Diary of a Mad Editor

I was surfing the blogosphere this morning and came across this post entitled "Publishing Bias — Part I" which is about — you guessed it — how media is biased against right-wingers. This is an old argument — one which Faux News has based its entire existence upon. The author of this piece, a Susan Venker, says this:

"What exactly is liberal bias – and why can’t liberals argue that there’s a conservative bias in the media? Liberal bias is not a purposeful, banning together of left-wingers in an attempt to undermine conservatives. It’s actually worse than that. Liberal bias refers to any environment in which one finds a singular worldview among its people who distort information to support their agenda. There is a difference between having a liberal perspective and having a liberal bias. This is an extremely important distinction. We may find more conservative voices on FOX News, but that’s not because FOX has a conservative bias; it’s because the producers of the programs allow conservatives to be heard."

Before I even get into whether or not there is a liberal bias in the media (because Ms. Venker has more to say on that subject), can I just say, "Come on!" FOX doesn’t have a conservative bias? Really? Name one legitimate progressive voice working at FOX. Name one. Just one. Furthermore, how can one even say with a straight face that FOX doesn’t have a conservative agenda? If you look at the other cable news programs, CNN is by and large rather centrist in it’s worldview. MSNBC is mostly liberal, but I don’t see much of a bias outside of Keith Obermann’s program. Rachel Maddow is a diehard progressive, but at least she gives conservative guests a chance to speak their mind — something her counterparts on FOX do not do (preferring, instead to shout them down whenever they attempt to defend their position). As for the news on the commercial networks, I’d say it’s fairly impartial and those guys (and gals) mostly just report the news.

So, is there an overall liberal bias? No, I don’t think so. Newspapers certainly have a slant to them that’s either conservative or liberal depending on where the newspaper is published. Newspapers tend to reflect the point-of-view of the community. I’ll use my own local paper as an example. I live in a community that is mostly made-up of more conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. However, there are some diehard progressives and rightwing nutjobs floating around. As such the Op-Ed page of the paper will often reflect many different points of view. Mostly though, the page reflects the POV of the right wing nutjobs because they feel the need to write into the paper every day and share their conspiracy theories with the world. That doesn’t mean the paper has a right-wind bias. It just means that the rest of us have lives and have better things to do than write letters to the editor. Overall, the paper, just reports the news and doesn’t get involved in politics much.

The New York Times, a favorite target of conservatives, is said by many to have a liberal bias. Does it? Well, maybe. Certainly, it’s stories have a liberal slant to them and the paper features a number of progressive voices. On the other hand, it’s also featured its share of conservative writers over the decades so I think it’s probably a stretch to suggest that the paper deliberately excludes conservatives from expressing their views.

And what about radio? When talk radio is made-up predominently of right-wing pundits, can anyone really say that there is a liberal bias in radio? Really?

Ms. Venker states that "90% of college professors vote Democrat." Well, I’d like to know where she gets this figure. I’ve never come across that statistic before, although it’s bases on Ms. Venker’s assumption that most academics are liberal. My only knowledge of this is my own time in college as an undergrad and a graduate student. While I did find that most of my professors expressed liberal viewpoints, I’d say that it was more like 60-40 in favor of liberalism. And I honestly couldn’t say how all of my professors voted save for the few who admited how they voted. I’m sure it wasn’t strictly Democrat or Republican. I’m sure some voted for The Green Party while other voted Liberatarian. And of course there’s the Socialist Party and other fringe groups on the ballot. Needless to say, it’s not all that likely that 90% vote Democrat.

However, where Ms. Venker really loses me is when she states that book publishing has a liberal bias:

So where are the other 25% of powerful Americans? Well, they too have built a cult-like environment in a different arena: the publishing industry. There are literally hundreds of publishing companies in America. Five – five – are dedicated to conservative books, and another five of the more mainstream publishers will consider a book by a conservative author. The rest – which is to say, the vast majority — take one look at a proposal an agent has sent, and if it even smells of a right leaning project – in to the trash it goes. The publishing industry is drenched in liberal bias.

Think about that. There are powerful people in this country who decide for you who you can hear from and what you can know. Naturally, editors should locate good books. Good books are books that have an audience — meaning, the topic is hot enough that enough people will want to read it — and are well written. That should be the only criteria for any editor. But it isn’t. There’s a third criteria: It has to speak to them personally.

Are you fucking retarded, Ms. Venker? Seriously? Name the five out of hundreds that are dedicated to conservative books. More to the point, name some of the publishers that are liberally biased. Name them. Do you even know the first thing about the publishing industry? Conservative books get published all the time. Shop in Walmart lately? Seriously, why not be honest and admit that you wrote this post because you got rejected by a publisher. Obviously, there must be a bias if they rejected you. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the quality of your writing, now could it?

So I was in Walmart yesterday. I went there to buy some socks, but took the scenic route to the Men’s Department. I stopped in electronics to ask the saleswoman when Sims 3: World Adventures would arrive in the store. I then did a little window shopping — checking out an LCD HDTV I’ve had my eye on for a while. Next, I worked my way to the book and magazine aisle. I’m not sure, why I always expect something different whenever I go into this aisle: Walmart has a whole section devoted to Bibles and Christian fiction. They now have a whole section devoted to Twilight and Twilight-inspired books. And of course there’s the shit from right-wing talk show hosts like Ann Coulter, O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck. Jesus. Apparently, this guy is a publishing dynamo these days with bestsellers flying out of his ass. And now I hear he’s adapted that god-awful novel (the one he released last year — what was it called? The Christmas Sweater? Huge bestseller — not quite in the realm of Rowling or Dan Brown sales, but huge enough to be a bona fide hit) into a children’s picture book.  That’s right, The Christmas Sweater: the picture book is coming soon to a Walmart near you.  When I think of Christmas-themed literature, I always think of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. It’s iconic. It’s genuine literature.  But, we don’t get A Christmas Carol; we get Glenn Fucking Beck!  He’s not even in the same literary universe as Dickens.  But this children’s book is debuting at number one on the NY Time’s list of children’s book bestsellers.   Dickens has to be rolling over in his grave right about now.

I know you must’ve been frustrated, but to me it would seem the more classless thing to do is to eviscerate the young guy on your blog, John!!! — John Boughn

Recently, on this blog, a somewhat controversial post elicited a comment that suggested that I have no class. Not the first-time, and I suppose I should feel insulted by this but, in truth, I’m strangely flattered. I’m certainly not the type of guy who feels comfortable in a tuxedo vest, if you know what I mean, but I’ll leave it to people who actually know me to decide whether I’m fit for polite society.

Part of the appeal of this blog — especially among that special group of readers who are themselves editors of literary magazines, is that I often say things about about my experiences as an editor that some of my readers would like to say themselves if they cared a little less about what others thought of them. I know lots of editors who will say things privately about writers that they’d never have the guts to say in public. If my willingness to do so makes me seem like a black hat to some readers, so be it.

It’s not as if the public perception of editors is inherently positive to begin with. Look at how editors are depicted in popular culture! In novels, films and even in comic books, editors are portrayed badly. They’re self-absorbed, petty, crass, bombastic, overly-critical, megalomaniacal and, usually, irredeemably classless. They’re never the heroes of the story. They’re usually portrayed as foils or buffoons. Most writers think editors are, at best, a necessary evil and at worst, the devil incarnate, plotting sinister schemes to thwart their creative pursuits.

The way I see it, it’s not my job to be a poster boy for the profession, um-kay. This blog’s main function is less about promoting that negative stereotype of editors than it is about demystifying what literary editors and publishers do from a certain point-of-view. If in accomplishing that task, I sometimes reinforce the negative stereotype . . . well . . . as I said, so be it. You’ll get no apologies from me.

As I’ve stated on a number of occasions over the years, if a writer doesn’t like my ways, they don’t have to submit their writing to me. If they choose to do so, they have to accept the consequences, which may well include a metaphorical roasting on a spit.

So far, after many years of doing this, the submissions keep coming, things get published and certainly people keep reading this blog despite the fact that I’ve never gone too far out of my way to encourage them to do so. All things considered,I figure I must be doing something right.