If a brandished weapon communicates an implied threat which entails some causal result, and if the pen is truly mightier than the sword, then why can't a book be judged by its cover?!
If a reader misinterprets the text of any book, as alleged by critics and scholars, who, by virtue of personal acquaintance and authoritative guidance, claim special knowledge and extenuating insights, then why isn't the author blamed for this fault?!
Some people communicate for the intellectual and interpersonal exchange, while others seek only to express themselves without regard to an audience. Any who condone official doctrine or endorse the accepted norms will be preferred and privileged ... thus disproportionately able to reinforce and elaborate the dominant precepts.
The arena of the tribal council has been vastly expanded by mass media, and the ancient speaking stick has been transmogrified into the modern microphone; but no one honors the cultural courtesies anymore. It isn't enough to simply compete, since a chaos of conflicting noise confuses everything; and it isn't appropriate to unplug everyone, since regression and devolution are counterproductive. Validating the truth isn't impossible, but dubious and impractical, as long as its contrary is profitable. At least attempt some consistency, so people can believe that something is reliable, and they can trust their understanding of the book.
Words have blunted the sword, but if the sword once again sunders the books, then we shall only have more lies to misinterpret.