Zondervan 

Thanks for the feedback. One point I'd like to make, however:

The main controversy surrounding Zondervan is somewhat of an internal affair to Christianity: the controversy is entirely over whether or not Zondervan should be trusted, seeing as it is owned by a secular media company. I would suppose that secular sources would be rather unlikely to pick up on the story, seeing how it is mostly irrelevant to those unconcerned with Christianity and the state of one of its publishers. From the (admittedly horrible) site http://www.kingdombaptist.org/new-bible-versions-and-the-growing-pornographic-industry/ 
Let’s examine this from another angle. Has News Corp. always allowed their subsidiaries to operate autonomously? While driving the other day I happened to hear a bit of the Marlin Maddox radio program. They main topic was the remark that the younger Murdock made concerning Falon Gong and China (I am surprised no one called in to comment on the NIV.) They were enraged at the Murdocks for “selling out” and turning a blind eye to the sufferings of the people under Communism. China represents the world’s largest media market. It is five times larger than the U.S. market. The Murdocks do not want to do anything to disrupt cashing in on that market. Marlin Maddox had an interview with a man who fled China; he had been dropped from a HarperCollins publishing deal because his important book was speaking out against the Chinese. The U.S. News reported in 1998:
“The scandal that could have far-reaching repercussions involved HarperCollins, a unit of News Corp. The publishing house last month dropped a book by Christopher Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong. The ostensible reason was that the writing was inadequate. But the
action fit a pattern of Murdoch’s adjusting editorial policies so as not to offend the Chinese leadership in Beijing. Murdoch’s News Corp. has invested heavily in a satellite broadcasting business based in Hong Kong and eventually hopes to be able to beam programming to mainland China’s huge population. Murdoch denied ordering that the book be dropped. But a memo by HarperCollins Chairman Eddie Bell, which surfaced last week, indicated otherwise: ‘Murdoch has outlined to me the negative aspects of publication, which I fully understand,’…After being pilloried in newspapers, Murdoch issued a limited apology to Patten for any suggestion that his book had been rejected for “being too boring.” HarperCollins later reached an out-of-court financial settlement with Patten, who had threatened to sue the publishing house…During the HarperCollins contretemps, potentially damaging remarks on China by a former Times writer also came to light. ‘The Times has simply decided, because of Murdoch’s interests, not to cover China in a serious way,’ Jonathan Mirsky, the paper’s former East Asian editor, said at a conference in January, according to a transcript that recently appeared on the Internet.” (3-23-98)
Thus, the “top” does control the bottom – when it cares to. And why not? A man ought to have right to control his businesses in whatever manner he chooses. And we ought to have the right to REJECT anything associated with the pornographic industry!
You can see how such an issue would both be a controversy, and something unlikely to be covered by many secular news outlets.