That's amazing.Jordan Peterson: Critics complain over 'misleading' book cover quotes
Two journalists say quotes used on a Jordan Peterson book jacket misrepresented their reviews.www.bbc.co.uk
He's great isn't he.
That's amazing.Jordan Peterson: Critics complain over 'misleading' book cover quotes
Two journalists say quotes used on a Jordan Peterson book jacket misrepresented their reviews.www.bbc.co.uk
Jordan Peterson: Critics complain over 'misleading' book cover quotes
Two journalists say quotes used on a Jordan Peterson book jacket misrepresented their reviews.www.bbc.co.uk
Yeah the BBC ********, reporting negative stories about your heroes.
He's great isn't he.
Selective reporting. Not sure why liking someone makes them a "hero", any opportunity for a passive aggressive dig though eh
I wonder how much of a case those that have been deliberately misquoted might have against him and his publisher?
Especially if they pushed the line that by totally changing the tone of their quoted words he's harmed their reputations as it's now looking like they've endorsed his bonkers views?
So, if I have this right...
BBC selective reporting bad. Jordan Peterson selective quoting not bad.
...
Honestly, it's enough to give a guy a drinking problem sometimes...
Folks here know this really. It will the publishers marketing dept that choose what quotes go onto a cover.I don't think he had anything to do with selecting the quotes used to promote his book, it's just a bad news story for them to report on a person they don't like.
Folks here know this really. It will the publishers marketing dept that choose what quotes go onto a cover.
That's nothing newMurphy seems a bit confused for example.
He and you are both LARPing. Settle down.That's nothing new
BowdonUK said:I doubt many of us would survive the scrutiny of the world on us.
Happens all the time on movie posters. There was a big hoo-ha about it just before the pandemic if i remember.I wonder how much of a case those that have been deliberately misquoted might have against him and his publisher?
Especially if they pushed the line that by totally changing the tone of their quoted words he's harmed their reputations as it's now looking like they've endorsed his bonkers views?
Normally, as I understand it, it's pretty easy to get a positive review to plonk on the back of a book. so I'm guessing they either couldn't get more, or they specifically wanted the names of those they misrepresented on the cover.