Laurie wasn't even the one to bring this up!!!!! nt

Posted by Reyesuela on April 19, 2002 at 12:24:34:

In Reply to: Laurie's Role in This posted by Fran on April 18, 2002 at 10:23:31:

: Let us be absolutely clear on one thing; LLB’s JOB is to sell her site. What better way to keep this issue alive than take it upon herself to fly off in pursuit of truth, justice and veracity in the press? But to end?
: An Idaho newspaper printed a story which cast RLH in a very unpleasant light—at best she made stupid statements that even the most inexperienced interviewee would be able to dodge, at worst she made calculatedly provocative statements guaranteed to increase her book sales amongst the Christian reader sect. But the bottom line is that we can not know which is closer to the truth, only RLH and the reporter know that. The reporter isn’t going to make a retraction and everyone—most especially Laurie-- knows this. He does, after all, have a career he presumably would like to keep. As for Robin, she has answered the questions raised by readers.
: That should be the end of it.
: But now this romance readers’ site, a site that, unless I am grievously wrong, has never evinced any interest in the integrity of the press, has decided to pursue this issue with, pardon my pun, evangelical zeal.
: WHY?
: Because Laurie is a website owner trying to get traffic on her site. She wants to make money. Fine. Don’t we all? But her latest methods of generating traffic have been to stimulate anger, gossip and controversy over individual authors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Laurie charges for advertising on her site, presumably she charges more for a page that gets more hits (i.e. the Reader to Reader message board) than one with less. So much for my question, of why she’s doing this. Now for the “how”…
: Laurie’s latest foray into Geraldo-like righteousness is self-serving. Laurie is not the moral watchdog of the romance genre and --just to stop what I suspect will be Laurie’s rebuttal-- any statement from her saying that she expects media justice in the form of an admission of guilt or retraction by the Idaho newspaper is far more disingenuous than RLH astonishment that a newspaper reporter distorted of her words. She expects to keep this issue alive. Period.
: I am writing this because until the recent “Scandal of the Week” syndrome hit the LLB site, I have found it a valuable tool in finding a good book. I would prefer that the site keep its integrity and stick to the discussion of romance books, unless Laurie has decided to pursue a much more lucrative and titillating business.
: Signed,
: A reader of books, not tabloids, who expects this message to stay up about 15 seconds

Follow Ups:

Excuse me? LLB was most certainly the first to post on this subject when she brought the article to everyone's attention. n.t. Sorry, I can't resist.... 13:20:40 04/19/02 (3)
- And please, if you're going to be snide, have the decency to use your regular handle. nt Reyesuela 17:10:36 04/21/02 (1)
  - There you go, does that help? And since not all of us are on the CanWeTalk list serve... Tammt 08:48:33 04/22/02 (0)
- If you were on the CanWeTalk mailing list, you'd know it was brought up by someone else first. nt Reyesuela 17:08:12 04/21/02 (0)

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Let us be absolutely clear on one thing; LLB’s JOB is to sell her site. What better way to keep this issue alive than take it upon herself to fly off in pursuit of truth, justice and veracity in the press? But to end? : : An Idaho newspaper printed a story which cast RLH in a very unpleasant light—at best she made stupid statements that even the most inexperienced interviewee would be able to dodge, at worst she made calculatedly provocative statements guaranteed to increase her book sales amongst the Christian reader sect. But the bottom line is that we can not know which is closer to the truth, only RLH and the reporter know that. The reporter isn’t going to make a retraction and everyone—most especially Laurie-- knows this. He does, after all, have a career he presumably would like to keep. As for Robin, she has answered the questions raised by readers. : : That should be the end of it. : : But now this romance readers’ site, a site that, unless I am grievously wrong, has never evinced any interest in the integrity of the press, has decided to pursue this issue with, pardon my pun, evangelical zeal. : : WHY? : : Because Laurie is a website owner trying to get traffic on her site. She wants to make money. Fine. Don’t we all? But her latest methods of generating traffic have been to stimulate anger, gossip and controversy over individual authors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Laurie charges for advertising on her site, presumably she charges more for a page that gets more hits (i.e. the Reader to Reader message board) than one with less. So much for my question, of why she’s doing this. Now for the “how”… : : Laurie’s latest foray into Geraldo-like righteousness is self-serving. Laurie is not the moral watchdog of the romance genre and --just to stop what I suspect will be Laurie’s rebuttal-- any statement from her saying that she expects media justice in the form of an admission of guilt or retraction by the Idaho newspaper is far more disingenuous than RLH astonishment that a newspaper reporter distorted of her words. She expects to keep this issue alive. Period. : : I am writing this because until the recent “Scandal of the Week” syndrome hit the LLB site, I have found it a valuable tool in finding a good book. I would prefer that the site keep its integrity and stick to the discussion of romance books, unless Laurie has decided to pursue a much more lucrative and titillating business. : : Signed, : : A reader of books, not tabloids, who expects this message to stay up about 15 seconds