It's been alleged that mainstream media truly is covering the real literary happenings of the day, that the ULA campaign is simply sour grapes.
We have as proof the Philadelphia Inquirer of August 2, 2005, which carried a large feature article by Amy S. Rosenberg, "Chick Lit Is on the Case"-- a fawning examination of current doings in the publishing industry.
The Inquirer is owned by the Knight-Ridder conglomerate, I believe, though you receive no clue of that from its masthead, which gives the impression it's an independent newspaper. For literary happenings, it seldom steps outside the corridor of conglomerate-mainstream acceptability. The conglomerate monopolies so dominate our minds 24-hours-a-day, a writer like Ms. Rosenberg is likely not aware alternatives are out there, some in her own city. I haven't seen her at open mics around town. She certainly would never have thought of attending the ULA's great reading.
No, the focus is eternally upward. Tops-down culture all the way. What are the publishing giants selling? Conglomerate newspapers profiling meaningless conglomerate novels produced by blueprint, while authentic literature from the streets escapes the radar screens.