Hawaii: Comments on LJ articles

[Pat Wallace <DENWALL@AOL.COM>]

Message  forwarded by Patricia Wallace
Chair, Hawaii Working Group
American Library Association
Social Responsibilities Round Table
Alternatives in Print Task Force
denwall@aol.com

Subject: LJ, March 1st (fwd)
From: Earl W. Lee <ewayne@mail.pittstate.edu>
Head of Collection Management at the Pittsburg
State University Library in Pittsburg, KS
To: Hawaii Working Group
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997

Earl  is a member of The Hawaii Working Group and
sez   "Feel  free to bounce it around the internet"
*********************************************************
The March 1st _Library Journal_ includes articles on the
government suit against B&T and the Hawaii outsourcing
controversy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article on the lawsuit is fairly evenhanded (for _LJ_), though
clearly sympathetic to B&T.  It is hard, of course, for _LJ_ to think
in terms of being an advocate for libraries... it tends to come as a
sort-of reluctant afterthought.  There is, of course, no mention of
B&T past history of double-dealing, and it suggests that individual
librarians need not  be overly concerned about this issue.  There
is also the suggestion that we should feel sorry for B&T, since this
lawsuit (if successful) would almost certainly mean the collapse
of B&T, with its assets being sold off to satisfy the judgement,
which would be astronomical in its dollar amount.

There is no mention of jail time, even though it might create
sympathy for B&T execs, since the "criminal" nature of what
happened *must* be played down.  No one at LJ wants the
 reader to leave this article with the mental picture of B&T execs
wearing striped outfits and banging on the bars with a tin cup.

Anyone with an interest in how journalists "slant" the news,
should use this as a textbook example.  How do you find a silver
lining in a situation that is certainly a disaster for B&T?  Other
book jobbers, as much as they would like to see B&T fall, are
concerned with their own image and how this fiasco will reflect
on them.  Some of them are pretty nervous, since a  close
comparison of their practices with B&T's (which *will* happen
during the trial) may reveal some of their own double-dealing.

In a conversation with one vendor, I was told that "it's almost
 impossible to tell anymore what category of discount a book
should fall into."  This is the same tack being taken by B&T.
Of course, it doesn't take a rocket  scientist to figure out that
all you have to do is compare the price B&T paid for a book
with the price they sold it for.  But it looks like B&T is going to
use the O.J. defense (the dna is contaminated!  the police
are corrupt!) to try to weasel out of this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

The article on the Hawaii outsourcing controversy is a one-sided
defense of Kane, et al., and does little to address the concerns of
librarians.  Again, _LJ_ serves its corporate masters well.  The
idea that the contract can be "fixed" is, of course, moronic.  No
one has yet explained why we should trust B&T to guard the hen
house....  No one questions why the libraries in Hawaii needed to
be outsourced....  Kane and the Governor created "the problem"
and then created "the solution"....  but was there really a problem
that needed action this drastic?

Earl Lee
*********************************************************************
"Don't be afraid to go out on a limb.
                 That's where the fruit is."
                                        -Anonymous