> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
It does nod in its direction, though. Or at least it used to. Mass production printing was high overhead, and publishers had reputations to protect. That wasn't perfect but they'd usually try to avoid the worst propaganda.
(Or at least shove it off onto an imprint with less of a reputation. Or into a category, like Self Help, where people know its shaky relationship to truth.)
It was far from perfect. But these days the publishing gatekeepers have largely lost the battle. People prefer the hot takes they get from tv and social media.
From what I've heard through self-publishing media, nowadays, traditional publishing isn't even particularly disposed towards pushing back on things like these. They might even be all for publishing works based on outright lies if there's an existing customer base with open wallets.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
The author clearly means professional publishers, who have editors and fact-checkers. Self-published books already lack trust. The reply also misses several other points the author makes, which I find ironic because it kind of goes into the direction the author bemoans: The author wrote a longer article to lay out his thoughts and it sure took him time to write and any reader time to read and digest and here is a quick oneliner as a rebuttal that took no time and effort and is superficial.
Do publishers really have fact-checkers? My understanding was that support for authors is now relatively minimal, even for established authors, and no one really has the time or resources to second-guess everything an author has claimed. I take as a key example Naomi Wolf learning after her book was "done" that a significant chunk of it was based on a misunderstanding of an admittedly confusing 19th century British legal phrase.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/naomi-wolfs-book-cor...
I think maybe the idea that a single author spending months or years on their research, which the publish as a single bound and polished work is misguided -- an academic trying to do similar work in multiple articles would have gotten review from peers on each article, and hopefully have not spent so much time working under a correctable misunderstanding.
Fact checking as a separate job is more for journalism than books. But editors have fact checking as part of their jobs. (It is not copy-editing, which is a different job.)
Many nonfiction authors will hire a fact checker separately. They don't want to look like they missed something. Errors still happen, of course.
I spent years as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. One of the reasons I don't so much any more is I was getting too many political books, books where the authors were not so interested in facts or logic--or even internal consistency. Most of these books were 'conservative' but this was not exclusively a right-wing issue. Ideology requires glossing over the complexity of the real world. It's draining to read this stuff, with limited ability to make corrections.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.
I find that the kind of people who obsess the conspiracy of "alternative facts" are the same people who uncritically take everything presented by modern science as truth. Except when it comes to economics of course!
Do you picture millions reading science journals, or are you willfully conflating media reporting as what's "presented by modern science as truth"?
In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time. It's more a side effect if and when it happens at all, with the actual goal being political control play instead.
> In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time.
I agree, but in this case I'm trying to be the person who's trying to improve its honesty. There's so many lies in modern non fiction (and science) and I hope they will all be uncovered soon and a nice post-mortem will take place. It is important to understand how much we were misled.
This is after all the scientific process and it will continue and get better - I have no doubt in it.
I'm trying to clarify my position here: I won't name them but there are obvious things that non fiction (by elite academics) got wrong before but were only uncovered as wrong when society evolved to understand the subject matter intricately enough to criticise it. Until then we all had to pretend as if the elite academics pushing their jargon laded slop in non fiction columns as obviously correct.
I don't want to go on a tangent here but an important part of uncovering truth is by the emergent property of a critical mass of people understanding a concept. Society itself takes part in uncovering truth. Until then elite academics either produce gems or slop because there's only so much intelligence that comes from a single person (or a few people).
the original title is: Nonfiction Publishing, Under Threat, Is More Important Than Ever
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in
There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.
Because the edited title is incoherent and grammatically incorrect.
Until recently that would have marked it as likely done by simplistic automation. These days, it's hard to tell, because humans seem more likely to make simple errors of grammar.
> Cuts in publishing and book reviewing imperil the future of narrative nonfiction, and our understanding of the world around us.
https://archive.ph/2026.03.23-164808/https://newrepublic.com...
> Nonfiction books are a crucial bulwark against the surging public culture of “alternative facts,” outright lies, and the brazen embrace of ignorance.
Do they believe someone cannot lie because it’s written down in a paperback? Authors lie in books and books do nothing to help someone who “embraces” ignorance
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
Which is why the Internet Archive, and similar, more specialized services are so important.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
This was dead, I vouched for it, I think it's a good point. Form does not determine the truthfulness of content.
It does nod in its direction, though. Or at least it used to. Mass production printing was high overhead, and publishers had reputations to protect. That wasn't perfect but they'd usually try to avoid the worst propaganda.
(Or at least shove it off onto an imprint with less of a reputation. Or into a category, like Self Help, where people know its shaky relationship to truth.)
It was far from perfect. But these days the publishing gatekeepers have largely lost the battle. People prefer the hot takes they get from tv and social media.
From what I've heard through self-publishing media, nowadays, traditional publishing isn't even particularly disposed towards pushing back on things like these. They might even be all for publishing works based on outright lies if there's an existing customer base with open wallets.
Supposedly traditional publishing has become more and more conservative (not necessarily politically) with the risks they take on things they publish, so they'd be less likely to push back against widely-held ideas that are outright wrong. They'll really only publish authors with an established following or works that have a large base of interested consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to add that since I've heard these things so much, going to a bookstore like Barnes & Noble feels super weird. The books look nice, but they're all expensive and I have no sense that the selection has been curated for genuine quality or informational content. It's just what happens to being published now.
I greatly prefer the experience of going to thrift stores like Goodwill where the selection is chaotic, there's no real expectation of curation aside from maybe broad categories, and the books are gloriously cheap. You can find great stuff there!
The author clearly means professional publishers, who have editors and fact-checkers. Self-published books already lack trust. The reply also misses several other points the author makes, which I find ironic because it kind of goes into the direction the author bemoans: The author wrote a longer article to lay out his thoughts and it sure took him time to write and any reader time to read and digest and here is a quick oneliner as a rebuttal that took no time and effort and is superficial.
Do publishers really have fact-checkers? My understanding was that support for authors is now relatively minimal, even for established authors, and no one really has the time or resources to second-guess everything an author has claimed. I take as a key example Naomi Wolf learning after her book was "done" that a significant chunk of it was based on a misunderstanding of an admittedly confusing 19th century British legal phrase. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/naomi-wolfs-book-cor...
I think maybe the idea that a single author spending months or years on their research, which the publish as a single bound and polished work is misguided -- an academic trying to do similar work in multiple articles would have gotten review from peers on each article, and hopefully have not spent so much time working under a correctable misunderstanding.
Fact checking as a separate job is more for journalism than books. But editors have fact checking as part of their jobs. (It is not copy-editing, which is a different job.)
Many nonfiction authors will hire a fact checker separately. They don't want to look like they missed something. Errors still happen, of course.
Indeed, I became aware of various conspiracy theories and woo through books and newspapers in the 90s
I spent years as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. One of the reasons I don't so much any more is I was getting too many political books, books where the authors were not so interested in facts or logic--or even internal consistency. Most of these books were 'conservative' but this was not exclusively a right-wing issue. Ideology requires glossing over the complexity of the real world. It's draining to read this stuff, with limited ability to make corrections.
Hell, now I work for a uni press, and I'm seeing this in our own list more and more--writers are giving up on deep analysis.
I find that the kind of people who obsess the conspiracy of "alternative facts" are the same people who uncritically take everything presented by modern science as truth. Except when it comes to economics of course!
People who question modern science don't have a higher epistemic standard.
They just offer something worse, like a youtuber who convinced them that eating plants was bad for them.
>People who question modern science don't have a higher epistemic standard.
I hope this changes. There is much need to question modern science using a higher epistemic standard.
Do you picture millions reading science journals, or are you willfully conflating media reporting as what's "presented by modern science as truth"?
In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time. It's more a side effect if and when it happens at all, with the actual goal being political control play instead.
> In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time.
I agree, but in this case I'm trying to be the person who's trying to improve its honesty. There's so many lies in modern non fiction (and science) and I hope they will all be uncovered soon and a nice post-mortem will take place. It is important to understand how much we were misled.
This is after all the scientific process and it will continue and get better - I have no doubt in it.
I'm trying to clarify my position here: I won't name them but there are obvious things that non fiction (by elite academics) got wrong before but were only uncovered as wrong when society evolved to understand the subject matter intricately enough to criticise it. Until then we all had to pretend as if the elite academics pushing their jargon laded slop in non fiction columns as obviously correct.
I don't want to go on a tangent here but an important part of uncovering truth is by the emergent property of a critical mass of people understanding a concept. Society itself takes part in uncovering truth. Until then elite academics either produce gems or slop because there's only so much intelligence that comes from a single person (or a few people).
the original title is: Nonfiction Publishing, Under Threat, Is More Important Than Ever
which totally fits, did HN's title algorithm cut that off? If so it seems silly. "Than ever" is an important modifier, otherwise someone is apt to think that the subject is more important than some other opposing subject, in this case that Nonfiction publishing is more important than fiction publishing. Anyway I think the "than ever" should be added back in
It's not a title algorithm, it's a character limit.
Full title, "...than ever": 64 characters
Another title currently on the front page has 74 characters: "The Many Roots of Our Suffering: Reflections on Robert Trivers (1943–2026)"
I stand corrected.
There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.
Which you find to be the reasonable explanation over just OP editorializing the title with their own hands because...?
Because the edited title is incoherent and grammatically incorrect.
Until recently that would have marked it as likely done by simplistic automation. These days, it's hard to tell, because humans seem more likely to make simple errors of grammar.
no, as I indicated the full title is within the character limit, to test it I opened up a submit form and it did not say the title was too long.