On Ted Cruz Book, NY Times Needs to Put Up or Shut Up

Last Thursday, The New York Times made a very serious allegation against a sitting Senator and presidential candidate. When asked by Politico’s Dylan Byers why Ted Cruz’s bestselling book “A Time for Truth” was kept of its bestsellers list, they alleged that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence” was that someone (read: someone hired by Cruz) made “strategic bulk purchases” of the book. Essentially, Cruz was accused of using dirty tricks to try to get his book to the top of the bestsellers list.

The next day, Cruz’s publisher HarperCollins has spoken out, saying they reviewed sales data and found “no evidence” of bulk purchases. The Cruz campaign also hit back, noting that other bestsellers lists that omit bulk purchases have included Cruz’s book. But most damning was when respected bestsellers lister Amazon said in a statement that there was no evidence behind the Times‘ charge.

My advice to the Times is simple: put up or shut up.

If this had been a simple Cruz-versus-Times political tumble, the Times would have won. Those who are predisposed to believe the word of Tea Party politicians over the so-called “newspaper of record” would have believed Cruz. But those who the Times relies on for its influence– the media, political and East Coast elites– would have inevitably believed them.

But there are now two respected media institutions backing Cruz. No doubt, HarperCollins has a motive to defend its product’s sales, but Amazon has no dog in this fight. And by continuing to include Cruz’s book on their bestsellers lists despite the controversy, respected organizations like The Wall Street Journal and Nielsen are implicitly saying the Times is wrong.

The converse is also true; by continuing to exclude Cruz, the Times is implicitly saying those respected organizations are either incompetent, hoodwinked, or in the tank for the Texas Republican. Either one is a serious charge; serious enough that it requires evidence behind it.

The Times statement argued forcefully that “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence” was not in Cruz’s favor. If there’s so much evidence pointing in that direction, it should be made public for other outlets and reporters to judge. But again, with such a strong statement, the Times only raises more questions about why other outlets missed this super-duper obvious smoking gun.

If the Times is reluctant to go public with its methodology, the paper can pull a Rolling Stone and hire an independent third party to go through the evidence and issue a public report. It might cost a pretty penny, but surely that’s better than leaving a dark cloud of suspicion hanging over what was the single most respected and cited bestsellers list in America.

I would ask this of the Times higher-ups: how would you react if a reporter’s source leveled an extremely serious allegation against a presidential candidate, said there was soooooo much evidence proving it, and then refused to produce said evidence? I say “would,” because as history has taught us, the Times has no problem passing along innuendo-laden smears of the presumptive Republican nominee.

But The New York Times bestsellers list has always been a bright spot that has eluded the highly partisan debates over the paper’s biases. But now, the Times is at risk of losing even its respectability on that front. Their only way forward is clear: silence critics by producing their irrefutable evidence of bulk purchases.

Of course, that’s assuming that evidence exists.

[Image via screengrab]
——
>>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.