Never mind the algorithms

Amazon Books leaves me wanting independent stores that accentuate the personal.

Walking through my local shopping centre last week, I saw that Amazon Books had just opened its doors. It being a bookshop, and me being me, I went in. A woman was greeting customers and pointing out the layout. It is smaller than the Barnes & Noble that closed in January, leaving us without a local bookstore until now.

Amazon failed my first test because its magazine section had neither the Spectator nor World of Interiors. But, more importantly, the books had no visible prices. Prices are embedded in the barcodes, so you have to take each book to one of the scanners conveniently placed around the store to find out how much it costs.

That annoyed me, because it prevents customers saying to themselves, “I’ll spend no more than $25 on a book”, then looking only at titles within that price range, without first carting them to a scanner. Further, I suspect consumer research would show that the act of taking a book to a scanner tips you towards buying it, regardless of price, because you have been required to put effort into the selection. I could be completely wrong. And, yes, I do believe in the moon landings.

To be honest, I was biased against Amazon before I set foot in the store. I don’t like the company on principle; the problem is that I cannot articulate the principle, other than it is tall-poppy syndrome. Where I live, we could have everything we want delivered efficiently by Amazon and never have to leave the house. Some days, that already happens. Yet, Amazon’s success in making consumerism as easy as it can be, leaves me feeling like a battery hen.

Amazon Books had stands of the most wishedfor books and the biggest sellers, as collated by Amazon. That’s ideal if you’re dashing into a supermarket, maybe, but in a bookstore I also want the quirks – those books selected not by algorithms, but because of the owner’s personal taste. I have resolved to make more effort to support independent retailers, if only because I want to think of myself as an independent consumer. R eaction to the fatal shooting of five people at a newspaper less than an hour’s drive from where I live illustrates the political frenzy that is typical at the moment.

Just days before the attack at the Annapolis newspaper office, President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and her family were asked to leave a restaurant because she worked for Trump.

In the resulting debate about what “resist Trump” actually means, Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraged a crowd to protest against Trump’s policies by harassing his people wherever they were seen. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome any more anywhere,” Waters said.

Within minutes of the shootings at the Capital Gazette, Fox host

Sean Hannity rhetorically asked on air, “Really, Maxine?” – seemingly suggesting that this was the type of direct action Waters had encouraged. It was more subtle than the Reuters editor who tweeted, then later deleted, “This is what happens when @realDonaldTrump calls journalists the enemy of the people. Blood is on your hands, Mr President. Save your thoughts and prayers for your empty soul.”

As it transpired, the tragedy had nothing to do with politics. The man now charged with the killings had been targeting the newspaper for years. But in the current climate, facts form an ever-diminishing role in public discourse.

As it transpired, the tragedy had nothing to do with politics.