Peter Osnos used to be the publisher of Times Books, which was ostensibly a spinoff imprint designed to publish works by those working at the NYT. But, looking back on his stint years later from his perch as Senior Fellow for Media at The Century Foundation, he wonders why the paper couldn't have embraced the imprint instead of keeping it at arm's length. "Times Books was considered a nuisance by newspaper management because reporters wanted to sell their work (even that generated by their work at the New York Times) to the highest bidder rather than be shepherded into what everyone considered a backwater," Osnos explains in his latest column for the Century Foundation. "Times Books made its own way publishing authors such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Robert McNamara...but the paper was contemptuous of Times Books as a means of branding."

He uses the example to illustrate what could be a controversial idea for writers and agents alike: that "the owners and editors of our newspapers and magazines, which support all these reporters in getting the material they turn into books, should align themselves with that process and secure benefits both financial and for their brands from the results." Because the success of such "newsbooks" (to borrow Publishers Marketplace's nickname for such newspaper-driven non-fiction titles) benefits the publisher and the writer, but the training, credibility and access was obtained by the originating newspapers. So why not forge a partnership?

It's a good question, one that likely has a more complicated answer that I can come up with. But it all keeps circling back to territory and accountability, and that newspapers and publishers may never be able to view each other as working partners instead of wary competitors. But if you have a different outlook, send us your thoughts...