A Publisher’s Dilemma: Responsibility Vs. Profits

I recently came across this interesting blog post by Nathan Bransford, a literary agent. The post is basically a question for readers. Here’s a brief excerpt:

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?

The question stems from two recent controversial decisions in the publishing world: The first was the decision by Random House canceled the book The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones over concerns an Islamic scholar raised about the possibility of violence because some might find the book offensive. For those of you that don’t know, The Jewel of Medina, is a book about the bride A’isha, the bride of the Prophet Muhammad (read more about the book here). This, of course comes in the wake of the cartoon fiasco which did lead to violence and even a death or two.

The second incident is a book published by Simon and Schuster called Obama Nation (aff link), which has been highly criticized as a blatant smear against the Democratic front runner for the Presidential nomination.

With these two examples given, Mr. Bransford coins the following question at the end of his post:

Do publishers have a civic responsibility or should they let the public decide?

That is a very good question and one I have pondered myself. So here is my two cents: Large publishing houses like Random House and Simon and Schuster are first and foremost businesses. The ultimate goal of every business is profit, profit and even more profit. They want to publish books that are going to make them, and to a lesser extent the author, money. And the only way they can achieve that is by publishing books that sell.

Thus, I think these large publishing house walk a fine line between being responsible corporate citizens and publishing the "dirt" that will make money.  Surely Simon and Schuster didn’t publish the Obama book because they are hardcore McCain supporters (at least, that is my guess. I could be wrong, stranger things have happened). They probably published the book because they knew that during an election year (especially a historical one like this is with the first black Presidential nominee), any book about either candidate will sell like hot cakes.

Random House, on the other hand, faced a tougher decision. The book they were considering would probably have sold well. However, I think they backed out in the name of political correctness. Much of the Muslim community around the world has felt threatened and very much under the microscope since 9/11. Relations have been tense, to say the least, and publishing a book like this could just add more fuel to the fire.

Random House probably based their decision on just that: Not wanting to add more fuel to the fire. But I think there is another element involved here, timing. The timing for such a book is wrong. Right now much of the Muslim community feels threatened and under the microscope by the rest of the world (I hate using "dividing" language like that – us and them). And the US certainly isn’t helping by poking its nose where it shouldn’t be poked, the Middle East.

Thus, publishers really do walk a fine line. They want those bestselling books, but they don’t want those books to be responsible for death and destruction, because death and destruction is not only bad but it would really hurt the publisher’s reputation as well. Every publisher has an editorial policy that guides what it will and won’t publish.  When a controversial book is presented to them, I’m pretty sure they don’t take the decision to publish the book lightly.

On the other side of the equation is us, the readers. We are going to be consuming what these publishers feed to us, so I think we have a good say in what is published and what gets thrown into the circular file. If the reading public suddenly decided they didn’t like what Acme Publishing was giving us, Acme Publishing would probably be very quick to revise their editorial policy and start publishing books we will buy and read.

It’s very much a game of give and take. Do publishers have a moral responsibility? Yes they do, to a certain point. Are they out to make a profit? Of course! If the public is demanding books that smear politicians, then you but the publishers out there are going to give it to them. So it turns out to be more of a shared responsibility.

What do you think about this entire responsibility in publishing topic? Don’t be shy, write a comment and let the world know where you stand!

Related posts

• Self-publisher Lulu CEO, Robert Young, insults own customers
• Profits at HarperCollins take a dive
• From Blog to Print Publisher
• Large publisher jumps on the Web 2.0 wave
• Simon & Schuster embrace mobile e-reading

Read More: Publishing News