Uh oh: Edwards daughter received Murdoch money

[Perky]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5345.html

Before you condemn the source read the article.




By: Ben Smith
Aug 12, 2007 09:10 AM EST



Edwards says $500K Murdoch controlled book deal went to charity, and the $300K paid portions to his daughter?
Photo by AP



Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently defended taking a lucrative book contract from a publisher controlled by Rupert Murdoch -- whose News Corp. empire Edwards has sharply criticized -- by insisting that “every dime” of his $500,000 advance went to charity.

Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that Murdoch’s HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to Edwards’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.

[EFerrari]

1. Af the rate Murdoch is gobbling up the media, it's hard not to

deal with him. :shrug:

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Exactly!

It's like publishing a story that accuses a candidate of buying something made in China.

[EFerrari]

24. Now, if Murdoch threw a fundraiser for Edwards

then I'd be concerned. :)

[RufusTFirefly]

29. What candidate would ever let THAT happen???

[BeHereNow]

40. Good one...heh-heh n/t

bhn

[cascadiance]

27. If you have ANY satellite service, either TV or radio 50/50 chance money is going to Murdoch!

Since News Corp owns DirecTV, and there has been some ownership portion of XM Radio by News Corp too, which is trying to merge with its only competitor now Sirius.

Heck, where I work now, Yahoo, has supposedly recently been negotiating a deal for getting control of MySpace.com in exchange for some ownership stake by Newscorp in Yahoo! Totally pisses me off, but there are things I'm trying to work on internally that hopefully will have Yahoo be more in Murdoch's face later, if I have anything to say about it!

[EFerrari]

30. I have DirecTv and have been fighting with myself not to shut it

down. :mad:

[cascadiance]

52. Get Dish Network instead...

It has FSTV and DirecTV doesn't.

The only thing that's bumming me out now is how the Big Ten Channel is "helping" Newscorp try to get subscribers by working with FOX and News Corp to produce their sports game content shows and holding them back now from ESPN and trying to force Dish Network and other cable networks for paying a heavy price to license it from them. If you ask me, I think we should all go and write some Big Ten officials and demand that they not sell of rights to non-privately owned public sporting events to the likes of News Corp for their financial gain at the expense of graduates and the fans of those schools.

[roguevalley]

34. that is probably true but if you are running on principle, it is incumbent

upon you to research every itty bitty detail so this doesn't happen. bad thing, this. He should have known better.

[Colobo]

2. Mmmm!

[Rosemary2205]

3. ROFLMAO - Edwards figured out how to get Murdock money to support the left!!

Not only did Murdock money go to charity thanks to Edwards but it also went to support left wing operatives and causes! No fleas on Edwards in this regard. That's for damn sure.

[helderheid]

10. Totally agree! Jokes on Murdock!

[smoogatz]

14. If the book earns out and makes a profit

Murdoch will get the lion's share of the money, and will use it to propagandize in favor of fascist extremism. I guess Edwards supporters will have to hope the book's a flop.

[BlooInBloo]

4. DUers and Drudgico. The happy march goes on.

[Perky]

5. Which again totally ignores the content.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Because of a completely untrustworthy source. Yes.

[Perky]

7. And if it is true? and they broke the story?

[BlooInBloo]

9. What if. Indeed.

[Garbo 2004]

54. They didn't break the story. Murdoch's Post did for obvious reasons.

And Newscorp is feeding the media the story, illustrated by it's uncharacteristically chatty anon Newscorp exec providing info. And what's the story? Edward's co-editors got paid. Does the article say how much they got paid? No, it doesn't even do that.

What it does illustrate is that Murdoch operates like the mob, investing for perhaps later use if occasion should arise. When Hillary is criticized for being chummy with Murdoch (he hosted a fundraiser and is also chummy now with Bill, donating to his causes), Murdoch uses a book deal made years ago against Edwards. And to whose benefit? Who's the target audience? And for what purpose?

[Rosemary2205]

8. What????

You don't believe Edwards is smart enough to dupe Murdock?? LOL

Oh I just love this story on so many different levels. :) :)

[BlooInBloo]

31. Yah - and when it's told to me by a Hugh-Hewitt sycophant, it's that much more compelling...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/03/hewitt_allen/index.html

I fail to see what moral high ground DUers have for criticizing the media, when they happily spew crap sources as well.

[brentspeak]

18. What "content"

Anonymous sources, peddled by a Drudge-wannabe (Smith), now constitute "content"?

[stevedeshazer]

11. So?

What is your point?

[EVDebs]

23. Look who's now saying leave troops in those 'permanent' bases in Iraq

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.ht...

"John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries."

...and continuing the Bushco/neocon wetdream for years to come in the Middle East. $ seems to have overridden Edward's gut instincts, just as his original vote on the AUMF overrode his gut. How foolish and just before he could have won the Iowa caucuses.

[Catchawave]

53. How would you prevent genocide ?

With muggles?

[Lex]

12. The more money Murdoch doesn't have, the better.

nt

[smoogatz]

15. What if the book makes a profit?

Murdoch will get 85% of that money, most likely. I guess we'd better hope Edwards's book flops, huh?

[Lex]

19. The money will have a profound effect on Murdoch.

Not.

[smoogatz]

25. So, you're saying he won't use it to continue to propagandize

for the Republicans and for fascist America?

[frazzled]

32. The book's sales have been "sluggish"

It helps if you read the article (see the second page of it).

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Holy Cow! Publisher pays author for book!!!

Stop the presses. This is a real "Man bites dog" exclusive.

Unless you publish your book through a vanity press, in general when you write a book, the publisher pays you.

Also, I didn't realize that Cate Edwards was running for President.

The money from HarperCollins was payment for a book. What was the money News Corp. paid Hillary Clinton a payment for? Or was it simply an investment?

[brentspeak]

16. I see that anonymous-source hit pieces are still getting printed

"were confirmed by two sources with first-hand knowledge of the book deal"

Too bad Ben Smith didn't bother to actually name the "two sources with first-hand knowledge".

[Catchawave]

50. Ben Smith...meh. n/t

[spooky3]

17. This source is NOT credible. Edwards' daughter EDITED the book

according to the Edwards for President website. So she rightfully received part of the $300000. Check it out.

Just to clarify, he did not say that all of the revenue from the book went to charity. He said that some of the money was used to pay the expenses, which would include editing, publicity tours, advertising, etc. He donated HIS COMPENSATION, i.e., royalties for writing the book, which are often a very small part (for example, 15%) of the total revenue generated by the book, to charity. If he made $500,000 on expenses of $300,000, plus profit to the publisher, that sounds like a pretty favorable ratio for the publisher AND for the charities who received Edwards' royalties.

Compensation for work performed, in this case a book, is not the same as campaign contributions, and having a book published by a house that has some connection to Murdoch is nothing like receiving a campaign contribution directly from Murdoch. Edwards earned the compensation and donated it.

The original NY Post article (and the Post is owned by Murdoch) is a smear of Edwards and full of lies by omission.

Check out mediamatters.org to get a clearer picture of the extent to which you can rely on the credibility of NY Post AND politico.com.

[Lex]

20. You mean the OP is full of it and posted BS?

Color me shocked.

[H2O Man]

35. Hard to imagine.

Very hard indeed.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Don't confuse us with facts, spooky!

The purpose of the story is to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the contribution (not payment for services rendered) that Clinton received from Murdoch.

Now whenever anyone attempts to bring up Clinton's News Corp. contribution, the response will be "Yeah, but what about Edwards?? Huh??"

And the air will be successfully sucked out of the argument as an attempt is made to explain the difference.

Some people don't do nuance.

[spooky3]

28. You're right; I need to stay away from The Internets!

There's just too much information out there.

[frazzled]

33. Hello, I am a book editor ...

No such fee is even imaginable for editing. Maybe 1/20th of that amount would be double the amount I would hope to get for such a project. I have more than twenty books to my name, so I am speaking from some experience.

If these $300,000 "expenses" are true, it is really quite phenomenal.

[Garbo 2004]

41. "portions," amounts not made public, were paid to his daughter and aide, according to the article.

Not the full $300K. Book itself was edited by Edwards, his daughter and aide, since it's a collection of essays, not a single original work.

[Zynx]

38. $300,000 for editing a book? You rarely get that much for writing one. That's bag money.

[Garbo 2004]

42. The article doesn't say Edwards' daughter got $300k. But your response is what the story intended.

The actual amount she got paid has not been made public, according to the article.

The book itself is a collection of essays, not a single original work, so John Edwards also is credited as editor, not as author.

[nealmhughes]

45. Damn! I was robbed for the 750pp MS I edited down to 450! I need $299,000 more.

[Garbo 2004]

46. Guess you didn't read the article closely. n/t

[spooky3]

55. interesting how so many "editors" seem to have

difficulty with reading a very short post, isn't it? It's apparently too much to ask also that they check out the facts at the sites I noted in my short post above.

[karynnj]

49. He needs to get the full story out

You say that this is not a contribution - because it is compensation for work. If the advance was extremely out of line with the amount likely to be made and if it is done intentionally , then it could be a contribution.

From these numbers, this book had expenses of $300,000 plus the advertising costs - and it sold only about 26,000 copies. Unless there is sudden new interest in the book - the royaties will not get over the $500,000 that Edwards was given as an advance.

From the numbers out, Edwards got a total of $900,000 in expenses, advance and publicity tour costs. Obviously the publisher had costs too - for printing and distributing the book that are not included here. The book was originally $29.99 on Amazon, but is currently discounted. Even if all 26,000 copies were sold undiscounted, which is not likely - the publisher lost money.

[spooky3]

57. Book companies have to make decisions IN ADVANCE

as to what level of sales they will expect. Post hoc analysis of what is or is not likely (e.g., with regard to sales) is suspect and it is inappropriate for anyone to imply in an article that something is a contribution without having done due diligence. The burden of proof is on the ACCUSER, not on Edwards.

Since you are relying on a highly questionable source* for the 26,000 sales (and please note that the number is actually estimated to be 30,000 in this article) then you should be equally willing to rely on the same article's comment about what is or is not a reasonable advance:

"Murdoch and his company have made a habit of doing favors to politicians. If Edwards got a good deal on his book, it was pocket change compared to the $4.5 million advance HarperCollins offered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the height of his power."

Hillary Clinton received an advance of more than $8 MILLION.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/hillary.book/index.html

And why do legitimate companies make such lucrative offers? Because sometimes books sell REALLY well and make them a tidy profit, as H. Clinton's did, as noted in the above link. But sometimes they don't. And editors aren't any more capable of seeing the future than are stock market experts.

*The point of my post is that I don't think relying on this source is a good idea. Please see the MANY citations of politico.com problems at

www.mediamatters.org

which I pointed out in my original post, but which Edwards' critics here seem to overlook.

[karynnj]

58. I am not making any accusations

I realize that advances are given in advance. As to the sales figure - The source was reasonable.

The topic of the book was not particularly personal and not political. In fact, Edwards was more editor than writer. Hillary's book was an auto biography of a first lady (and was going to speak about her life with Bill.) The Gingrich book was on politics. Both could be expected to sell more and did.

What I was saying was NOT that there was something wrong - but that as this as gone on for nearly a week - Edwards can end it by getting the truth completely out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Define "Portions". n/t

[madrchsod]

36. a fucking bullshit hit piece

the whole thing is bullshit

[rodeodance]

37. see here----other sweet deals:----Newt, Trent, Pecter, Hagel SC Justice

........"It's a sweet deal," said Frances Goldin, a New York literary agent, after learning of the advance and expenses. "Maybe he's got a friend at HarperCollins."

Murdoch and his company have made a habit of doing favors to politicians. If Edwards got a good deal on his book, it was pocket change compared to the $4.5 million advance HarperCollins offered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the height of his power.

The company has also published books by Republican Senators Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (The website Gawker offered the headline: "News Corp.: 'News Corp. Book Contracts Aren't Donations Unless We Give Them To Democrats Who Don't Like Us.'")

[Disturbed]

39. If this is true, Edwards should have shopped that book

elsewhere. The perception of his daughter getting $300K is not a good one if it came from Murdoch, even indirectly. Edwards has made quite a few mistakes as a candidate. I suspect that he will not be selected as the Dem candidate for Pres. due to those mistakes.

[Pastiche423]

44. I suspect you are correct

[Adelante]

48. It was rejected more than once, so he did shop it

But his daughter didn't get $300,000 (we don't know the amount she received). The $300,000 was an expense budget she was paid out of, as was the Edwards deputy campaign manager, who was the third co-author/co-editor. The Edwards campaign isn't releasing the numbers, which is stupid. Get it out there and get it done already.

[spooky3]

56. the article did NOT say that his daughter received $300K.

[hedgehog]

43. It's a matter of context.

Money paid for a book is not the same as money donated directly to the campaign. Money paid for a book is not the same as money that is bundled and donated to a campaign.

If the money paid for the book is reasonable and comparable to similar deals, that is one thing. If the money paid for the book is outlandishly excessive so that it is clearly a method of giving money to the author, that is another.

I can't fault Edwards on this. It looks like a straight up deal to me.

[Cameron27]

47. He should have revealed everything about the book deal

before he started his attack. What was he thinking, that they wouldn't use his daughter's Murdoch money against him? Wait until the real swift boating starts.

[Mutineer]

51. If he offered, I'd take his money too.

:evilgrin: