Troy

I shared this post on Twitter and Facebook. For the first time a post of mine did not get ANY engagement -- not a share, like, nada zilch. I have never seen this happen and I'm been posting on social media since social media was invented. I can only assume that there was zero interest (again never happened before), or that both Twitter and Facebook failed to share this post to a much greater extent that any of my other posts. No one here reacted to this post, so I have to believe that there is not interest in this book at all. But if that is the case, why is it sitting at the top of the NY Times Bestsellers list. AALBC has not sold a single copy as of yesterday. Generally there is not such a great disconnect between my audience for a extremely popular book by a Black woman. @Cynique perhaps the book is being purchased by white men, the ones you suggest have been more likely to come to her defense.

OK Del. Perhaps you should look up "opinion" 😉

Not watching TV; looks like you've been using you time constructively. Lately I've been watching TV almost every evening to wind down. I've given up trying to read in the evening, by the time I call it quits. I'm too tired to read, so I read during the day.

Well I had not actually thought about Grande's getup until you mentioned it. Again, given the spectacle her attire seems a trivial issue. To be clear it does not bother me at all in this content. Obama did not show -- I guess he was busy with McCain's' homegoing extravaganza. Leave it to our "first" Black president to "keep it real." I'm curious Cynique do you attend or were you brought up in the Black church?

@Delano sure an opinion on a subjective matter can;t be wrong that is common sense. Here is an example of what I mean. There are people who hold the opinion that that climate change, caused by human activity, is not real. Some people hold the the opinion that there are multiple human races (white, Black, etc), and that this is based upon genetics. Some people believe dinosaur roamed the Earth with man All of these opinions would be false.

CNN, I seem to remember, started this 24 hour news cycle. I stopped watching them mainly because they made every thing seem like a crisis, "breaking news." What changed 12 years ago @Delano that changed you behavior regarding watching news? @Kalexander2, I didn't denounce CNN. Like Del, I don't watch the network, so I don't have an opinion. If sounds like you believe they do indeed do a disservice to Black folks. Why do you say that?

Did Aretha really have 4 costume changes?! Seems odd to accept that, but give Grande grief for what she wore. I guess she brought the fondling of her titties on herself huh? Sounds to me like the thing was circus like. How was Obama's speech? All the news coverage I heard featured Al Sharpton -- the leader of the black community, assigned to us by mainstream media...

Del of course an opinion can be wrong -- especially if it is based upon misinformation or flawed logic. You device's spell check stopped working @Delano that last message was hard to understand.

@Delano No, but don't watch CNN. I dont feel Black folk are adversely effected by the network. What do you think?

@Delano that is because I'm focused on our bet of 45 being removed from office by the end if the year. I agree confidence in 45 is eroding, he may not finish the term, but he will finish the year (most likely).

Look at the ads Google is putting on this page 'cause I wrote "trump is my new friend."

I heard about this on the radio this morning and went to look for the video. I said to myself how bad can it be? But after looking that the video any man reading this knows the "Bishop" knew exactly what he was doing. If he behaves like this during a high profile funeral -- a FUNERAL -- I and can't image what this guy does with attractive women, in his congregation, who revere him. I normally try to ignore "news" like this, but my curiosity got the best of me; I'm only human. So CBS got me to look at and share their video. I guess there are worse things I could be doing -- like fondling the beasts of young women. @harry brown, you might be on to something....

I actually agree with this to a certain extent. However, if you consume as much news as I do, from "reputable" sources, then you know that the "so-n-so" could not be reached for comment is a common refrain. To me this is a lack of diligence or a reflection of a lack of resources. The programs I hear on NPR comes to mind as doing this alot. Maybe that is why so many feel they are a liberal propaganda machine. @Mel Hopkins when vernerated publications like The New York TImes or The Washington Post don't get the perspectives of the subjects of their articles, are they not practicing true journalism? I can't tell you how many articles I've read about Facebook where this is the case: A simple query like "Facebook could not be reached for comment," demonstrates this quite plainly. Not being able to get a quote from the subject of an article can be quite telling -- perhaps they have something to hide and don't want to get caught in a lie. Still even compelling Zuck to testify before a congressional grand jury did nothing by result in a stream of Facebook propaganda. If a company has something to hide and are going to lie what is the point? We've seem cases when journalists give both sides the opportunity to express their side -- even when it is demonstrably false, as with the case of climate change or vaccinations, journalists set up a false equivalency which simply confuses people which can results in people actually dying. Where do I begin? The original intent of this conversation was to explain why there are no novels that speak to the experiences of middle aged Black men. This is initiated, in part, because of my statement that MIddle Aged Black Men are invisible. An admittedly provocative statement that you disagreed with and I was quite game to justify. Indeed in the case of our literature I think I have made that case -- the data speaks for itself. The next question is, why is this the case? This is a question worth exploring, and might be an interesting article. However, in my mind the reasons for the current state are not very interesting without a solution. The solution will not come from some corporation, history has demonstrated that; I will need to come from us. But first we need to recognize there is indeed a problem in the first place. As you said Mel, my work is cut out for me. 😉

Oh ok @Cynique, I did not read @Delano's reaction as answer to your question. I guess because it did not strike me as being particularly forthright. Perhaps this is why it did not change your opinion of Del being partial to Pioneer. The fact that Del pointed out correcting you while saying that Mel does not require correction, because she is well informed, was interesting. I'm not sure what Del's intent was but this read as if you are not well information by virtue of you needing to be corrected -- this came across as a passive dig at you. Now Mel and I are currently having a discussion/debate about a subject on which we have different perspectives. She is sharing information I don't have and I'm sharing information she does not have. I think ultimately we will both come away from the conversation more informed. Mel, like anyone else, is subject to correction. We all are more better informed about some subject than someone else here. We all come here with knowledge that others don't have. I think Cynique has a great deal of insight about human nature, or people in general. Part of it is her age, our course, but reading people was probably something she was always good at. I think Del is really sensitive. On the positive side he more empathic that most (a skill needed to be a good tarot card readers or astrologer). He is probably more inclined to come to the defense of someone he perceives as being being hurt (say Pioneer). However on the negative side he can have his feelings hurt more easily. We are unique and will always have different perspectives -- somewhere in between all of our unique perspectives is the truth.

@Delano as much as I'd like to agree with you there are other polls that shows Trumps current approval close to 50%. Still Trump's approval rating, at more than a 1/3 of all americans, is not at all unprecedented. Both Bushs had lower approval ratings the younger Bush served two terms. Looking at spot approval ratings mean very little and have no impact on the process required to remove a sitting president.

@Mel Hopkins, thanks again. Since the books published is public information, book sales are available through bookspan and other sources, and one could interview the authors themselves (it is not that many), I think a compelling story could be told without the publishers input. My anecdotal information comes from both publishing professionals and authors. Again my data supports what they are telling me. I often hear stories where the journalist would say something like, "Multiple calls, for comment, were made to Penguin Random, but our calls were not returned." The implication is especially when it is a reputable news source that say Penguin Random has something to hide. The story is still run despite not having input from the publisher. Sometimes I think the news sources need to try harder to get a comment, for it would make a better story. As an FYI here is the count of authors published by the "Big 5+1." As you can see the totals peak in the late-aughts. It would be interesting to understand the blip in 2017. It is possible 2018 will increase a bit (I track books pre-publication) but it will not like exceed 2016 and follow the downward trend. Looking at the actual numbers, for the first time, I find it alarming -- for whatever reason -- that the number of Black authors published is on par with 2000!

If has nothing to do with anger. I use google for purely pragmatic reasons. All of the others I used previously I stopped using because they simply stopped generating revenue (largely because of googles dominance), so now I sell ads directly and use Google. What is frustrating Google's monopoly leave me less well off and at greater risk. When there were more options I made money from the other ad network and I also made more money from google. Today google is far better off financially, but everyone else is less wealthy. In my case, this is despite having more pages views than ever.

It is hard often to discern what is true and what is fake, which is why I just stick with new sources themselves rather than social.

Again @Cynique my comments were not about YOU. Enjoy Facebook - do you. However, whether you accept it or not, the jury is out. Facebook makes money off of us, collectively, by allowing anyone from brands to hostile foreign nations to misinform us, manipulate us, and impact our moods and behavior. This is not conjecture or opinion; it is a fact. If we dismiss this as being of no consequence we are complicit and in fact feeding the beast. I count myself in this too. Unfortunately Facebook today is a reality I must deal so I'l post my little links until I break down and stop doing it. I went about three months without posting a thing and there was a drop in traffic. I'll continue to test and experiment.

OK by me Del 🙂

@Mel Hopkins, not Google is not the only ad serving company, not are they the only search engine -- they however are so dominate they may as well be the only players in those two markets. They me the name of the #2 ad serving company and what their market share is.

@Mel Hopkins, That is an interesting breakdown it was more than I would have anticipated thanks. Of course I did not expect you to take my data and run with an article trying to address all of the issues you raised would probably not be worth the effort given the potential interest in the subject. If the subject was expanded beyond just book it would be more interesting. I'll react to your questions: My data seems to indicate "Yes" is the answer to the first question. I suspect it is true for the 2nd question as well, but I would need to run a query of the number of authors published by the big 5 over time. The data presented here counts the number of books published. I've been tracking this data for 20 years. We would not need to have the publishers to verify it, as it is essentially public information. There are plenty of database where is information can be obtained. I get a lot of my data from Ingram's database -- my challenge is actually identify the Black writers many of the names I know other I have to check, but one could actually count the number of Black authors published by the big five. The largest published Penguin Random house only published 15K books a year a distinct list of authors with first editions will be a smaller number still. You don't need the published to verify. Again, I've speculated on this another reason I have not previously mention is that fact that mainstream publishing has increased it focus on hits big books that often skews to celebrities books intoday social media driven world. YA has seen growth. This is my impression given the increase attention given to the genre. I could run another query to see if my data supports my impressions. Mens fiction, always anemics has probably seen a decline, as with everything else. Books a African writers are seeing a surge. AGain we are talking about changes, relatively speaking, in really small numbers of books. I don't think the Big 5 are the answer frankly -- they, like the rest of media have challenges of their own. The Big 5 have the financial resources that indie publisher do not have. However indie publishers have the requisite motivation to get the books we need published. I think we can work both angles and other to be determined.

@Cynique, I read @Delano's post. For the record I only comments on conversations that I have read. What does Del's statement, quoted below, have to do with anything I wrote in reaction?

Because I know how Facebook works. No I don't and neither do you. Your anecdotal and biased observations from Facebook are misleading at best. Because, I do not use my opinions as a basis to generalize about all Black men (certainly not white men). While I'm certainly not a fan of Omarosa's past behavior, I think 45 calling her a dog was represenhible and casts shame on our nation -- but what else is new when it comes to 45? I defended Omarosa but ignoring 45's stupid statements and not propagating them. But again social media, and journalist following social's strategy, will make sure we all hear this nonsense. But again, Facebook is not in the business of giving you my, or anyones elses naused opinion. They just want to addict you so that you stay engaged and if giving you the impression that white men are more likely to come to Omarosa's defense than Black men they will do that. Again with the hyperbole. Sure they are some things on Facebook that are true. Certainly the stuff that I post is true to the best of my knowledge. But my stuff is not designed to engage you on Facebook -- indeed it is designed to pull people off the platform. As a result, my stuff is not shared by Facebook algorithm as frequently as more controversial stuff which tends to keep people engaged. This was not always the case, but it is today. We do know for a fact Russian trolls farms are behind creating and disseminating fake news stories, this is only being disputed by 45 and his sycophants. Fake accounts proliferate on social media. Some suggest a most of the traffic on twitter is generated by bots. I just learned that the popular "Black Twitter" account "Blackivist" was created by the Russians. Youtube is certainly not immune from fake videos either Up until a couple of years ago most of my own tweets were generated by bots. It generated a few bucks a month, sometimes more. The only reason I stopped it was because some of the tweets generated were a little off and I had to spend more time it was worth cleaning them up. Look, I'm not begrudging you (or anyone) for using Facebook. The underlying tool itself can be terrific, but today its users are being exploited and manipulated offen to their detriment. Again, I'm not talking about you, or anyone in particular, I'm talking about all of us collectively.

Especially nowadays since a majority (I believe) of Americans get their "news" from social media. The reality is most people aren't going to leave a social media site to check a source article, that may come from a fake website or taken out of context from a real one.