When questioned, Times spokesperson Ellen Murphy said that the Times has a very detailed methodology for placement which included more than strict sales data and that the Cruz book did not meet that standard. They alluded to the likely use of block bulk sales for the book which, according to them, they saw as a problem. Translation: they don't like the book and consequently figured out a way so that they didn't have to list it.
Now the Times has included many books that clearly would not be on their list of favorites. After all, they are a very liberal newspaper with a readership that has shrunk precariously due to their obvious bias. But the book review feature in the past has always been one that Americans, left and right alike, have trusted. So I guess that since Cruz is perhaps the most conservative candidate in the Republican primary battle, they may not want to see him gain traction in his campaign from his book. This is just a hunch, folks, based upon my general view of how the media operates.
One of the largest book sellers, Amazon, threw cold water on their claim, stating that the book was doing well with them and they saw no evidence of heavy volume in block sales. When this came out a few days ago, the Times started to waffle a bit and now, in a story for Breitbart by Katie McHugh, it is reported that they have relented and placed the book on the best seller list at number seven.
I think it's worthy of mention that they didn't apologize. In reality, they actually claimed that the same measurement methodology was applied to the most recent rankings as before, yet they added the Cruz book. That's one thing you can always count on from liberals and liberal organizations, they might have to change an outcome but they never admit making a mistake. But at least a good book has been given the placement it deserves and hopefully more and more readers will recognize the Times for what it is. No wonder their circulation is doing so poorly.
Now if we could only get the RINOs in Washington to realize that the viewpoint that the Times presents is so biased. Maybe they would then stop putting so much effort into trying to please the writers of a paper that is so out of touch with mainstream America. Maybe a miracle can truly happen.