Forbes Deleted That Ridiculous Anti-Library Piece

Forbes Deleted That Ridiculous Anti-Library Piece DeBunking Libraries

On Saturday Forbes published a poorly-researched, badly-argued piece that failed to convince anyone that Amazon Books stores should replace public libraries.

According to Quartz, the piece was deleted Monday morning.

On Saturday morning Forbes published an opinion piece by LIU Post economist Panos Mourdoukoutas with the headline “Amazon Should Replace Local Libraries to Save Taxpayers Money.” It quickly received enthusiastic backlash from actual American libraries and their communities.

As of around 10am US eastern time this morning, the story had nearly 200,000 views, according to a counter on the page. As of 11am, though, the story’s URL has been down.

“Forbes advocates spirited dialogue on a range of topics, including those that often take a contrarian view,” a Forbes spokesperson says in a statement. “Libraries play an important role in our society. This article was outside of this contributor’s specific area of expertise, and has since been removed.”

The amazing thing about this turn of events is that I've never heard of Forbes deleting pieces before. No matter how shitty, Forbes is willing to publish anything so long as it gets a few page views and Forbes doesn't have to pay the writer. But I have never heard of Forbes deleting any piece, not even the absolute stinkers written by a former Digital Book World editor (you know the one).

So the fact that Forbes deleted this piece is a pretty big deal.

image by terryballard via Flickr

Nate Hoffelder

View posts by Nate Hoffelder
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader: He's here to chew bubble gum and fix broken websites, and he is all out of bubble gum. He has been blogging about indie authors since 2010 while learning new tech skills at the drop of a hat. He fixes author sites, and shares what he learns on The Digital Reader's blog. In his spare time, he fosters dogs for A Forever Home, a local rescue group.

3 Comments

  1. Willa Robinson24 July, 2018

    GREAT!

    Reply
  2. Frank25 July, 2018

    It is good that trash is gone.

    Reply
  3. Paul C25 July, 2018

    I thought at the time that perhaps it was Forbes that had out lived it’s usefulness.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top