Ted Cruz‘s book A Time for Truth is now finally on the New York Times‘ bestseller list… coming in at #7.
But leave it to the Times and its editors to make themselves the victim of the eeeeeevil right-wing conspiracy that dared to criticize The Grey Lady for failing to do what Barnes & Noble and Amazon had done since the book’s first sales numbers came in: Listing Cruz as a bestseller. The victim-heavy snark comes courtesy of BizDay editor Kate Phillips via Twitter:
So much for our left-wing conspiracy. The very latest NYT Best Seller List for Nonfiction incl. 'A Time for Truth' by Ted Cruz at No. 7.
— katephillips (@katephillips) July 15, 2015
So what gives? Did the Times decide their B.S. excuse — only refuted by Amazon and Barnes & Noble — that bulk sales made the book ineligible for consideration to the bestseller list, was believed by basically nobody? Or is the book is now powered by non-bulk-sales and therefore suddenly qualifies? The Times isn’t in the mood to provide an explanation and instead prefers to point fingers on social media like it’s sophomore year all over again. Of course, this is what happens when being exposed for blatant bias only to be expected from a publication that hasn’t endorsed a Republican candidate for president in nearly 60 years (yup, they loved Walter Mondale even when New York went red in ’84).
And by the way, where’s that evidence the Times keeps referring to around Team Cruz manipulating the overall sales numbers via bulk purchases? It’s been nearly 10 days and the paper of record won’t go on-record with it. It’s one thing to get caught; It’s quite another to publicly state the whole controversy was ginned up as a “left-wing conspiracy”, as Phillips did without presenting a shred of evidence to the contrary. In an ironic twist, Cruz absolutely profited from getting into this spat with the most liberal major outlet on the media map…just more free publicity for a book apparently already doing fine on its own.
Trust in such a (once) respected publication means something, especially when it comes to keeping a good chunk of readers from bolting after the bias becomes too much to take. Need proof? According to the company’s financial report for 2014, it posted an operating profit of just $92 million, down from $156 million in 2013 ($64 million).
That’s not just a notable drop at a time when newspapers are struggling as a whole, that’s downright disturbing.
And the Times‘ pulling stunts like they did with a sitting senator’s book is partly to blame.
>> Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @JoeConchaTV
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com