional connection to the server is required to start content playback.
Yes. Even in cases where user authentication is not required, for example, for advertising-funded businesses, Adobe Access can provide a higher level of protection, enabling distribution of higher value content.
Yes. Adobe Access supports a license cache period on the client. You can require (invisible to the user) that the client periodically check the license with the license server.
If a device is compromised and behaves in noncompliant ways, Adobe can revoke the key associated with that device. The revocation is propagated to all license servers so they won't issue licenses to revoked devices until they are updated.
Yes. Content licenses are cryptographically bound to the specific device or domain.
Yes. Adobe Access supports binding content to a domain of devices, which can all share a license and content. A third party maintains the domain. Service providers can set the business rules that determine which devices can join the domain.
Yes. The content policy can determine whether authentication is required. If the end user must be identified, then the policy can specify an external authorization or authentication service. The Adobe Access SDK lets developers create an interface between their existing end-user authorization/authentication mechanisms and the license server.
Yes. For example, in the case of subscription models, if a user renews his or her subscription, Adobe Access can update the root license for the user's device, which will automatically extend the validity period of all the leaf licenses associated with each piece of content.
In general, studios approve content protection technologies in the context of a particular content distribution deal. Today, all major studios trust at least some of their content to content protection technologies provided by Adobe. We work closely with the major studios and other content owners to help ensure that Adobe Access is a trusted technology for content distribution deals. For instance, the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem has approved Adobe Access as a required content protection system for the next generation of digital downloads.
Adobe Access supports a range of business rules consistent with established industry practices, including support for different business models such as advertising-funded, rental, and electronic sell-through. Specific rules that content owners can set include:
No. Persistent protection using Adobe Access allows content to be distributed using any transport supported by the client runtime. Content protected with Adobe Access can be streamed with Adobe Media Server, the new Adobe Access for streaming, progressively downloaded via HTTP, or downloaded to a local content library on a user's desktop.
Adobe is committed to providing continued support for Adobe Access to address any possible vulnerabilities. The Flash Player and Adobe AIR runtimes support application and runtime updates, which can be required by the service provider before issuing additional licenses. The Adobe Access client can be renewed proactively or in response to a vulnerability.


text:
Finance and Administration Services
Whether your enterprise wants to streamline operations across various business units, unleash capital to invest in infrastructure or simply bring invoicing costs under control, IBM Global Process Services has the expertise, experience, methodology and technology to reduce the complexity of your financial operations and help you transform into a more scalable, agile and efficient enterprise.
IBM's approach to F&A outsourcing enables your business to leverage solutions that positively impact bottom-line results and top-line growth. In fact, with our EPIC methodology we have been able to consistently achieve annualized run-rate savings of 30 to 60 percent from clients' F&A baselines, increase working capital by up to 25 percent and drive contracted sourcing savings of 5 to 12 percent.
Source to Pay
Reduce costs and enhance efficiency for sourcing, procurement, accounts payable and travel and expense management processes.
Order to Cash
Drive working capital improvements and transform your business with innovative O2C processes and predictive analytics.
Record to Report
Improve controls and optimize accounting processes to streamline operations.
Global Expense Reporting Solutions (GERS)
Reduce travel and related compliance spend with global expense reporting management tools and services.
Payment Systems
Expand your global reach, reduce costs and improve compliance management with a single hosted payment gateway.
Leverage IBM's advanced technology for real-time business intelligence that translates into a sustainable competitive advantage.
Contact us
Miles Quinton
Sales Director
Global Process Services Europe
44 - 7764 959540
- 44 - 7764 959540


text:
- July 21: Nissan Recalls 515,000 Versa Cars Due to Takata Airbags recalls | 7 days ago
- July 16: Nissan Timing Chain Noise Causes Lawsuit news | 12 days ago
- May 28: Hawaii Sues Ford, Nissan and Toyota Over Takata Airbags news | 61 days ago
- May 18: South Korea Looking to Prosecute More VW Executives news | 71 days ago
- May 9: Nissan Sunroof Shattered For No Reason, Says Lawsuit news | 80 days ago
NHTSA — Visibility Problems
CarComplaints.com Notes: You don't want to get 2009 and 2010 Altima owners started about their cars. That is, unless, you know how to start their cars.
These vehicles can suddenly become impossible to start thanks to a faulty electronic steering column lock (ESCL). Nissan dealers will gladly replace it, but that will run you $1000.
It's one of the many reasons this car was named CarTalk's Turd of the Week and given our Beware of this Clunker badge. Two dubious honors.
More info & videos are available over at NissanProblems.com.
3.4definitely annoying
- Crashes / Fires:
- 0 / 0
- Injuries / Deaths:
- 0 / 0
- Average Mileage:
- 38,250 miles
About These NHTSA Complaints:
This data is from the NHTSA — the US gov't agency tasked with vehicle safety. Complaints are spread across multiple & redundant categories, & are not organized by problem.
So how do you find out what problems are occurring? For this NHTSA complaint data, the only way is to read through the comments below. Any duplicates or errors? It's not us.
windows / windshield problem


text:
Results 1 to 4 of 4
19th March 2012 01:20 PM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1
What happens if you eat something you shouldn't?
Hi there,
I have a question which I think is really silly but it's been playing on my mind so I figured it's worth the embarrassment.
I know there are foods to avoid when pregnant to reduce risk of listeria and other possible diseases but I was wondering if I ate something on that list if I've automatically done my baby undue harm? I'm 23 wks and everything has been great so far: ultrasounds are all normal and the baby is healthy and very active. I'm not unwell nor do I feel sick but I'm concerned that eating a toasted chicken schnitzel sandwich will immediately hurt the baby.
Thanks for answering my silly question!
19th March 2012 08:55 PM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- Cronulla, Sydney NSW
- Posts
- 17
Hi MFlory83, there's no such thing as a silly question here Listeria infection isn't common during pregnancy and usually you would experience some flu type symptoms. If you are really concerned then have a chat to your midwife or doctor as there are blood tests that can be done. A lot of women eat something during their pregnancy that they aren't aware at the time they shouldn't have eaten, with no adverse side effects. Just avoid any chicken from now on that's not freshly cooked just to be sure.
19th March 2012 11:11 PM #3
I agree with Briony - please try not to worry as eating this will certainly not automatically cause harm to your baby. This is particularly the case as you are not feeling unwell. But if you are still feeling concerned then make an appointment with your doctor so that they can reassure you.
26th March 2012 01:07 AM #4
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Posts
- 532
I agree with the others. Listeria infections in pregnancy are extremely rare. While it is important to follow the food restrictions, do not let them worry you too much. Just about everyone has eaten something during pregnancy that they should not have.
Congratulations on your pregnancy!


text:
Brevard, N.C. – The Brevard College Tornados opened South Atlantic Conference play with a 38-0 loss on the road to the Mars Hill Lions on Saturday afternoon.
Mars Hill quarterback Jon Richt finished the afternoon 10-for-16 with 218 yards and three passing touchdowns in addition to a rushing touchdown. Anthony Lewis led the Lions ground attack, picking up 132 yards and a touchdown on 13 carries.
The Lions took a 3-0 lead on a Victor Yurco 34-yard field goal after Mars Hill forced a three-and-out on BC's first possession of the game. Mars Hill's opening drive pushed the ball 59 yards on 13 plays while chewing 6:21 off the clock.
The Lions defense forced Brevard to punt on their next possession, and started with the ball on their own 27 yard line. After an incomplete pass on first down and rush for no gain on second, Richt found Deunta Jennings with a 73-yard touchdown pass to make it 10-0 in favor of Mars Hill.
Richt threw for two more touchdowns in the second quarter to give Mars Hill a 24-0 lead going into the half.
Richt rushed for a one-yard touchdown early in the third quarter to make it 31-0. Anthony Lewis broke an 88-yard run for a touchdown at the 10:37 mark in the fourth quarter to give the Lions a 38-0 lead.
Derek Church led the Tornados rushing attack with nine carries for 37 yards. BC rushed for 117 yards on the afternoon.
Tanner Wright made the start at quarterback for Brevard, but was held at bay by the Lions defense. Wright lost two yards on ten carries and was 0-for-4 passing before being lifted in favor of senior Aaron Reese, who took the offensive reigns late in the second quarter. Rees didn't fare much better, scrambling for 12 yards on six attempts and connecting on one pass for seven yards.
Freshman quarterback Jaquan Marsh showed some potential late in the game for the Tornados, carrying the ball eight times for 22 yards in the fourth quarter.
Another bright spot for the Tornados was the play of First Team All-SAC punter Eric Watts, who punted the ball eight times for 357 yards. Watts is leading the SAC with 44.6 yards per punting attempt through three games this season.
The Tornados host the Wingate University Bulldogs on Saturday, September 22nd at Brevard Memorial Stadium at 6 p.m.


text:
Garage floor covering principally have utilities to guard the material as of damaging substances, blemish, lubricate falls plus some harm. Besides that, there are also many types as your want. You can choose one of them according to your fa...[Read More]
Recent Posts
Our Partner
Popular Design
Get Connect
Home | About | Contact | Sitemap | Topics | Privacy Policy | Term of Service | Copyright/IP PolicyCopyright © BIEICONS.COM 2012 – All Rights Reserved.


text:
LuAnn Keener-Mikenas, LCSW
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
311 Rivermont Avenue, Lynchburg, Virginia 24504
I encourage clients to tell their stories in an environment of safety and acceptance. I use the psychosocial perspective that encompasses a broad range of relevant information to achieve a holistic understanding of the client in the full context of his or her history and present life. I encourage emotional expression, recognition and development of strengths and skills, spiritual exploration, and mindful acceptance. Mandala art therapy and assessment, Neuro-Integration, and Emotional Freedom Technique greatly facilitate the process if the client chooses.


text:
Event Details
Great Lakes Regional Workshop: State of the Science on the Ecological Effects of Wind
March 9 - March 10 @ - IUPUI Campus Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
Cohosted by: Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy at IUPUI
Enhance the understanding of wind development effects on the biota and ecosystems of the Great Lakes region, including birds, bats, fisheries and both terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
View the Workshop Prospectus
- Provide a forum to share information on the state of research on ecological effects of wind.
- Identify research needs based on workshop discussion and in consultation with the GLWC Wind Atlas, Siting & Permitting Workgroup.
- Provide a networking opportunity for regional researchers and stakeholders.
- Develop regional project ideas and facilitate partnerships in pursuing research priorities.
A call for abstracts was issued in November 2010. More than 25 abstracts, both for oral and poster presentations, were received and have been reviewed by a committee comprised of members of the GLWC Wind Atlas, Siting & Permitting Workgroup. A draft agenda is being developed and will be available on this webpage in the near future.
For more information:
Contact Julie Hinderer, Catherine Thibault or John Hummer.


text:
Enter the terms you wish to search for.
Welcome Back! Please Sign In.
Forgot your password? >
Not Enrolled? Sign up now. >
Academic Calendar
Schedule of Classes
Current Degree-Seeking Students
English Language Learners
Faculty Opportunities
Incoming Students
International Training Programs
Outgoing Students
Phi Beta Delta
Teach English Overseas
Center for
International Education
Center for International Education
Globalizing CSULB
CCPE Home
Event Calendar
CSULB is a vibrant, diverse public university committed to building connections with students, scholars, and partners around the world. The International Programs team strengthens these connections through our numerous activities. We welcome thousands of students, scholars, and professionals to our campus each year for a range of degree and non-degree programs, and we offer a wealth of learning and research opportunities for CSULB students and faculty abroad. We are committed to working together to address the complex challenges facing the world today.


text:
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
How bad are we if our roster is now finalized?
Started by
Guest blueadams,
Rate this topic
284 posts in this topic
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new account
Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now


text:
- Home
- News
- Sports
- Opinion
- Obituaries
- Features
- Special Sections
- Classifieds
- Public Notices
The following people recently were arrested by members of the Levy County Sheriff's Office as suspects in crimes, according to records provided by the LCSO.
All people are presumed innocent of crimes until they are proved to be guilty in court.
* John Edward Blair Jr., 41, of Newberry was arrested on an Alachua County warrant on Nov. 7 for dealing in stolen property. No bond.
* Gerald R. Coleman, 37, of Williston was arrested Nov. 5 for aggravated battery and obstruction of justice. Bond $17,500.
If you currently subscribe or have subscribed in the past to the Chiefland Citizen, then simply find your account number on your mailing label and enter it below.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.
If you are new to the award winning Chiefland Citizen and wish to get a subscription or simply gain access to our online content then please enter your ZIP code below and continue to setup your account.
|ZIP Code:


text:
Rare bird spotted in Lorain County
(North Ridgeville) — Bird-watchers flocked to a northeast Ohio park recently when word got out that a rarely seen bird was spotted there.
Birders turned out earlier this week following the sighting of a Eurasian Wigeon at the Sandy Ridge Reservation of the Lorain County Metroparks, west of Cleveland.
Sandy Ridge Senior Naturalist Tim Fairweather tells The Chronicle-Telegram that it's the first sighting at the park of the waterfowl, which typically settles across a vast region of the world that includes the British Isles, Scandinavia, eastern Siberia and northern China.
Bird-lovers started coming to the 310-acre wetland and wildlife preserve after the parks' senior naturalist posted on Facebook his first sighting of the red-headed Eurasian Wigeon on Sunday in the park's marsh-wetlands area.
SPOTTED: #Eurasian #Widgeon at Sandy Ridge Reservation #NorthRidgeville. #birds #ducks #birding. http://t.co/kBnYXwDTzF
— LorainCo Metro Parks (@LCMetroParks) March 25, 2014
Get breaking news sent to your mobile phone. Text "news" to 21095.
(Copyright 2014 The Associated Press, all rights reserved.)


text:
Submitted by Caroline on
Equality Now And Inter-African Committee On Traditional Practices Affecting The Health Of Women And Children Convenes Regional Meeting Of Parliamentarians And Religious Leaders In Mali To Call For Ban On Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
10 September 2010
Contact: Kadidia Sidibe, Grace Uwizeye , Mali Cell:+22366783378
Bamako, Mali – International human rights organization Equality Now and Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) will convene a regional meeting of parliamentarians and religious leaders to develop strategies for passage of a strong law against FGM in Mali. The meeting scheduled to be held on 14 September, 2010 in Bamako, will be followed by a press conference on 15 September 2010 at 09.30 am at Azalai Hotel Nord Sud. After sharing information and exchanging best practices parliamentarians will visit the Minister of Gender to advocate for the immediate passage of a law.
A staggering 92% of women and girls in Mali have been subjected to FGM, yet the country does not have a law against the practice. Instead the government of Mali has worked to end FGM mainly through its National Action Plan, a coordinated effort between the Ministries of Women, Health and various NGOs. The focus of efforts has been to change the culture surrounding FGM by raising awareness of community leaders, circumcisers, parents and girls in practicing communities. The Plan from 1998-2005 aimed to reduce FGM prevalence rates from 97% to 40%. The current National Action Plan (2008-2012) intends to reduce the prevalence rate to 65% and adopt national legislation against FGM.
Efforts by Malian organizations to pass a national law were disrupted by religious leaders in 2002 and the government has since been reluctant to push the issue forward. The upcoming meeting is therefore a much-needed opportunity for parliamentarians and religious leaders from Mali to meet with parliamentarians from several countries that have banned FGM including Burkina Faso, Cote d' Ivoire, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. Discussions will highlight in particular the passage and implementation of anti-FGM laws and the role of religious leaders in ending FGM in these countries.
The lack of a law against FGM in Mali is now beginning to undermine anti-FGM efforts in neighboring countries. Mali has become a hub for cross-border FGM with girls and circumcisers being brought in from surrounding countries that have banned the practice like Burkina Faso, Guinea and Senegal. "We hope the insight of parliamentarians from countries where anti-FGM laws are being implemented will help the Malian government understand why it is crucial for the country to pass a law prohibiting FGM," says Faiza Jama Mohamed, Equality Now's Nairobi Office Director.
In 2005 Mali ratified the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, which explicitly requires State Parties to prohibit FGM through legislative measures. Mali has also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also mandate governments to protect the rights of girls, including bodily integrity. 'If the health and well-being of millions of girls subjected to FGM in Mali is a priority for the government it must ensure the passage of a law banning FGM without delay' says Dr Morissanda Kouyate, IAC's Director of Operation.


text:
IN.gov - Skip Navigation
Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.
The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology is revising Indiana's Cultural Resources Management Plan. These documents are about the planning process, development of a survey, preliminary analysis of survey results, and a presentation to State Plan Advisory Committee.
Indiana's State Plan, 2013-2019 Preservation Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Record (Nov. 9, 2011) Advisory Committee Presentation Online Survey Results


text:
The UNLV department of anthropology presents: "Climate change perception and policy support in rural Nevada: Contrasting Ranchers/Farmers and Native Americans," a talk by Dr. William J. Smith Jr., department of anthropology, UNLV.
As climate change research burgeons at a remarkable pace, it is intersecting with research regarding indigenous and rural people in fascinating ways. Yet, there remains a significant gap in integrated quantitative and qualitative methods for studying rural climate change perception and policy support, especially with regard to Native Americans. The objectives of this presentation are to utilize our multi-method approach of integrating surveys, interviews, video, literature and fieldwork in innovative ways to:
1) Address the aforementioned gap in rural studies, while advancing knowledge regarding effective methodologies for investigation of linkages between socio-political variables and climate change perceptions; and 2) Perform comparative primary research regarding the climate change assumptions, risk perceptions, policy preferences, observations and knowledge among rural Nevada's tribes and tribal environmental leaders, ranchers and farmers, and America's general public. The results of this study have ramifications for similar regions and populations, particularly in the U.S. Southwest.