I never personally read the Drudge Report, but I got this forwarded to me by a friend from the Columbia course. It's publisher Judith Regan's explanation for why she is publishing OJ's book. Look, it would have been one thing to bust out the "It means to make public, not to endorse" argument, but in the future I hope she'll refrain from the really long personal stories about how she wants to make all the bad men in the world confess (you know, on TV during sweeps and stuff). Look, he's not confessing. He's almost gloating. And as for her schpiel about how he is mentally disturbed, well, a) no shit and b) last time I checked, to "publish" did not mean "to psychoanalyze."
I don't mean to downplay her own past suffering and experience with a man who beat her - but doesn't it seem like a really convenient way to spin the story? A hypothetical does not a confession make - a mockery it makes. So forget your spin story (which is badly written, if I may say so myself) and just be honest: It's a ridiculously good opportunity for publicity. What kind of publisher-with-a-history-of-controversy wouldn't take that?
(Oh yeah, and the likelihood of any of that money going to the Browns? Stop kidding me here. Nicole Brown's sister - someone with a fair bit of rage herself, if I remember the trial correctly - was angry at Regan for "promoting the wrong doing of criminals," and the Goldmans are not happy either. I wonder why Regan hasn't reached out to talk to them about how they can get the money from the book sales yet?)
UPDATE: More! More!