Former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett has released a new book. It ranks number 1,030 on Amazon, yet somehow it’s on the New York Times bestseller list. How is that even possible?
The Daily Caller reports:
OBAMA ADVISER’S BOOK IS RANKED 1,030 ON AMAZON. HOW DID IT MAKE NYT’S BEST SELLER LIST?
Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to former President Barack Obama, published a book that ranks dismally on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble, but was placed on The New York Times Best Seller list.
Anomalies around the book’s sales figures in industry databases have some in the book business questioning whether Jarrett, who’s rumored to have received a million-dollar-plus advance, paid a company to game the numbers.
Her book, which was published April 2, is number 1,030 on Amazon’s list of top sellers and has only three reviews on the site. It similarly ranks 1,244 on Barnes and Noble where signed copies are being sold for less than the suggested retail for unsigned copies.
Yet the book was also 14th on the NYT bestseller list.
“Given the organic sales of that book and the fact that during the entire week of rollout it barely cracked the top 100 on Amazon, there’s no way the book should have a place on the NYT Best Seller list. Inconceivable,” one prominent book industry insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There’s likely an effort to game the system, it’s the only explanation.“
Here’s something that makes this even more suspicious. Conservative authors who sell tons of books often don’t make it on to the list.
New Busters reports:
Several conservative authors have been censored from the paper’s illustrious list, despite having best-selling books, from Ted Cruz, to Dinesh D’Souza, to David Limbaugh, even the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel who wrote a book the left didn’t like on free speech.
Dennis Prager called out the paper last year for purposefully excluding religious and conservative books its journalists “didn’t like.” Prager pointed out that the author of The Exorcist sued the paper in the 1980s and they were forced to admit that their list wasn’t actually best-sellers but “editorial content.”
Will the New York Times explain what’s going on here?