Ok, how many more books is she going to sell if he gets elected President, than if he doesn’t?
I posted my estimate of to how much she might get per book. How many more books is she going to sell? 10? 20? 1000? 50,000?
It doesn’t matter, but I’ve already said that my WAG would be double. The only important thing is that it would be MORE. Now, if you or anyone would like to argue that it would be identical, or less, I’d love to hear that rationale.
:rolleyes: So, now you even know what I know. That does make things easier, because you must now know what I’m thinking you should do right now and I don’t even have to type it.
And to say its not a biography of sorts, in any sense of the word is clearly ridiculous. Doesn’t is sound like a chapter or two that would be devoted to Obama might recount how Obama got to where he is. You know, kinda like a BIOGRAPHY?!!!
Sheesh.
Double is meaningless in this context. Double what? 10? 20? 1000?
Ok, Gwen Ifill will sell less books if Obama beomes president because there will be a whole host of books written and rushed out about him, and why should anyone read a dense political tome which isn’t really about him, when there are so many other books around. A causal reader who may be attracted to the book because it has Obama in the title or it mentions Obama in the text would be more likely to buy one of the other books which are solely about him. Therefore, less sales.
Ok, what do I win?
An E for Effort. But let’s look at this.I think it’s safe to say that this, being a serious book, it will not compete with picture-type books, it will compete with other serious books. Can we agree there? Given that, given your scenario, we have to concern ourselves with other serious books that will not start being written until after the election. And IMO that would be zero books. Or are you of the mind that a serious-type book that would compete with Ifill’s book could be written, edited, and published inside of three months.
And AGAIN, the number of books sold is not the issue. It is immaterial. The point is that it would be MORE. Why are you so fixated on a number? What does it matter if it’s 2X, 2Y, or 2Z?
My contention is it is a specialist book, only of interest to a certain segment of book buyers, the numbers of which will remain static whether Obama is president or not. Your contention is that because Obama is president a lot more people will buy the book because his name is on the cover. Not usually the people to buy serious-type books.
The point is how much more. Is someone going to be biased for an extra $1? Maybe $10? How much is Ifill’s integrity worth in your eyes? You are the one banging on about her having a financial incentive to be biased. So how much is this incentive?
I know it because I know you’re smarter than this. You got trapped in a talking point and now you’re embarassed to back down.
No, I seriously doubt there’ll be any history of Obama’s life. It will trace his career strictly in the context of politics. Obama qua Obama is not of interest to her text. Obama as “post-racial” Democratic nominee is what informs her text, and for near term sales, it really doesn’t matter if he’s elected or not. I repeat; NO ONE who would have been interested in this book* doesn’t know full well who and what Obama is. It’s a hard cover book, for Pete’s sake, not a knock-down at the supermarket. Most people never would have known it existed.
*Now that the right-wing talking points have made it their focus, it may very well pick up a lot of buyers who originally wouldn’t have even known it was published, such as me. I don’t know that I’ll buy it, but I’m interested, and I wouldn’t have known of its existence if not for this thread and the research this thread drove me to do.
I fear you are unfamiliar with his style. He’ll keep this thread going for weeks. If you’re a masochist, do a search on someone being sworn in to Congress on the Koran. You will cry.
He’s got the debate perfectly defined.
If Gwen Ifill is biased in favor of Obama, he wins. If Gwen is unknowingly biased in favor of Obama, due to a lurking suspicion that his winning will increase her book sales, he wins. Even if that bias is not detectable above one part per billion, he wins.
And finally, if any of the above could appear to be true, to any observer in this or in *any *paralell universe, he wins.
This is an argument with some merit, I think. Let me see if I can accurately characterize it: magellan now says that Ifill was a poor choice as moderator because of the risk that McCain supporters might have pointed to her book and shouted “bias,” using that as an excuse for a poor performance by Palin and thus distracting voters from the real issues.
As a practical matter, I’m not completely sure I totally agree, but I think it is a reasonable position to debate.
However, this thread has not been about the risk that crazy Palin supporters will grasp at straws. This thread has been about whether Ifill has a financial advantage in seeing an Obama win and we can reasonably accuse her of being prone to bias because of that.
Agreed. Gwen Ifill’s finances were a red herring all along.
You may be right about the type of book it is, but that’s not what I get from what I’ve read about it. Also, if it was purely a wonk/academics book, there would be no reason to have it release on a date that would take advantage of the event. I think you overstate the case as to the degree it is a “specialist” book. Again, I don’t see how it matters much, as she does stand to make MORE, which I think you grant. And that is enough to taint her as an impartial participant.
There are two points. One is how much might she gain financially versus lose reputation wise. The other is the degree of risk involved. I don’t know how to quantify any of this. I tried to find how many books were being printed but couldn’t find it. I did fid this, though, from the The Columbia Journalism Review: (bolding mine)
Granted, this is just another opinion, but I think the source has credibility beyond just another poster on SDMB.
Do you realize how condescending this is? Never mind wrong? There was no “talking point”. I posted this late at night right after I got wind of it, before it made it onto any radio or TV show. It is my honest, thoughtful opinion. I think it was a problem when I posted it. And now. I surprise that you would stoop to such tactics.
You clench onto this self-fabricated “truth” that not only am I “wrong”, but that it is not even my sincere opinion. That I’ve simply parroted some “talking point”. I direct you to the article I cited in my post immediately preceding this one.
I’ll just point out that Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity sell hardcover books, as well. Being hardcover is hardly proof of wonkiness and small sales.
Just for the record, this tactic doesn’t speak well of you. You are responding to something I said—you even quoted me—yet you address me in the third person. Why would someone do that. Because they seek to get the crowd on their side. It’s weak. It’s particularly distasteful when the numbers are lopsided. But hey, if you don’t know that in this point in life, I doubt it’ll sink in now.
I’ll try to make this clear: the potential financial advantage she could gain by being biased throws her impartiality and objectivity into question. Once the moderator’s neutrality is thrown into question, people will have a legitimate beef with the moderator being used, whether or not any biased can be perceived. One way that problem can manifest itself is in what actually happened. I do not think her moderation was actually biased. I do think she was too easy on the candidates. I attribute that, potentially, to Ifill having to walk on eggshells. I honestly think that if she did not have the issue of her book hanging over the debate, she would have been tougher on the candidates. And that would have served US better. I wish she was tougher on both Palin and Obama and they were forced to answer the questions asked.
Nothing to offer by way of the actual discussion? I’m shocked.
Win? :rolleyes:
The point is that because of her book, her impartiality is thrown into question. Period.
Oh, I guess you’re right; I do win. Yay!
How much money would Ifill stand to lose had she delivered a biased performance at the debate? Would it be more or less than what she might make if she sold more books if Obama is elected?
You tell me. But please be sure to include the degree to which she might have been biased, the flap that it would create, the degree to which that would increase book sales, the degree to which the whole affair would increase her celebrity, and the degree to which her increased celebrity and book sales would garner her a better deal on her next book. And weigh that against the sources of income derived from the reputation she has now. In addition to her salary, how much does she make from appearances on news shows, like Meet the Press, which she was on yesterday. Of course, in that regard, whatever loss of income she might suffer due to damage to her reputation will have to be weighed against the increase in appearances she might derive from being more of a celebrity due to the whole affair.
Personally, I don’t find this particularly interesting at this point because, as I’ve said, I don’t think her moderation was bias.
I’m sorry, I never meant to offend you so. I thought I was being complimentary, because I know you’re not dumb at all, despite the fact that you sometimes cling to things that I consider, er, less than factual, like the SVT.
I know hardcover in and of itself isn’t proof of wonkiness, but until of the foofawraw about this, I don’t think this book would ever have gone paperback, or would have been a particularly big seller. Gwen Ifill was not in a league with Tom Brokaw, let alone known with the set of Billo and Hannity watchers. She was a substitute anchor for Jim Lehrer; she has status, but she wasn’t exactly a household name or a star. (Wasn’t Queen Latifah great on SNL?) This book was not a book aimed at being a tell-all or a biography. Sales might have risen a bit from her moderating the debate, will certainly skyrocket from the controversy. In even fifty years, they will benefit from Obama’s election (if it happens). But in the next few years, I still can’t see it.
I am very surprised to see that article in the Columbia Journalism Review, and can only assume they are referring to the appearance of conflict, rather than the reality of it. I don’t have time to re-read it now, because my mom is coming over to help me pack up my house. I’ll be back later.
Au revoir.
I missed the debate (sad story, I came home from work on Thursday and our cat was injured…attacked by a dog…bite wounds and a broken leg…but it looks like he will make a full recovery).
Did Sarah Palin literally say at one point that she wasn’t going to answer a question Gwen Ifill asked her?
The celebrity I was referring to in the OP that would increase sales was Obama’s, not hers. Scanario A: he wins. Scanario B: he loses. In scenario A she sells more books and makes more money. I really don’t see how that is disputable.
Good luck with your move.