More O.J. Simpson fallout: book editor fired
By Idlewild
@Idlewild (6090)
United States
December 15, 2006 8:42pm CST
Judith Regan, the controversial publisher who was set to bring out O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It," was fired from her job as head of the publishing imprint she headed at HarperCollins.
Regan's firing comes just a few weeks after News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch cancelled his firm's publication of the Simpson book, which was widely condemned as its publication date approached.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SIMPSON_PUBLISHER_FIRED?SITE=VTBRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
5 people like this
16 responses
@jal1948 (1359)
• India
16 Dec 06
It is the publishers responsibility to see that there are no repercussions on the company,in any manner whatsoever,in the publication of a book.Judith was always mired in controversy but a publisher needs to have a free hand in doing her job and thiscan only be done if rupert backs her actions. Unfortunately this has not been the case.
2 people like this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
16 Dec 06
The worst thing would be if Murdoch knew about the book and OKd it, but when the heat got too much he sacrificed Regan. If Murdoch really thought that book was terrible and he had gone along with publishing it, he should have resigned. (Not that you'd ever see that happen.)
2 people like this
@AnythngArt (3302)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Does this remind anyone of the Dan Rather brouhaha, where all these CBS producers were fired for saying President Bush didn't serve his national guard duty in the "60 Minutes" piece? They always need a scapegoat. Judith Regan probably would have gotten a big fat Christmas bonus if this thing had played out and they sold all those books. It was only when there was such a backlash that her fate was sealed.
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Regan and Murdoch should have realized that there would be a huge outcry over the book, I think. Simpson's previous attempts to cash in on his notoriety sparked the same reaction, I'm not sure why the publisher thought this time would be any different--especially since the book specficially addressed how Simpson would have actually committed the murder.
@thewatchlist (653)
• United States
16 Dec 06
The funny thing is that they were okay with the book and tv show until the public made noise. After the public says no thank you please, then the make her a scapegoat. Granted it is in poor taste, you know that those above her had drool hanging from the corners of their mouths while they thought about the profits.
One things I found funny was the huge public outcry about the book, but then if you looked before they cancelled it... The preorders were through the roof. I wonder who was buying all those books if everyone thought it was so terrible. Oh well...
2 people like this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Yeah, I find it hard to believe Murdoch didn't know about this book before the controversy hit the fan. Regan was a controversial figure, though, I wonder if the OJ thing was just a convenient last straw for getting rid of her.
Stuff like OJ always is like walking a tightrope; most people want to see it and hear about it, but they won't admit it. Obviously a lot of people wanted to check out the book, though they'd probably deny it. My guess is they'd condemn it in public but read it in private, where no one could see them.
2 people like this
@mytwo_daughters (2663)
• United States
30 Dec 06
I don't know about all of that. All of that could have been fabricated too! I am one of the ones who cried foul! There is no way that criminal should be profitting...and Murdoch should never allowed anything like it. Todays society is sick, all about money!
@blubbla (193)
• United States
16 Dec 06
They were looking for a fast buck. Plain and simple.
As a bookseller, I'm so glad the book was scrapped because there were customers that were so outraged if we'd carry it (and this is a big chain, mind you) that they's never come to our store again. It was going to be a public relations nightmare. Obviously, it was a big enough problem for HarperCollins as it was... I'm sure they lost a ton on this debacle.
2 people like this
@medooley (1873)
• United States
16 Dec 06
I totally agree with you. It is one thing to try to make money buy writing a book, but it is another thing to try to make a fast buck. How would anyone think that this would book would be a good idea? The first time I heard about it I figured it was a joke...
I guess she deserved to be fired, dragging their company through the mud like that. Foolish.
2 people like this
@ozangel82 (753)
• Australia
16 Dec 06
I haven't read the book, but from what i have heard about it, it sounds like a confession! The double jeopardy law prevents them from ever arresting him, even if he does admit it publically, but i saw this story on yahoo yesterday that said he basically admitted to two women that he tricked the jury....
@cowboyzfan (718)
• United States
16 Dec 06
O. J. Simpson is desperate and broke. He's just trying to make money off of this horrible book. I must admit that it is kind of interesting:p
@thewatchlist (653)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Yes. He did keep the advance on the book. Supposedly (according to him in an interview) his ghost writer got 100,000 and his kids got 700,000. He then got his kids to give him some of the money to pay bills (again, according to him).
2 people like this
@pookie92 (1714)
• United States
16 Dec 06
good, I can't believe that anyone would even ENTERTAIN the idea of printing a book like that. This woman was obviously only interested in making money. I am so glad that the public was outraged and refused to let this book be published. I hope that OJ got a good dose of humility from his last FIASCO.
@cutepenguin (6431)
• Canada
16 Dec 06
I think that she was already a pretty controversial person, and this was just the last straw.
But also, Murdoch must have known about the book before it got as far as it did, and I think he was just waiting to see what public response would be.
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
16 Dec 06
She had done some controversial books before, and also had a reputation as a very abrasive person to work with and for. Murdoch would have had to know about it, he can't be that much of a hands-off manager, especially concerning something that could so seriously affect the reputation of News Corp. as a whole, not just the publishing division.
@emisle (3822)
• Ireland
16 Dec 06
I heard about that today, I'm glad the public reacted as strongly as they did, how could he even THINK about bringing out a book like that? And obviously greed once again prevailed as far as the publishers were concerned...OJ will hopefully crawl back under the rock he came out of once again..:)
@volcanoman (145)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Murdoch should have never let it get that far. He should have scrapped from the beginning. Who else is going to give this guy more time to lie about everything. The book should have been titled "I did it and got away with it, HA HA HA" .
1 person likes this
@profclark (512)
• United States
16 Dec 06
She absolutely deserved to be fired, if for no other reason thn not having good enough judgement to realize that though tantalizing, that would book would be offensive and would have had quite a ripple effect. I know that when I heard about it, I called my local fox network and wrote the national one that I would be boycotting them if they chose to show, or support that project in any manner.
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
16 Dec 06
I'm glad for the outcry, though lots of people wanted to see the book and TV show I think it's important that other people spoke out and said that this kind of product is unacceptable to them. Maybe companies will look at this incident and think twice about coming out with something like an acquitted murdered talking about how he 'might have' committed the crime.
@frugalmoneymanager (113)
• United States
16 Dec 06
My take on this book was that it was going to be a "how he did it" reveal. I figure most people in this country believe that OJ is guilty and would have bought the book to confirm this opinion.
I heard that he would not have received any profits from the book, just his children. Is that true?
@198112 (335)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Wow! I don't think she should have lost her job over that controversy. She probably thought that the O.J book will have people interested and also she probably thought it will bring in big bucks. O.J is not too worried I am sure. I heard that he already received his check he was suppose to get for writing the book. The only thing he missed out on was the book's profits from the buyers.
Hopefully she can be given another chance to make a living elsewhere.
