from gawker.com
Yesterday's New York Times story questioning the bankability of Jared Paul Stern's just-sold book, "Stern Measures," needs some questioning of its own. The Times' Julie Bosman bluntly wondered "why" publishers Simon & Schuster would have paid a reported six figures for Stern's book, preferring to ignore the rationale given by the publisher in a press release ("Stern will deliver the scoop on the glamorous heights and seamy underbelly of the gossip industry and the New York tabloid wars") and of Mark Gompertz, the guy who actually bought the book (likening it to a "Kitchen Confidential" for the gossip industry) in favor of pushing its own theory about why the book would underperform.
The problem is, the Times theory sucks. It posits that Stern's book is "likely to land in one of two spaces": That of the "misbehaving journalist's fall from grace" a la Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, or the gossip "tell-all" a la Page Six compatriots
Paula Froelich, Ian Spiegelman and Deborah Schoeneman. Let's address these in turn. (But before we do, a note: The Wall Street Journal ran a piece this summer similarly crunching the gossip-book numbers, and Gawker took care of speculating on Stern's fate in the wake thereof. Okay, on we go.)
The first category is unsupported by the facts on two counts: For starters, Stern has never, ever copped to misdoing in l'affaire Burkle. As mentioned previously on this site, allegations made against him originated with Burkle, have been disputed by Stern, and thus far have not otherwise been supported by any legal action. So comparing him to admitted "misbehavers" Blair and Glass is a misnomer. Second, and just as bad from a reporting standpoint, is to suggest that Stern would write anything characterizing his experience as either "misbehaving" or a "fall from grace." Anyone who has even superficially dug into the matter knows that Stern's position is one marked by bravado, outrage, and plans to sue Burkle himself. So it's a safe bet that he won't be writing an apologia (but hey, don't believe me, believe the description of the book from the very same press release cited in Bosman's piece. Or, come to think of it, believe the book proposal, which has been online for months).
Next: Bosman dismisses all gossip-themed books as one and the same, ignoring that Stern's non-fiction book is not a self-help/how-to (Froelich) or novel (Spiegelman and Schoeneman). She does, however, omit reference to the non-fiction memoir of gossip columnist Jeanette Walls, which has sold almost 300,000 copies.
Bosman asks "Why?" Yet funnily enough, she doesn't bother to ask the guy who gave the hard sell in the first place. Sorry, did I say she didn't bother? Make that she actively declined to accept comment from him. According to Stern, Bosman contacted him for confirmation after news of the book deal broke on Gawker, and he declined to comment (rather tartly, as seems to be his custom). However, in her short item on the sale, dated Oct. 18, 2006, Bosman wrote that Stern "did not respond to an email message." When Stern heard that Bosman had contacted his publishers for follow-up, he said he sent her an email message offering comment and subsequently called. According to Stern, "they refused my comment for the hit piece."*
Seems rather odd to refuse comment from the author of the just-sold book you're speculating about — particularly when comparing it to clunkers written by charlatans and fakes.
It is, of course, entirely proper to mention the circumstances of Stern's recent notoriety, but it is also entirely proper to get it right: In Bosman's first article, she writes that Stern is "under federal investigation" but "has not been charged"; in her second, she writes that "The criminal investigation focusing on Mr. Stern's actions earlier this year has not been closed, but prosecutors have not brought charges against him." But, in Choire Sicha's Observer piece this week he quotes Heather Tasker, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney (S.D.N.Y.): "As you probably suspect, we can't confirm or deny the existence of an investigation." Bosman's assertions are not sourced.
Not surprisingly, Stern was less than pleased with the piece, saying in an email:
"This kind of cheap shot doesn't bother me as much as the derogatory pattern of the Times coverage of my situation since day one. As my lawyer noted we are going after Burkle for defamation; the Times has repeatedly aided and abetted his smear campaign while failing to disclose their Burkle ties, and that will be part of our suit."**
ETP isn't calling the motives of Bosman and NYT into question here, just the execution.
Gossip Gets a Book Deal, but What About Sales? [NYT]
Exclusive: Jared Paul Stern's Book Proposal, Ghostwritten by Sammy "the Bull" Gravano [Gawker]
*It should be noted that Stern's offer of comment came with a condition. Per Stern: "I myself had already been waiting several days for a response from them to a request for a clarification on a David Carr piece, so I told them that took precedence."
**"Burkle ties" refers to this partnership between the NYT and Source Interlink, in which Burkle holds a 35% stake.
***It should also be noted that I have met Jared Paul Stern once and enjoy a friendly relationship with him. He has never offered to send me anywhere on a stretcher.
