The NYT is arbitrarily refusing to put Jordan Peterson's book on their best seller list (despite it being a best...

The NYT is arbitrarily refusing to put Jordan Peterson's book on their best seller list (despite it being a best seller).

thestar.com/entertainment/books/2018/02/09/jordan-petersons-book-is-a-bestseller-except-where-it-matters-most.html

>We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”...
>The book was in fact sold in the U.S. — according to Publishers Weekly it moved almost 90,000 copies there in two weeks. It was also printed south of the border...
>Being Canadian didn’t seem to be an issue for another book that made the Times’ lists: The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben, from Vancouver-based publisher Greystone Books. So we went back to the Times for clarification...
>“The Hidden Life of Trees was also published in the United States. We do not rank books that are not published in the United States,” Harcum reaffirmed in an email...
>The Hidden Life of Trees, according to Jennifer Gauthier, the director of sales and marketing at Greystone, noted that the book was printed in Canada and, as to selling it in the U.S. market, they did “the same as when we ‘publish’ in Canada. We present it to our U.S. reps, they present it to buyers, it ships from our U.S. distributor, it is stocked in retail stores and we invest in marketing it.”...
>Company spokesperson Tracey Turriff noted that the book [12 Rules] was printed in the United States, distributed from its facilities in Maryland, and had U.S. “salespeople, publicists and marketers.”...
>Without meaning to be difficult, I emailed Harcum [NYT] again to ask what, exactly, being published in the United States means. He referred me back to Random House Canada to “explain the differences in their imprints and to ask why they decided not to publish this title in the U.S.”...

Can anyone in publishing here give any explanation as to why the NYT is doing this, despite the conspiratorial? (they don't like his message)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(Blatty_novel)#New_York_Times_best-seller_list_court_case
observer.com/2016/02/the-truth-about-the-new-york-times-and-wall-street-journal-bestseller-lists/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nobody cares about your boring bland-ass daddy, and nobody cares about his invented scandals.
Grow up OP

(((They))) are behind it.

This seems to be an independent inquiry by the (left leaning by mandate) Toronto Star

>they don't like his message

it's a fucking self-help book. if they're doing it for political reasons wouldn't they have blacklisted all those "current affairs" books conservatives churn out every year? they'd be better off just putting it on the list and then complaining about it being so popular.

more like jordan peepeeson

It is to the benefit of the System that Peterson be controversial. They could easily sweep him into comparative irrelevance along with McInnes and his ilk, but instead they put him on television in a martyr scenario, and needlessly attack his book. The System wants Peterson in the modern zeitgeist as surely as it wants Peterson threads to dominate Veeky Forums.
Most of you, being p-zombies, will mouth either agreement or disagreement without understanding. I say this just to preempt such responses with the following rejoinder: you sound like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

Of all the shit you could care about the New York Times for doing, all the shitty things, this is what raises your ire?

Those Ann Coultier, Bill O'Reiley type red-meat books aren't converting anyone.

Peterson seems particularly dangerous to the nu-left since he's so effective at making them look ridiculous (if not outright dangerous).

This, Peterson is an intellectual scholar, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly types are just whacky conservative Republican blowhard talking heads, this scares them

This has already been litigated: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(Blatty_novel)#New_York_Times_best-seller_list_court_case

The "best seller" list is in fact "editorial content" and they can include or not include whatever they want.

>Peterson is an intellectual scholar
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This.

Look the fuck out.

Exactly. The New York Times bestseller list isn't accurate. It's an "editorial construct." Which means it's not a bestseller list at all.

Someone should sue them.

Why else? To keep the filthy leaves off our driveway.

Jew York Times.

Hmm... I wonder (((why)))

i'd say Peterson doesn't hold up to their standards?

He has over 100 published papers with fairly decent rate of citation. I wish I could help you deal with that butthurt, friend.

Sure, but they shouldn't then be allowed to call it the "bestseller list". It should be the "NYT Popular Reads" or something

>Grow up OP

why is it that this phrase is used exclusively by brainlet manchildren?

observer.com/2016/02/the-truth-about-the-new-york-times-and-wall-street-journal-bestseller-lists/

>Last year, he decided to go back and compare BookScan numbers to the NYT bestseller list to see if he could find anything interesting.
>Since NYT does its own secret reporting and choosing, he wanted to see if he could find any signs of bias.
>Here are two conclusions he gathered from his own personal research, comparing real BookScan sales figures to the books deemed by NYT staff to be bestsellers:

>If you happen to work for The New York Times and have a book out, your book is more likely to stay on the list longer and have a higher ranking than books not written by New York Times employees.
>If you happen to have written a conservative-political-leaning book, you’re more likely to be ranked lower and drop off the list faster than those books with a more liberal political slant.

This is pretty bald political bias from a publication that claims to be the 'paper of record' for the United States

>the System
>they
You said “p-zombies” but we all know you really meant “sheeple”.

>This is pretty bald political bias from a publication that claims to be the 'paper of record' for the United States

Sure, but is there anyone who doesn't realize the Times is mainstream lefty

There is certainly nothing arbitrary about it, they are very selective about that, and what books they review, which goes for the left as well, people like chomsky etc have always been ignored too.

...

the tone of the report looks like the "was it racism" reports they often do about institutional decisions. Horseshoe theory.

that's because they read real thinkers and know that peterson is literally irrelevant