Study Reveals NY Times Bestseller List Allegedly Allergic to Conservative Authors – Reactions Include Eye Rolls and Shrugs
3 minute read
Published: 6/13/2024
### Study Reveals NY Times Bestseller List Allegedly Allergic to Conservative Authors – Reactions Include Eye Rolls and ShrugsIn what could be described as the latest episode of "Biased Bestseller Bingo," a study by
The Economist
found the
New York Times
(NYT) bestseller list to be politically biased against conservative authors. According to the study, books from conservative publishers are, on average,
7% less likely
to make the coveted list compared to their liberal counterparts. This news, of course, prompted a series of dramatic eye rolls and an abundance of well-restrained shrugs from both sides of the political aisle.
Let's break it down: Conservative titles that snuggle into the bottom ten spots of the
Publishers Weekly
list were found to be
22% less likely
to make the NYT bestseller list. And for those which did manage to slip through the NYT gates, these books ranked an
average of 2.3 spots behind
similar-ranking books. Think of it as that old high school trick where you’re allowed to sit at the cool kids' table, but your chair is slightly shorter.
The study meticulously examined the effect of bulk buying, a sneaky tactic where organizations purchase books en masse to give the illusion of popularity. Despite the bulk-buying murmurs, the study
concluded
that such sales did not account for the observed bias in the NYT rankings. In fact, a whopping
53% of conservative books
were flagged as possible bulk buys compared to just
10% for other books
, which is like accusing everyone at the bake sale of buying out their own cookies just to boost their ego.
Interestingly, the NYT’s
ranking methodology
remains an enigma, and secrecy often begets suspicion. It’s like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but with more paper cuts. For instance, when Ari Fleischer's book,
"Suppression, Deception, Snobbery and Bias"
, which criticizes liberal media (imagine that), flopped on the NYT list despite high sales, one could almost hear the collective "hmmm" from across the conservative blogosphere.
Similarly,
Rob Henderson’s book
,
"Troubled"
, which landed gracefully on the
Publishers Weekly
rankings, was conspicuously absent on the NYT list, prompting many to ponder if there’s a secret handshake they missed. Then there’s
Ted Cruz's
"A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America"
, noticeably absent, probably lounging in some literary waiting room alongside
Clay Travis's
"American Playbook: A Guide to Winning Back the Country from the Democrats"
.
The absence of these books from the list has sparked nostalgia for a time when sales figures were taken at face value—back when people believed the bestseller list was like an honest referee in the literary wrestling match. Alas, those days may be gone, replaced by secret algorithms that make the seven wonders of the ancient world look like IKEA instruction manuals.
The Economist
completed the study with an argument that a
transparent bestseller list
would benefit both authors and the public. It’s like suggesting we all just wear our feelings on our sleeves—radical, indeed.
Unsurprisingly, a NYT spokesperson
denied any bias
and maintained that political views of authors or their publishers have no bearing on their rankings. It's the literary version of when your cat keeps knocking things off the table while maintaining a totally innocent face.
So, whether you're skeptically raising an eyebrow or nodding in agreement, the debate on the politicization of bestseller lists is likely to rage on. In the meantime, the books will keep flying off the shelves, the rankings will keep spinning their mysterious yarns, and readers will continue to say, "Oh, come on!" before diving right back into their next great read.
© 2024 Cambridge Arbiter
Reach us atsupport@cambridgearbiter.com