Books on the Nightstand discussion

This topic isn't about books, but about book bloggers and I am wondering what to do about disclosing where I got a book from. Currently I don't post where I got a book from, whether it be from my own personal collection or from the library or its an ARC that I received. But I am wondering if I should. The reason I ask is because of the #fridayreads brouhaha that came about about a month ago. I am writing my book reviews under the assumption that the person reading the review knows where I got the book from and if I am doing a disservice by not giving them that information.

And so I don't know what to do; do I continue on like I have and not post where I go the book (I don't generally get ARC's from publishers, even though I have been approached; the ones I do have, I got through LibraryThing) or do I post a disclaimer on the review that the copy I am reviewing is a library copy or a personal one? Thoughts?

Oh and here is an article on the #fridayreads brouhaha: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifesty...

If I receive a free copy on the agreement I write a review then I say so in the review whether I have received it from First Reads, Librarything or through a blog competition.
Even if I have received a book from a publisher but a review was not required in order to receive it then I don't feel the need to say where I got it from.

A while ago, there was a FCC item that required any product review to include the source of the material. This was to create more transparency and to discourage exactly this sort of thing (#FridayReads) from happening. Ironically, there was a feeling at the time that this really didn't apply to book bloggers and so many bloggers did not adopt the practice of full disclosure. I adopted full disclosure as soon as possible only because I work in the publishing industry (audiobooks) and wanted my credibility to be above suspicion. At the bottom of every review, I have a line, "Other Stuff" that indicates where I got the review material.

I've always had a disclaimer on the "About Me" page of my blog as well; but as a direct result of the #FridayReads dustup; I now post the disclaimer on every single review (at the bottom with "Other Stuff") and; for any promotion that I facilitate on behalf of my company, I make sure the disclaimer specifically details what my company provided in terms of the promotion or sponsorship.

I once worked for a law firm (as a bookkeeper) and I remember one of the lawyers who worked there discussing a legal but unethical situation. She said that not only must one avoid impropriety; but also the appearance of impropriety. I've often thought was some of the best advice I ever heard :-)

If the review is on my blog then I post the source underneath the other info that I give at the beginning of the review. With my reviews on Goodreads I don't have that, but I do have anything that's an ARC on a named shelf and similarly with library books. I figure that it's better to be leave no room for ambiguity.

We have a few disclaimers: on our "about" page, it says that though Michael and I buy a lot of books, assume we've gotten the books we're talking about for free. I figure that should cover us, even though many of the books we talk about were not free.

We'll try to say when a publisher (other than Random House) sends us a book, but we aren't super vigilant. After all, if you trust us knowing that we work for Random House, I don't think you'll get too bent out of shape if we talk about a HarperCollins book that was sent to us by the publisher.

The Random House connection: we have a disclaimer at the end of every podcast. We try to mention it at least every 5-10 episodes, even if in passing. We don't specifically state every Random House book that we talk about. Should we? (and it's more than just mentioning the publisher, because Random House is the parent company of dozens of imprints, including Knopf, Doubleday, Crown, etc.... and Random House is the distributor of many independently-owned publishers.) So it gets complicated and, I"m afraid, distracting.

I'd actually love to hear everyone's thoughts on this, even though I know that most who participate here on Goodreads are our more active (and informed) listeners.

Thanks, Melissa, for starting the thread.

Ann,

You and Michael have proven over time that you are above reproach to the listener (or should I say this listener). I don't feel that you use any criteria other than your own experience to push books.

I did not realize that all the imprints you mention are part of Random House. Does it make a difference to me? Only for curiousity purposes - I do remember someone (was it Katie?) explaining about the Big 6 publishers at Booktopia, but honestly, I don't remember who they are.

I don't think most of us buy a book because of who publishes it. Maybe we do if we like an editor (i.e. Nan Talese).

I am naive enough (even at my advanced age) to think that everything and everyone is on the up and up and if you like a book, you will tell us that and that if you don't you will tell us that, too - no matter who is the publisher.

That said, I understand why this thread was started and applaud those who call for transparency. Always better to err on the cautious side.

Ann wrote: "We have a few disclaimers: on our "about" page, it says that though Michael and I buy a lot of books, assume we've gotten the books we're talking about for free. I figure that should cover us, even..."

Linda: Very well said...I could have written the exact same thing - but I'm glad you did...totally agree!

As a reader (and writer) of reviews, I don't feel any reviewer needs to disclose where they got the book unless they are making money from it directly. Just the fact that you got a free book is not enough to compromise anyone's opinion. Case in point...if I borrow a book from the public library, I got it for free so should my review be suspect? Thankfully, our society is one in which books abound and although I love getting ARC's it would never affect my opinion or recommendation of the material. My only complaint about ARC's is that, as a result of publishers distributing so many, we readers get many more recommendations of mediocre new material at the expense of older, already published and often better work....but that is another topic entirely.

As a reader I do not have a problem with reviewers writing about books they received for free from the publisher. I do want to be informed if they work for the publisher, or if they know the author.