#Jeff Bezos editore

[pier-carlo-universe]

Bezos ci crede veramente: La decisione di Jeff Bezos e l’etica dell’informazione al Washington Post

Michele Serra su La Repubblica analizza la scelta dell’editore di limitare l’endorsement per Kamala Harris: un atto di integrità o convenienza?

Michele Serra su La Repubblica analizza la scelta dell’editore di limitare l’endorsement per Kamala Harris: un atto di integrità o convenienza? Nell’articolo Bezos ci crede veramente, Michele Serra, editorialista di La Repubblica, esplora una decisione controversa di Jeff Bezos, proprietario del Washington Post: la scelta di impedire ai giornalisti del quotidiano di fare endorsement espliciti…

[contemplatingoutlander]

It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president

Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?

I love that The Washington Post satirist Alexandra Petri took it upon herself to endorse Harris for her paper after Bezos pulled the plug on the editorial board doing so. This is a gift🎁link, so feel free to read the entire article. Below are some excerpts:

The Washington Post is not bothering to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and the founder and executive chairman of Amazon and Amazon Web Services, also owns The Post.) We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president. It is time we got back to those “roots,” I’m told! Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! [...] But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them. Let me tell you something. I am having a baby (It’s a boy!), and he is expected on Jan. 6, 2025 (It’s a … Proud Boy?). This is either slightly funny or not at all funny.  [...] Well, that world [the baby will be born into] will look very different, depending on the outcome of November’s election, and I care which world my kid gets born into. I also live here myself. And I happen to care about the people who are already here, in this world. Come to think of it, I have a lot of reasons for caring how the election goes. I think it should be obvious that this is not an election for sitting out. The case for Donald Trump is “I erroneously think the economy used to be better? I know that he has made many ominous-sounding threats about mass deportations, going after his political enemies, shutting down the speech of those who disagree with him (especially media outlets), and that he wants to make things worse for almost every category of person — people with wombs, immigrants, transgender people, journalists, protesters, people of color — but … maybe he’ll forget.” “But maybe he’ll forget” is not enough to hang a country on! [...] I’m just a humor columnist. I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we’re going to be able to say so. That’s why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself! [color/ emphasis added]

How far The Washington Post has fallen into the "darkness" it used to work so hard to ward off to help keep our democracy alive.

[edited]

[tyrantisterror]

There was a writer at io9 who I lowkey viewed as my nemesis despite never interacting with him in any way because whenever I encountered an article with an absolutely dogshit shallow take on pop culture 9 tiems out of 10 it was written by him, and generally in mindless praise of Star Wars. I bring this up because before I quit reading the site he posted an article called "I don't get why geeks don't like sports" or something like that, and the thesis of the article was that geeks who love sci-fi and fantasy fiction should LOVE sports because they're basically the same thing - that everything one loves about sci-fi and fantasy fiction can be found in sports. To which I say:

No the fuck it can't

You, a man who is paid to write about geek shit for geeks to read about because your editors inexplicably believe you know why geeks like what they like, clearly lied on your resume

The argument went that sports have everything sci-fi and fantasy fans like, which it specified were, like, stakes, and drama, and people to root for and against, which is basically all it takes to make a sci-fi story, right? Like Jesus Christ it was so stupid, like, Jeff Bezos described how easy it is to make a great TV show stupid.

BUT! It did give me an idea. See, one of the big appeals to me about sci-fi and fantasy stories is the fantastical shit that shows up in them, like monsters, for example. Another big appeal is to see a how our current world can be reflected in the fantastical one - whether we see a better world, or one that's worse in a very dramatic way.

So, here is my suggestion for making sports just like fantasy and sci fi fiction: we add a new position to every single sport called The Minotaur. The Minotaur wears heavy body armor as well as a big, intimidating horned helm, and brandishes an axe with deadly efficiency. The Minotaur is a free agent, allowed to wander in and out of the stadium/ice rink/golf course/what have you as he pleases, but he must attempt to kill one player per game. The players are not allowed to take weapons into the game to defend themselves - only through sheer athleticism can they either evade or disarm the Minotaur, and in doing so save themselves.

If they did this, then finally they'd have everything I love in my sci-fi and fantasy movies in sports.

[shelleysmary]

gotta laugh at everyone who has ever said that "~unLiKE tHe pEtEr jACkSoN fILmS~ the trop people don't care about tolkien, don't care about middle-earth, it's a soulless adaptation for the money just because amazon is behind it" because (and i say this while also saying fuck amazon, fuck jeff bezos. it goes without saying - two things can be true at the same time, i can't believe it bears repeating)

how do you think films and television get made?? hate to break it to you, but it's all for the money. new line cinema didn't say "we love tolkien, pj, let's do this for free!" they were literally looking for a franchise hit when they decided to take the films over from miramax - which is exactly what every studio and their mom is trying to do now!!! it's movie business, baby! to say the people behind trop - the actors, the casting directors, the production designers, the vfx artists, the art directors, the armorers, the costume designers, the set decorators, the makeup artists, the ADs, the carpenters, painters, prop-makers, steelworkers, laborers, animal handlers, sound editors, miniature builders, stuntpeople, craftspeople, movement and dialect coaches, trainers, lighting techs, jewelers, etc. - don't care about the story they're telling???? is a wild reach. obviously they work for the showrunners who work for amazon who care the most about making a profit, but so did peter jackson and new line!! wanting your project to be financially and critically successful is not an inherently evil thing, come on guys, are you still buying into the starving artist fallacy 😭

there are tons of little nods to the silmarillion and other parts of the legendarium in the rings of power. yes, there are also changes and goofs, but lotr and the hobbit film trilogies also had their fair share of changes and goofs. i just think that "these people didn't read the books/this is just a money grab/pj & co. cared about the source material while these losers clearly don't" are tired arguments used to justify subjective opinions, not to mention the way it reeks of revisionist history considering the way tolkien purists initially took great issue with deviations made in lotr and especially the hobbit.

it's almost like...the most hated tolkien adaptation is ever the current one.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

The choice for president has seldom been starker. On one side is Donald Trump, a felonious and twice-impeached conman, raring to finish off the job of dismantling American democracy. On the other is Kamala Harris, a capable and experienced leader who stands for traditional democratic principles. Nevertheless – and shockingly – the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have decided to sit this one out. Both major news organizations, each owned by a billionaire, announced this week that their editorial boards would not make a presidential endorsement, despite their decades-long traditions of doing so. There’s no other way to see this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of their public duty. At the Los Angeles Times, the decision rests clearly with Patrick Soon-Shiong, who bought the ailing paper in 2018, raising great hopes of a resurgence there. At the Post (where I was the media columnist from 2016 to 2022), the editorial page editor David Shipley said he owned the decision, but it clearly came from above – specifically from the publisher, Will Lewis, the veteran of Rupert Murdoch’s media properties, hand-picked last year by the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos. Was Bezos himself the author of this abhorrent decision? Maybe not, but it could not have come as a surprise. All of this may look like nonpartisan neutrality, or be intended to, but it’s far from that. For one thing, it’s a shameful smackdown of both papers’ reporting and opinion-writing staffs who have done important work exposing Trump’s dangers for many years. It’s also a strong statement of preference. The papers’ leaders have made it clear that they either want Trump (who is, after all, a boon to large personal fortunes) or that they don’t wish to risk the ex-president’s wrath and retribution if he wins. If the latter was a factor, it’s based on a shortsighted judgment, since Trump has been a hazard to press rights and would only be emboldened in a second term. [...] Some news organizations upheld their duty and remained true to their mission. The New York Times endorsed Harris last month, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president”, and writing that Trump “has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest”. The Guardian, too, strongly endorsed Harris, saying she would “unlock democracy’s potential, not give in to its flaws”, and calling Trump a “transactional and corrupting politician”.

Margaret Sullivan at The Guardian on the cowardly abdication of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times by refusing to endorse a Presidential candidate (10.25.2024).

The egregious and cowardly actions done by both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times deciding to sit out the Presidential endorsements process this election is craven and cowardly, as both papers were set to endorse Kamala Harris (D). Even the New York Times, for all their faults, got it right by endorsing Kamala Harris.

[mariacallous]

Legendary Watergate reporters Woodward and Bernstein slam Washington Post for shying away from endorsement

"We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post's own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy," the men wrote. "Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process."

...

They're the latest to voice their displeasure with the Post for refusing to pick between Harris and Trump.

"This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty," former Washington Post editor-in-chief Marty Baron wrote on social media. "[Donald Trump] will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner [Bezos] (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

According to the Post reporters, Bezos, the owner of the paper and founder of Amazon, reportedly made the decision not to endorse, even though editorial board members at the paper had already drafted their decision.

Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis wrote in a column on Friday that the lack of an endorsement was not an act of simpering fear by a billionaire and his lackeys, but was rather just the Post going back to it's original policy of not endorsing presidential candidates.

He reminded readers that the paper only began endorsing candidates in 1976.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” Lewis wrote. “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

Bezos said he hired Lewis because of his "conservative bona fides" and that he liked that Lewis could play nice with "powerful conservative figures," NPR reported.

Robert Kagan, an editors-at-large at the Post and a constant critic of Trump, resigned on Friday after the paper refused to endorse. According to NPR, the general tenor of the newsroom following the announcement was negative.

A group of opinion writers at the Post explained in a column why they believe not endorsing was going to be a "terrible mistake."

“It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

[politicaltheatre]

If Democracy Dies in Darkness, Jeff Bezos is turning off the light.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Washington Post Says Jeff Bezos Banned it From Endorsing Kamala Harris

DIES IN DARKNESS...

Legendary ex-editor Marty Baron is calling the move “cowardice.”

Corbin Bolies 

Media Reporter

Updated Oct. 25 2024 3:18PM EDT / Published Oct. 25 2024 12:53PM EDT 

Jeff Bezos ordered The Washington Post to censor its endorsement of Kamala Harris, the newspaper’s own reporters said Friday.

The billionaire Amazon founder stopped the publication of an endorsement of the Democratic candidate which its editorial board had already written, the paper reported.

The dramatic move was called “cowardice” by its Pulitzer Prize-winning former editor, Marty Baron. One of the paper’s star reporters, Ashley Parker, called it “a new type of October Surprise.”

The paper’s CEO Will Lewis—not its owner, Bezos—announced the endorsement ban in a note to readers, saying it was an attempt to “provide through the newsroom non-partisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.”

“We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

It came days after The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board was blocked from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris by its billionaire CEO Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, plunging the newsroom into chaos over its owner’s meddling in its editorial affairs.

In D.C., Lewis said the paper was “returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” citing the paper’s distant past, which it abstained from presidential endorsements.

But that era ended in 1976 when it endorsed Democrat Jimmy Carter for president, which Lewis said was for “understandable reasons.” “But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote. (The Post last abstained from endorsing a presidential candidate in 1988, saying at the time it could not reach “a threshold of confidence in and commitment” in a candidate that year.)

LA Times Chaos After Billionaire Forbids Harris Endorsement

BREAKING THE NEWS

Josh Fiallo

Lewis' note set off an explosive reaction, led by Baron, the highest-profile living former leader of the paper of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” Baron, who shepherded the paper during Donald Trump’s first presidency wrote on X. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

According to NPR, which first broke the news of the Post’s decision, opinion editor David Shipley informed staff on Friday morning about the decision. Opinion among staff, according to NPR, was “uniformly negative.”

Billionaires, Secrets, Zegnas: Will Lewis’ Thirst for Power

DON’T STOP ME NOW

Harry Lambert

“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis—not from the Editorial Board itself—makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Post’s union leadership said in a statement.

“According to our own reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Lewis’ nearly yearlong tenure at the Post has been marred by controversy after controversy. Initially welcomed by Post employees as an affable changemaker with ambitions to reinvent the paper, the staff turned on him after he booted the paper’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, for two former colleagues; reportedly tried to block the paper from reporting on his alleged role in covering up a U.K. phone-hacking scandal; insinuated the paper’s editorial staff was responsible for its business failings; and nearly installed a former U.K. colleague whose ethically questionable reporting practices eventually came to light.

Lewis’ decision came days after Soon-Shiong blocked the Times’ impending endorsement of Harris. Soon-Shiong claimed he allowed the paper to present analyses of the “POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate” to present “clear and non-partisan information to its readers,” but the editorial board refused.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

David Rowe

* * * *

Good morning. This is what fascism looks like.

Lucian K. Truscott IV

Oct 26, 2024

It crept in overnight, while we were sleeping.  Fascism showed its face not with jackboots and concentration camps…not yet, anyway…but rather as just another day in Capitalist America.  Two major media companies, the Washington Post and the LA Times, made decisions to capitulate to the man they fear will be elected president before a single vote has been counted.  They decided not to run editorials endorsing their preferred candidate for president, Kamala Harris, because the owners of the companies, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, are afraid if they anger Donald Trump, he will hit them where it hurts:  In their pocketbooks.

Bezos sees himself as particularly vulnerable to the wrath of Donald Trump.  Before he left office in 2021, Trump appointed a puppet to run the United States Postal Service (USPS):  Louis DeJoy, a long-time Republican fund-raiser and major Trump contributor who was appointed as one of three deputy finance chairmen of the Republican National Committee shortly after Trump took office in 2017.  The USPS prioritizes package delivery for Amazon and sets the price it pays for the service.  Trump has threatened Bezos with jacking up his Amazon delivery prices before, in 2018.  The Postmaster General was then Megan Brennan, appointed during the Obama administration, who resisted Trump’s demand to raise delivery prices, but such resistance is unlikely to happen if Trump is elected and DeJoy is there to carry out his wishes.

This is the way it happens.  An autocrat like Donald Trump, with his history of impulsive decisions and threats against perceived enemies, has two billionaires cowering in fear, and he didn’t even have to pick up the phone.

Fascism is not an all-at-once transformation.  We’ve already had our Brownshirt day, on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump’s MAGA army stormed the Capitol waving Confederate and Nazi flags and assaulting police officers and attempting to hunt down and kill Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence, all of it, we now know, with Trump cheering them on from the White House.  Fascism uses symbols – MAGA this time, Swastika last time – to rally followers, and then it feeds them fear and lies and the demonization of minorities and others perceived as not like us.

I don’t even know that you can name the period of fascism we’re in right now.  Giving it a name doesn’t matter.  What matters is that it is happening right in front of our eyes, and little if nothing is being done about it, other than fascism finally being called out by political leaders such as Kamala Harris and other Democrats, and some news organizations have at last crossed the Rubicon of using the “F” word of fascism and the “H” word of Hitler in the same sentences with Donald Trump.

What can we do?  We can all vote for Kamala Harris and whatever Democrat is running for whatever office in your district and state. 

Journalists everywhere, but particularly at the Washington Post and LA Times, have a crucial role to play right now.  It is journalism about Donald Trump’s crimes and political extremism that has revealed him as not just a totalitarian politician, but as a man consumed with a fascist lust for absolute power.  It has been people like Timothy Snyder and Heather Cox Richardson who have put Trump’s rise in historical perspective and compared what is happening right now in this country to what happened nearly a century ago in Germany with the rise of Hitler, when German corporate titans of the day bowed down to him in fear. 

Now the reporters and editors at the Post and the LA Times can help show the world what contemporary fascism looks like by refusing to countenance the craven subservience of their owners.  There are leaders at the Washington Post, in particular Bob Woodward and Eugene Robinson and David Ignatius and Ruth Marcus and Karen Tumulty, who can show the way for their colleagues by leading a newspaper-wide walk out.  With what we are seeing every day from Donald Trump, they can call it a “Strike Against Fascism,” or “A Call to Arms.”

You might accuse me as a freelancer of not taking seriously the possibility that people at both papers might lose their jobs for leading or participating in a walk-out.  But people have already resigned in protest at both papers.  This isn’t a time to show fear.  It’s a time to stand up to power. The writers and editors have a lot to lose, but they have already been treated as expendable, and they’ve been told they are in danger of losing their jobs anyway.

The guy Bezos put in as publisher of the Post, former Murdoch hitman Will Lewis, bluntly told Post staffers when he was appointed, “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”   He could have been talking as well to the staffs of the New York Times and the three major television networks and cable news like CNN and MSNBC.  All of them are in an existential crisis at this crucial moment in our history.  Newspapers are closing across the country.  Television networks and cable news shows are hemorrhaging viewers. 

The arrival of Bezos and Soon-Shiong to “rescue” two major American newspapers has shown us how hollow were any hopes that billionaires will or even can make a difference in today’s economic and political climate. 

But workers can make a difference.  With ten days to go until the election, let’s see if a day with no newspaper in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles can make a difference.  Maybe a strike will teach reporters and editors and the rest of us that we are beyond the point of being able to affect our lives and the lives of others.  Or maybe rallying against the fascism that has been stealing our national politics will help to send more people to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris on November 5.

I do know this:  When you are bullied, you STAND UP or you lose your self-respect and your dignity and your right to life. The fascism of Donald Trump would take away all three.

Lucian Truscott Newsletter

[performativezippers]

Hey! Sorry if you’ve already answered, I went back a bit in your writing tips tag a bit but didn’t see anything related. I was wondering if you’ve got any tips for getting agents/publishers interested? I’ve been writing fic a while and am working on some original work now (like the romcom with some deeper themes genre) and I’d really love to get it published but the whole process and just even starting with that can seem so daunting

Love your work and excited for your book! Thanks so much, hope you have a great day!

Hey anon! I have talked about this before but I can't find it either, so let's do it!

Essentially for publishing, you have three main options (there are lots of sub-options and nuances, but I'm going to keep this pretty general). Those options are: self-publishing, traditional publishing, and indie or small-press publishing.

Self Publishing

What is it: This is when you write your book, use betas to help you edit it, and then you publish it yourself, most commonly on amazon. You can hire someone to make the cover or hire an editor, or you can do all of that yourself. You do everything, including layout, marketing, design, jacket copy, etc. Amazon lets people order either e-books or print-on-demand usually, so it's possible people could buy physical copies. If you wanted an audiobook, you'd have to pay a company to produce one for you.

The pros: You keep most of the money from sales, you keep all creative control, it happens on your timeline, you won't end up with things (cover, for example) that you don't like. Since you can publish very quickly (no year+ delay) you can get a big backlist very quickly, which means more books for your fans to find and enjoy. No rejection, because the only person judging if your book should be published is you.

The cons: You do everything yourself, and any help is something you have to pay for out of pocket. Without several rounds of professional editing it won't be as polished as other manuscripts. It's very hard to bust through the noise of the thousands of other self-pubbed books to find your readership, and most libraries and bookstores won't carry your book. Of course there are exceptions and people who go viral on booktok or whatever and make a lot of money, but remember those are rare cases, and most self-pubbed authors will sell (I think) 50-500 copies. The money you don't keep goes to evil jeff bezos.

How do you do it: However you want! There are lots of facebook groups and discord channels of people self-pubbing who can give you resources for how to format, design, upload, and publish your book. Best practice is definitely to hire an editor if you can!

Traditional Publishing

What is it: Often called "trad pub," this is what most people think of when they think of "getting published." There used to be dozens of trad pubs, but now there's 5 big houses that have gobbled up all the little ones. Now the little ones are called "imprints" and the big ones are called the "big 5 houses." It's like how Meta owns facebook and instagram—think of FB and IG as "imprints" and Meta as the "house." The big 5 are Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette, and Penguin Random House. These are big companies that buy your manuscript from you, publish it, and then give you some of the sale money. Most of the profit stays with them; however, in theory, you should sell a lot more copies with trad pub than any other kind so the money should ultimately be better. Plus, they pay you for the initial purchase of your book, called an advance, which can be a lot of money if you're lucky, or a regular cool amount of money if you're regular.

The pro's: Your book will be in bookstores and libraries and you will likely get an audiobook. Your pub will send your books to reviewers, booksellers, and influencers to get buzz, and a lot of the marketing will be on them instead of on you. You have a team of professional editors working on the manuscript with you, plus cover and format are designed by professionals. You pay for nothing. You get an advance, plus royalties if you sell enough. Most houses buy right of first refusal for your next book (called an "option clause" or just "option") which is a great way to build a career. Sometimes they'll offer you a 2 or 3 book deal off the bat.

The con's: You only get 7-10% of most sales, financially, and then you give 15% of what you get to your agent. The process is veeeeeery long (average from contract to publication is about 18 months) and it's extremely competitive. There are very few trad pub deals compared to the number of aspiring authors. You don't have full creative control, and you might end up with an editor you don't jive with (mostly you will though!) or a cover or even title you don't love (these things can be mitigated by having a good agent who will fight for you). You're like, working with The Man. So much rejection (agents and editors/houses). Most people who try to get trad pubbed will not succeed.

How to do it: You will always need an agent first for trad pub. How it works is that you offer yourself and your manuscript to agents for them to sign you as a client. This process is called querying, and it's relatively horrifying. I can go into more detail in another post if anyone has questions. Once you've signed with an agent, you might do some editing rounds with them if they're that type of agent. Then they write a cover letter for your book and come up with a list of places to submit it to. They submit it to individual editors "Christina at X imprint of Hachette," usually 8-12 at a time. If all 8-12 Christina's turn it down, you might do another round or you might not. If no Christina's buy your book, that book has died. If a Christina buys it, yay, you have a trad pub deal!! If multiple Christina's want it, CONGRATS, you've "gone to auction" and they fight over you. After you've picked a Christina, they give you money(!!!) and then you and Christina edit the book together and then in like 2 years it comes out!

Indie or Small-Press Publishing

There are lots of terms for this, but basically this is using a publisher (like trad pub) who is small (not a big 5) to publish your book. Maybe think of an imprint that hasn't (yet) been gobbled up. This is kind of a middle ground between Trad and Self pubbing. Usually a shorter editorial timeline, a little less editing maybe, and they almost always have a much smaller budget/team for marketing and publicity. You can still be in bookstores and libraries but it depends on their distribution and connections with booksellers. They have editors and cover designers and all of that, but quality will vary from house to house. Some are ebook only, while most will be print-and-ebook deals. You may or may not get an audiobook. Do your research!

Note: any small press that asks YOU to pay THEM to publish it, edit it, or anything else IS A SCAM. The money should only ever flow from them to you. Most small presses are wonderful and not-scams, but stay aware.

Pro's: You're a published author! You may get more attention and focus from your team than at a Big 5. You may get more input into things like title, cover, design, and edits. You may love the small town feel of it! Lots of people love this option and it works perfectly for them. You're not working for The Man!

Con's: You have to do a lot of the marketing lift yourself, but the pub still keeps most of your revenue from sales. You may or may not get an advance, and if you do, it likely will be a more normal amount ($500-$5,000 I'd guess). Still lots of opportunities for rejection!

How to do it: Some require agents and some don't--in that case, you submit your manuscript directly to them. Best practice is if you get an offer without an agent, quickly try to get an agent to help you negotiate the contract and everything moving forward. Agents are a god send! Do your research, and enjoy!

Those are the basics. It's really complicated and tough out there, but I'm very happy to answer more specific questions as they come up for anyone!

[saintmeghanmarkle]

📋 𝐌𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐌 𝐯𝐢𝐚 𝐀𝐑𝐎, 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐏𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟒𝟎𝐱𝟒𝟎 📋

📌 ARO jam recipients (as of May 27th, 2024)

Tracy Robbins (designer, wife of Paramount Pictures CEO Brian Robbins) *

Delfina Balquier (Argentine socialite, wife of Nacho Figueras) * and Nacho Figueras (professional polo player) *

Kelly Mckee Zajfen (friend, Alliance of Moms founder) *

Mindy Kaling (actress and comedian) *

Tracee Ellis Ross (actress, daughter of Diana Ross)

Abigail Spencer (friend, Suits co-star) *

Chrissy Teigen (television personality, wife of John Legend)

Kris Jenner ('Momager') *

Garcelle Beauvais (actress, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills) *

Heather Dorak (friend, yoga instructor) *

📌 Archetypes podcast guests

Serena Williams 🏆

Mariah Carey 👑

Mindy Kaling (actress and comedian) *

Margaret Cho (comedian and actress)

Lisa Ling (journalist and tv personality)

Deepika Padukone (Indian actress)

Jenny Slate (actress and comedian)

Constance Wu (actress)

Paris Hilton (entrepreneur, socialite, activist)

Iliza Shlesinger (comedian and actress)

Issa Rae (actress and writer)

Ziwe (comedian and writer)

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau (former wife of Canadian PM Trudeau)

Pamela Adlon (actress)

Sam Jay (comedian and writer)

Mellody Hobson (President and co-CEO of $14.9B Ariel Investments, Chairwoman of Starbucks Corporation, wife of George Lucas)

Victoria Jackson (entrepreneur, wife of Bill Guthy: founder of Guthy-Renker, leading direct marketing company)

Jameela Jamil (actress, television host)

Shohreh Aghdashloo (Iranian and American actress)

Michaela Jaé Rodriguez (actress and singer)

Candace Bushnell (Sex and The City writer)

Trevor Noah (South African comedian)

Andy Cohen (talk show host)

Judd Apatow (director, producer, screenwriter)

source

📌 40x40 participants

Adele 🌟

Amanda Gorman (poet and activist)

Amanda Nguyen (activist)

Ayesha Curry (actress, cooking television personality)

Ciara (singer and actress)

Deepak Chopra (author and alternative medicine advocate)

Dr. Nadine Burke Harris (former Surgeon General of California)

Elaine Welteroth (former Editor-in-Chief of Teen Vogue)

Dr. Ibram X Kendi (professor and anti-racism activist)

Fernando Garcia (creative director of Oscar de la Renta)

Gabrielle Union (actress)

Gloria Steinem (feminist journalist and social-political activist)

Hillary Clinton (politician, wife of former US President Bill Clinton)

Katie Couric (journalist) *

Kerry Washington (actress)

Chef José Andrés (founder of World Central Kitchen)

Melissa McCarthy (actress)

Princess Eugenie (member of British Royal Family)

Priyanka Chopra (actress)

Sarah Paulson (actress)

Sofia Carson (actress)

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau (former wife of Canadian PM)

Stella McCartney (fashion designer, daughter of Paul McCartney)

Dr. Theresa "Tessy" Ojo - CBE, FRSA (Diana Award CEO)

Tracee Ellis Ross (actress, daughter of Diana Ross)

Unconfirmed - Edward Enninful (former Editor-in-Chief of British Vogue)

Unconfirmed - Daniel Martin (makeup artist) *

An official list of all "40x40" participants was never disclosed

source 1 // source 2 // source 3

📌 Notes:

Names with an asterisk (*) indicate that they follow ARO on Instagram

Notably missing from these lists: Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos and wife Nicole Avant, Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, Beyoncé, Tina Knowles, Tyler Perry, Oprah Winfrey, Gayle King, Kevin Costner, Ellen DeGeneres, Portia Rossi *, Brooke Shields, John Travolta, Kelly Rowland, Holly Robinson Peete, Misan Harriman *, Michael Bublé

Wedding guests missing from these lists: Jessica Mulroney, George and Amal Clooney, David and Victoria Beckham, Idris Elba and Sabria Dhowre, James Blunt and Sofia Wellesley, Janina Gavankar, Elton John and David Furnish, James Corden and Julia Carey, Patrick J. Adams and the rest of the cast of Suits, Joss Stone, Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley, Carey Mulligan and Marcus Mumford [Source]

Sunshine Sachs must've called in a LOT of favors to get so many famous names on board the Archetypes Podcast and the 40x40 project. Vanity projects that went... nowhere.

Without Sunshine Sachs, IMO it's highly unlikely that M will ever be able to reach the same level of celebrity access on her own.

If there are any names missing from these lists, please comment below 👇

Post link

author: SeptièmeSens

submitted: May 27, 2024 at 06:44PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[1americanconservative]

@nicksortor

#BREAKING: Washington Post Editor-at-Large Robert Kagan has RESIGNED after owner Jeff Bezos BARRED the endorsement of Kamala Harris

The leftist media is in TOTAL crisis mode!

This comes just days after fellow leftist paper Los Angeles Times also refused to endorse a candidate in this election.

Left wing hacks are losing their grips on the narrative, and they’re going berserk. It’s beautiful.

@elonmusk has played a MASSIVE role in waking people up—including other tech billionaires who were blinded by propaganda prior to this election.

[beardedmrbean]

The Washington Post — reeling from a mass exodus of subscribers over its refusal to endorse Kamala Harris — “aggressively ramped up its paid advertising campaign” on social media platforms that boost stories critical of Donald Trump, according to a report.

Owner Jeff Bezos has faced backlash over his decision last week to kill the endorsement for the vice president, which has led to the resignations of several high-level staffers and a loss of more than 250,000 digital subscribers.

On Thursday, the news site Semafor reported that the publication had rolled out an ad blitz at the start of the week on social media sites such as Facebook that boosts its anti-Trump coverage.

The promoted stories centered around the former president’s campaign rhetoric, misstatements, supporters leaving his rallies early and Trump’s controversial comments about migrants in Ohio eating dogs, Semafor reported.

By contrast, the promoted stories about his Democratic challenger were neutral in tone and informative, Semafor found.

Before Monday, the newspaper had run around a dozen ads on Facebook for the month of October, mainly promoting the Washington Post brand and steering clear of any mention of Trump.

The New York Post reached out to the WaPo for comment.

A source close to the situation told the New York Post that the Washington Post’s promoted stories on social media reflect high-performing content.

The content of the advertising posts is directly pulled from the respective reporting, according to the source.

“This isn’t new,” the source insisted.

The Washington Post’s promoted posts span a mix of its content across all of its verticals, including climate, style and other sections, the source added.

The Beltway paper’s increase in paid ads this week could also be a reflection of Facebook parent company Meta’s policy that prohibits new ads during the week of the election, which is set for Tuesday.

A source said the Washington Post was likely getting some new ads up before the tech giant freezes new ad buys.

As of Thursday, at least 250,000 readers — or 10% — canceled their digital subscriptions to the Washington Post in apparent protest of Bezos’ move to end the paper’s decades-long practice of endorsing a presidential candidate, according to National Public Radio.

Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, published a guest essay Monday saying the decision to forgo endorsements was a matter of “principle” intended to dispel the notion that his newspaper was biased.

But the move elicited howls of protest from readers on social media as well as journalists who are either current or former employees of the Washington Post, such as award-winning Watergate sleuths Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

At least three editorial staffers resigned from the paper.

After Bezos’ decision was announced last Friday, some of the paper’s top editors and columnists met to discuss the controversy.

David Shipley, the newspaper’s opinion editor, listened as his colleagues blasted Bezos for harming the publication’s reputation as an “independent journalistic organization,” according to the Washington Free Beacon, which obtained audio of the meeting.

One staffer reportedly told Shipley that the “one thing that can’t happen in this country is for Trump to get another four years.”

Shipley responded by telling staffers that they were welcome to vent their frustration but that they would then need to either come to terms with Bezos’ decision and move on — or resign.

“Whatever you decide, I’m good with it,” Shipley said.

“What I really do want to impart is that you do not get stuck in the middle. Don’t be here if you don’t want to.”

Shipley told his colleagues that he spent an hour on the phone with Bezos in an effort to get him to change his mind and allow the editorial board to issue its endorsement of Harris — but the mogul refused to budge.

He said that while he agreed with the “principle that you do not have to do presidential endorsements,” he took issue with Bezos’ “timing, and the way in which the timing could be read.”

A similar dynamic has been playing out at the Los Angeles Times, where billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked the editorial board from publishing an endorsement of Harris.

Soon-Shiong said he wanted the editorial board to present a side-by-side comparative analysis of the two candidates and their positions so that readers could decide for themselves whom to support.

At least three LA Times staffers quit in protest and between 10,000 and 18,000 readers canceled their subscriptions to the paper, according to reports.

[thatstormygeek]

The powerful get a completely different set of rules to live by and exist in a totally different media environment — they're geniuses, entrepreneurs and firebrands, their challenges framed as "missteps" and their victories framed as certainties by the same outlets that told us that we were "quiet quitting" and that the economy is actually good and we are the problem. While it's correct to suggest that the right wing is horrendously ideologically biased, it's very hard to look at the rest of the media and claim they're not.

Musk is the most brutal example. Despite turning Twitter into a website pumped full of racism and hatred that helped make Donald Trump president, Musk was still able to get mostly-positive coverage from the majority of the mainstream media despite the fact that he has spent the best part of a decade lying about what Tesla will do next. It doesn't matter that these outlets had accompanying coverage that suggested that the markets weren't impressed by its robotaxi plans, or its potemkin robots — Musk is still demonstrably able to use the media's desperation for objectivity against them, knowing that they would never dare combine thinking about stuff with reporting on stuff for fear that someone might say they have "bias" in their "coverage."  This is, by the way, not always the fault of the writers. There are entire foundations of editors that have more faith in the markets and the powerful than they do in the people who spend their days interrogating them, and above them entire editorial superstructures that exist to make sure that the "editorial vision" never colors too far outside the lines. I'm not even talking about Jeff Bezos, or Laurene Powell Jobs, or any number of billionaires who own any number of publications, but the editors editing business and tech reporters who don't know anything about business and tech, or the senior editors that are terrified of any byline that might dare get the outlet "under fire" from somebody who could call their boss. There are, however, also those who simply defer to the powerful — that assume that "this much money can't be wrong," even if said money has been wrong repeatedly to the point that there's an entire website about it. They are the people that look at the current crop of powerful tech companies that have failed to deliver any truly meaningful innovation in years and coo like newborn babes. Look at the coverage of Sam Altman from the last year — you know, the guy who has spent years lying about what artificial intelligence can do — and tell me why every single thought he has must be uncritically cataloged, his every decision applauded, his every claim trumpeted as certain, his brittle company's obvious problems apologized for and readers reassured of his obvious victory. Nowhere is this more obvious right now than in The Guardian's nonsensical decision to abandon Twitter, decrying how "X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse" mere weeks after printing, bereft of context, Elon Musk's ridiculous lies about his plans for cybertaxis. There is little moral quality to leaving X if your outlet continues to act as a stenographer for its leader, and this in fact suggests a lack of any real interest in change or progress, just the paper tiger of norms and values that will only end up depriving people of good journalism.

These millions of invisible acts of terror are too-often left undiscussed, because accepting the truth requires you to accept that most of the tech ecosystem is rotten, and that billions of dollars are made harassing and punishing billions of people every single day of their lives through the devices that we’re required to use to exist in the modern world. Most users suffer the consequences, and most media fails to account for them, and in turn people walk around knowing something is wrong but not knowing who to blame until somebody provides a convenient excuse. Why wouldn't people crave change? Why wouldn't people be angry? Living in the current world can be absolutely fucking miserable, bereft of industry and filthy with manipulation, an undignified existence, a disrespectful existence that must be crushed if we want to escape the depressing world we've found ourselves in. Our media institutions are fully fucking capable of dealing with these problems, but it starts with actually evaluating them and aggressively interrogating them without fearing accusations of bias that will happen either way. The truth is that the media is more afraid of bias than they are of misleading their readers. And while that seems like a slippery slope, and may very well be one, there must be room to inject the writer’s voice back into their work, and a willingness to call out bad actors as such, no matter how rich they are, no matter how big their products are, and no matter how willing they are to bark and scream that things are unfair as they accumulate more power.

[upsettingandunfortunateclasshate]

I really do hate how your activists, lefty commentariat, organisers etc dismiss and patronise working class people's understanding of class. It's wide & varied, and a common theme is how WC people recognise class signifiers a lot (like accents) and how class intersects with gender, race etc.

But what you get back is "you're wrong, it's just a labour relation, there are two classes, and that's the end of it"

This lot also actively ignore or play down their class power and even sometimes think that cos they're not as rich as Jeff Bezos and don't own the means of production, they are indeed working class - often despite shite like private education, open doors to an array of industries, a monopoly on knowledge, wealthy assets in the family etc. and being a fucking editor of some lefty rag, having various platforms, books, involved in think tanks designing labour policy, lobbying etc.

And if you mention this, all you get back is rage - cos someone dare challenge their power

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

If Donald Trump returns to the White House, the fate of the U.S. press may rest on whether corporate executives who control mammoth multimedia conglomerates are willing to prioritize the journalistic credibility of the news outlets they oversee over their own business interests. 

Trump will put wealthy media magnates to the test, forcing them to decide whether they are willing to suffer painful consequences for keeping their outlets free of influence, or whether they will either compel their journalists to knuckle under or sell their outlets to someone who will. Trump spent his presidency demanding that his administration target his perceived political enemies with federal pressure — from regulatory action to criminal investigations — and says he would be even less restrained in enacting “retribution” in a second term. 

In recent months, prominent commentators have warned that the press could become such a target of Trump, whose own former top aides describe him as a fascist. New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger, in an extraordinary warning in the pages of The Washington Post, wrote last month that Trump takes as his model Hungary’s autocrat Viktor Orbán, who has “effectively dismantled the news media in his country” as “a central pillar of Orbán’s broader project to remake his country as an ‘illiberal democracy.’”  These fears that Trump would use a second term to crack down on the press are rational. The former president demands sycophantic coverage and describes those who do not provide it as the “enemy of the people.” Trump’s rhetoric and record show that he is keenly aware of the vulnerabilities some news outlets have and is eager to exploit them if he returns to the White House.

[...]

Corporate media owners are vulnerable to Trump’s pressure — and some are already bending

Trump’s presidency revealed the dark playbook he and his allies use against perceived enemies such as individual journalists. Its potential tactics include publicly denouncing reporters, stripping them of access, inciting supporters to target them with violence, threatening them with investigation, and sending federal agencies like the Justice Department after them. These heinous maneuvers could and likely would be used against journalists in a second Trump term.

But perhaps the greater threat to the free press as an institution comes from Trump’s ability to target for retaliation the corporate barons who control the newspapers, broadcast and cable networks, and other outlets that employ those journalists. While some publications like the Times are functionally standalone journalism businesses, many others are either small divisions within massive multimedia companies whose executives are ultimately responsible to stockholders or privately held entities that represent a tiny fraction of their owner’s assets. 

CNN is part of Warner Bros. Discovery, a publicly traded company that also owns film and TV studios, streaming services, and a host of other businesses.  Comcast provides cable and internet services to consumers and owns and operates broadcast and cable TV channels and a movie studio, in addition to overseeing NBC News and MSNBC.  CBS News is owned by Paramount Global. ABC News is part of the Walt Disney Co. 

Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post (where my wife works as letters and community editor) but his billions come from founding Amazon, which is the nation’s second-largest private employer with subsidiaries in industries from online retail to web services, artificial intelligence to groceries. Patrick Soon-Shiong used a fraction of the wealth he earned in biotech to purchase the Los Angeles Times. Trump understands that those broader corporate structures create a host of potential vulnerabilities an authoritarian president with no interest in preserving the rule of law could utilize against the owners of news outlets that displease him. Individuals and corporations that own major news outlets have other business interests that may rely on government contracts or federal patents or regulators who oversee their mergers and acquisitions and other practices.

The former president knows that even if journalists want to stand up to him, he can force their outlets to change course by threatening corporate executives and owners who have different priorities.  Trump does not just lash out at the Post — he targets the “Amazon Washington Post.” When he goes after NBC and MSNBC, he calls out Comcast’s CEO by name. He shares attacks on Disney’s Bob Iger as part of his war on ABC News.  He is telegraphing the future trouble he may bring down on the corporate owners if they do not bring their news outlets to heel — and forcing those owners to determine how much pain they are willing to endure over a division that likely provides a small fraction of the overall corporation's revenues.

Corporate executives also know that there are rewards for knuckling under and following the paths of avowed pro-Trump figures like Rupert Murdoch, whose multimedia empire includes right-wing fixtures Fox News and the New York Post, and David Smith, whose Sinclair Broadcasting Group is a telecommunications giant that owns and programs scores of TV stations. Both received favorable regulatory treatment during Trump’s presidency.

Matt Gertz wrote in MMFA today that Donald Trump and his cronies seek to silence adversarial “truth to power” journalism just like what Orbán, Chávez, and Erdoğan did to the press opposed to them.