Satellite operators are the most vulnerable distributors because of their heavy reliance on TV, and have the greatest incentive to push back on Turner and others, he said. But at the same time, he added, Dish and DirecTV stand to shoot themselves in the foot in the near term if they drop popular channels, because that would fuel further subscriber losses. –Variety
In addition to the pieces cited in the article, I suggest A Call To Action from the Melville House blog, which has a great quote from Chris Jackson, executive editor at Spiegel & Grau, who says, among other things, that “[t]here’s a serious problem in publishing, which makes it hard to take it seriously when big publishing pretends toward a higher set of values than its largest retailer.” He goes on to talk about the values demonstrated by the laughter that met Handler’s comments (and apparently Handler is a friend of Woodson). Back to Lee and Low’s post, the heart of the argument articulated begins here:
But what I really want to talk about is not Handler himself (who, yes, has issued a short apology via Twitter, the first choice Apology Outlet for all those who have made tasteless jokes) but the larger publishing community. Because the joke may have been Handler’s, but the environment which made a joke like that permissible is everyone’s problem and responsibility. It’s well known and well documented that publishing is, to put it lightly, homogenous. According to Publisher Weekly’s most recent salary survey, around 89% of publishing staff identifies as white/caucasian. That means, in a country where nearly 40% of the general population is comprised of people of color, only 11% of publishing staff are—and, I’d venture a guess, probably even less when you start looking at management roles.
Publishing is also notorious for being totally out of touch with diversity and race issues. Take a look at the low numbers of books published by/about people of color over the last 18 years: . . . –Lee and Low Books and Melville House blog
“People on the Internet have made hundreds of different versions of this book now because of Feminist Hacker Barbie’s site,” she says. “I mean, give the Internet a problem and it’ll fix it, with a lot of flare.”
That site — Feminist Hacker Barbie— was created by Kathleen Tuite, who works in the computer science field and as an independent consultant in Santa Cruz, Calif. . . . She says a friend posted a call-to-action on Facebook seeking women programmers to help crowdsource a hack to make new text for the book. –Feminist Hacker Barbie and NPR
Malpas’s comments, in particular, draw attention to what can happen when a relationship founded on traditional gender roles cannot withstand the reconsideration of those roles in the face of the wife’s success, and in Malpas’s case, a greater sense of independence and “liberation.” How much of an issue is this for women successful in the Romance industry? Is Malpas unique? I don’t know, but since I came into the Romance community surprised by how many authors and readers felt the need to promote their own “happily ever after” relationships, it’s a strikingly different narrative.
‘I was 23 when Aaron and I got married, so we were both very young,’ she says. ‘I didn’t really know who I was. I got on with being a wife and mother.
‘But over time I started to feel that something was missing – my normal everyday life had become a routine. I was bored. I guess that is what couples mean when they say they’ve grown apart. Aaron couldn’t understand why I wanted to write my fiction and I couldn’t understand why he didn’t understand.’ –Daily Mail