Book Deals, Threat or Menace

OK. But. Books don't get written overnight. If he corroborated this information at any point over the last two years, and apparently he did because it's in the book, then he did indeed sit on it for the book. At some point, he felt confident enough in his reporting that he added it to his book. And if it's actual, provable treason.... why wasn't it front page news?

 

Maybe. It just seems weird to save this information for later. Which is what happened. Probably doesn't matter. The president is lawless and no one is stopping him.

 

Aren't most "behind-the-scenes" books little more than office gossip organized in a way to make a larger point? We know WHAT was going on, but these books are mostly "what X was thinking," "who opposed something," I don't know if it's really "news" if two people in the West Wing hate each other - or if someone missed a meeting on a crucial issue because they were being treated for an STD.

 

A JFK reference?

 

The New York Times has a deal with a publisher to sell books under the The Times imprint. I would guess they use this imprint for their cookbooks and their crossword puzzles. According to Wikipedia the paper has right of first refusal for any books there reporters write.

Times Books - Wikipedia

 

Every nonfiction book written by someone that's on the staff of a publication is exactly like this, unless it's simply an anthology.

Woodward still works for the Post yet has three books about every presidency with new info; Jane Mayer's books about the Kochs and secret torture programs had info that was held from The New Yorker and would have been useful being revealed earlier; Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill same thing; NY Times' Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey's MeToo book; Stelter's new book on Fox News has stuff about their relationship with Trump he's never given to CNN; Joshua Green's book on Bannon had stuff he didn't give Bloomberg; Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig's A Very Stable Genius had stuff they didn't give Washington Post.

And on and on and on. And that's just from the past few years; it's been going on with every major issue and every president for a long time. If every book written by someone on staff is a disservice to the public (and they might be!), I don't see why Schmidt should be singled out. I personally don't have a problem with his or any book like it, but as the spouse of a literary agent who makes money on people saving this stuff for their books...I am a bit biased.

 

The NYT addresses outside work in its policy/ethics info:

Ethical Journalism

 

Thank you for saying Schmidt shouldn't be singled out. He shouldn't be! This is a longtime common practice to which I, a news consumer, object because I think it's ripping me off. I don't think it's good for the media outlets either. "What else do they know they're not telling me?" is not a thought you should want in your readers' heads.

 

Most places you work - you come up with any new idea, process, product on company time or with their equipment - it's theirs. So I do understand the point. If a book were a widget the company would own it. See also, why some SNL actors "hold back" some ideas from SNL (Austin Powers). They don't want to have to give Lorne Michaels a cut.

 

Schmidt’s responsibility is to uncover facts and report on breaking news. It’s like a doctor not using a new procedure he’s developed through his hospital experience on one of their patients, but doing it at his outside clinic.