Publishers Weekly’s Editor-in-Chief, Sarah Nelson, came up with a new twist on turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse in her commentary this week. She addressed the bogus book-banning list attributed to Governor Sarah Palin that was circulating hot and heavy on the net a few weeks ago. Her well-intended comments qualify for the cup-half-full, or rose colored-glasses award, masking too easily the ear that a sits on the well-fed sow resting in the shadows.

So, I want to shine a light on that sow’s ear. But before doing so, I want to acknowledge a few things about Publishers Weekly and its editor that I feel bear saying in a ForeWord magazine blog. Despite the fact that PW has purloined (purposely or accidentally) our trade mark “Foreword,” for the front section of their magazine, I have been and remain an admirer and regular subscriber to the magazine—not just for its literary side, but also for its reports on industry business news—and for a sense of where our industry establishment (its major publishing houses) is leading us and for the trends that fuel their publishing programs.

Let me say also that Sarah Nelson has built up a lot of good points with me as I’ve traveled the industry circuit and heard her on panels and in keynotes and in workshops. On occasion when she brushes up against politics or gossip, I may part company, but she comes at issues on our business with common sense, a good heart, and informed experience. She has presided over what I feel is a tremendously improved editorial product at PW, and is managing their operation with a steady hand in a time of great financial uncertainty—both for trade magazines generally, and for PW’s corporate support in particular.

PW has been, forever it seems, the reliable source for industry news, and the periodical of record for mainstream trade publishing. One expects as a matter of course that it would be in the forefront in the defense of first amendment rights and in opposition to censorship in all of its forms. The initial appearance of the so-called banned–books list, supported by the confirmed fact that as Mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked the librarian about their policies for removing books (“a perfectly acceptable question for a new mayor to ask,” Nelson observes), was rich fuel for the flames of ridicule and contempt being heaped on Governor Palin in the national political arena.

Inasmuch as a we can all acknowledge that the library and publishing industries, perhaps somewhat less than the entertainment industry, are predominantly self-identified as politically liberal, the allegation supported the prevailing stereotypes of conservatives  held by many liberals as intolerant and ignorant provincials or religious zealots. Everyone embracing those stereotypes eagerly seized upon this news as further evidence that Pailn would be a threat to our liberties.

So, I thought it was an act of justice on Sarah Nelson’s part to use her platform to point out that “there is no evidence that Palin tried to remove books from the library...while Palin stands for many things about which my feelings range from unease to stout disapproval, one thing I cannot accuse her of is being a book banner.” Nelson then goes on to suggest the kinds of “phony lists” a Palin-basher might have concocted that would at least have been well grounded in Palin’s belief system, such as support for gun rights and opposition to abortion.

Nelson surmises that book-banning was chosen because on the former issues Americans are fairly split, whereas on opposition to censorship we are all united. So, turning a rosy-hued spin on it (with which I can agree) she found in it something “in a roundabout slightly twisted way, pretty positive. To wit: books matter...they matter enough for us to solicit and debate our potential leaders’ attitudes towards them.”

One can turn a similar eye on all such ill-intended and mean-spirited bogus “facts”. For example, allegations that the Islamic heritage that forms a part of Obama’s family tree render his Christian affiliation suspect, could serve the salutary purpose “in a slightly twisted way” of encouraging a national conversation about the commonalities of spiritual benevolence shared by Christianity and Islam.

My point is that I think the truly positive benefit that could come out of these examples of bigotry in action would be a national conversation on how Americans have come to see pluralism of belief – in this case Christian fundamentalism vs Christian humanism—as mortal threats to each other. So much so, that remarkable women such as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—women who have hit the glass ceiling and found a way through the cracks—can be vilified and dehumanized so that whatever they say or do is spun into a disrespectful caricature.

In that environment any heartfelt tear shed by either of them is suspect, and any allegation that fits the mold is celebrated as further proof of the caricature.

Yes, it is reassuring “in a twisted way” that in choosing to circulate a bogus list of allegedly banned books, the miscreant also illuminated the value we place on books. It would have been more reassuring to me “in a hopeful way” if it prompted a national conversation on why we are so ready to believe the worst about “the other.”

Posted by: Eugene Schwartz, Editor-at-Large