We only ship to addresses in the USA. Live somewhere else? Please order from our international distributor. Click Here
Product added to carts.
Posted by Jeevan SivasubramaniamBack to Conversations
I have noticed that though our Business authors come from various backgrounds and reflect a great diversity of political and social views, our Currents authors are almost all left-leaning individuals. Nothing wrong with that, but should we not also publish books that are a bit more conservative and reflective of the larger number of viewpoints in our nation?
If we truly want a nation that works for all, do we not owe it to ourselves and our readership to publish books that reflect a wider variety of viewpoints? Or would such an initiative destroy the market niche and readership BK has commandeered as an independent, liberal publisher?
I'm not saying we go and sign Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, but...?
These questions are at the heart of all media today regardless of whether they are considered left leaning or right. It seems from a publishing and business perspective that developing a niche market within a larger marketplace can be a critical success factor. At the same time, soliciting thoughtful authors with more conservative viewpoints could give "balance to the reporting" - to enrich the dialogue and learning for all. Finding, and continuing to evaluate, the BK response to your last two questions by using 'community' conversations is where the wisdom lies.
I would offer that the key to being "a nation that works for all" is the dynamic, and transparent, balance between left and right views. This nation also needs individuals who can engage one another with goodwill, take the other side, and own their part of the problem. In many ways this balance of left and right is determined by how well individuals grapple with these three very basic traits. They are powerful in that the affect everything in many ways that have an effect on the outcomes - competition, collaboration, understanding, tolerance, community, or . . . .
I don't think that publishing more conservation points of view and remaining "independent and liberal" are mutually exclusive. In my opinion BK would be saying, "we do have a liberal bent as an organization and we recognize the critical nature of diversity as the mechanism for contributing to a world that works for all."
I don't see why well-reasoned, civil conservative views shouldn't be represented by BK, which would of course exclude Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and their ilk (an underutilized word.)
One of the things I admired about Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" was his ability to argue other people's points of view before explaining why he maintained a certain perspective. I think this society could use a lot more of that reasoned approach.