Debate: Amazon Is The Reader’s Friend (video)
Who’s up for another round of Amazon: Foe or Villain?
Everyone’s favorite water-cooler topic was the subject of not one but two debates this past week. In addition to a debate in the last session of the last day of DBW (which I missed due to travel arrangements), that same evening there was also a debate which was streamed live.
I missed it due to traveling but it was recorded and I have embedded the video below (and I linked to a transcript). The debate was hosted by Intelligence Squared and stars Joe Konrath, Scott Turow, Matt Yglesias, and Franklin Foer.
Depending on how closely you follow Amazon news, you might not know two of the 4 panelists, so let me provide some background. We all know who Konrath is; he’s a big voice in self-publishing. And of course Scott Turow is an author, lawyer, and the former President of The Author’s Guild.
Matt Yglesias and Franklin Foer are two journalists who came to my attention this past year when they opined on the Amazon Hachette fight. Yglesias took Amazon’s side in a series of editorials he wrote for Vox.com, and Foer published an anti-Amazon screed in The New Republic (where he was the editor) calling for antitrust action against the retailer.
Turow and Foer are of course taking the anti-Amazon position, and Konrath and Yglesias are taking the pro.
If you find it a little strange that anyone can take the position that Amazon is _not_ the reader’s friend (given Amazon’s customer service policies) just remember the content of debate doesn’t actually reflect the title, nor does the audience opinion. I can see on the Intelligence Squared website that the anti-Amazon position won the audience poll in a 50%-42% split, with 8% still undecided at the end of the night.
The online poll ran 72% in favor of Amazon, and I am sure that the difference between the audience and online results had nothing to do with the fact that the debate was held in NYC during a publishing conference.
The debate, with intro, runs 97 minutes. Or at least that is what the timeline suggests; I have yet to get the video to stream beyond 12 minutes or so (despite having a fast internet connection). If you know of a way to download the video, please let me know.
Luckily, there is a transcript of the debate (). And just so you know, the first three pages of the transcript aren’t in the video.
The transcript is 59 pages long, but I lost interest on page 13. Only Yglesias and Turow had spoken by that point, and the arguments presented were so poorly reasoned and rife with factual errors that I did not wish to continue. (If the later arguments are better, please let me know.)
I know that as a blogger I should write up a summary and critique, but I refuse to waste my Saturday night reading that tripe.
I would be willing to listen to it, yes, as I sit in the dark and try to cope with this pounding headache. (I could log when the debaters inspired me to chug another dose of Nyquil in the hopes of achieving unconsciousness rather than having to continue to listen to the debate.) But I would rather not have to read it.
And that, folks, is my critique.
On a related note, I do not know whether the following link will embed properly; let’s see what happens when I press the publish button.
Edit: No, it will not embed, so I will convert the link to a clickable link. Click it and you should get a video in a window.