Friday afternoon I received a phone call from Gus Carlson who heads up the Communications and Customer Relations Department at Barnes and Noble, and Laura Dawson who manages the company's data base for the on-line and retail stores. That call was followed by a phone call from Tom Simon, Vice President of Content Development at the company. They deeply regretted the earlier response I had received, and both wanted to assure me that at no time did any anti-Semitic intent color Barnes and Noble's actions in this matter. I think they are to be absolutely believed on this score. This company carries many books, and each book has its adherents and its detractors. The company's initial response to me was to cite First Amendment freedoms, and indicate that they would carry even controversial books. I would be the first to agree with that position. "Protocols," however, is in a different category altogether, and the three B&N executives with whom I spoke all agree with that. They made plain to me that the company was not aware of the book's true nature at the outset of all this brouhaha, and that had they been, the book would have been classified differently. They also assured me that new company policy would ensure that reviews would be carefully screened to ensure that a spurious review does not pop up on their web site.
A bit of clarification is in order: very often a book will be classified by its distributor, and Barnes and Noble will accept the classification. An out of print version of "Protocols" that carries the label "Judaica" will be classified that way on the Internet site because no one at B&N knows any different. That's a far cry from malice. Similarly, if it finds its way onto a shelf in a retail store, there are obvious reasons why the manager would place it in the Judaica area. The title itself is misleading, and pity the poor store manager who obviously doesn't have the time to read every single book in the store. I think we're done with this issue, and in the best possible way.
Please-don't boycott Barnes and Noble. They don't deserve it. They are honest book merchants who go out of their way to provide the reading public with the best in books and service. At no time in any of this was there even a scintilla of malicious intent. Occasionally even a good company will slip up, but once B&N became aware of the book's true nature, they acted with alacrity. The fake review was pulled, and the book is being appropriately identified. They have taken steps to ensure that spurious reviews don't pop up on any book that might be controversial, and they have also taken steps to prevent a vendor from classifying a book under a particular heading (i.e., Judaica,) without that classification coming under B&N's scrutiny. Moreover, Mr. Simon has asked me to prepare a review of "Protocols" and he will post it on the web site as the first review. He also proposed that I include URL's to sites that would advise readers about the nature of propaganda, hate literature, and so forth. Lastly, he advised me that the company is considering setting up a new classification called "propaganda," "hate literature," or something like that. That would ensure that hate literature (sic!) doesn't inadvertently pop up in the wrong section. I want to commend Barnes and Noble for cleaning up their own act, and I also want to commend the many of you out there who have taken the time to let B&N know of your concern. More than anything else, it proves that this is a company that listens to its customers, and that's what good business is all about.
Rabbi E. Silver
