S&S removes distribution for cop’s book

From Nathan Bransford:

Simon & Schuster came under fire this week because one of the publishers it distributes, Post Hill Press, acquired a book by one of the cops who shot Breonna Taylor. After a major outcry (and some confusion among people who weren’t splitting hairs between publishing and distributing), Simon & Schuster announced that it wouldn’t be involved in the distribution of the book (no word as of this writing on whether that means they have severed their relationship with Post Hill Press entirely).

Just for the record since this is a publishing blog, a publisher is the entity that acquires, edits, and publishes a book. In this case Simon & Schuster was not the publisher, nor is Post Hill Press one of its imprints. Post Hill Press is its own separate entity. A publisher, particularly a mid-size or small one, will often engage a distributor, an entity (sometimes one that is also a publisher, hence the confusion) that provides sales infrastructure and sometimes printing/warehousing/shipping on behalf of the publisher. An analogy would be like if the New York Times rented out its spare sales, printing, and shipping capacity to other newspapers, but they’re not the ones writing and editing what’s in that other paper.

I’m not sure the distinction matters all that much to those who think publishers should be pressured to divest from amplifying and profiting from these types of books entirely, but just FYI. 

Link to the rest at Nathan Bransford

1 thought on “S&S removes distribution for cop’s book”

  1. The OP is somewhat (extremely) lacking in any information.

    What is “these types of books”? Is this book about the incident, albeit from a different point of view? Is it factually inaccurate, or denigrating to Ms. Taylor, her family, or those others involved in the case? Or is it just written by the former policeman in question, have nothing to do with the case, but should be suppressed due to its authorship by an “unperson”?

    From the known and very explicit ideology of the OP, I strongly suspect the latter.

Comments are closed.