Let's just start off with the assumption that I am always annoyed when the Anita Silvey article is cited as a source to show that the Newbery hasn't been good for years and everyone knows it--because a. not really a reliable source, since it was more of an opinion piece than a sourced article, and b. the Newbery has had books lots of people love and books that had smaller audiences throughout its history as well as throughout the last few years. (One of my favorite things about the Silvey piece is how she mentions The Story of Mankind as an example of a popular book.)
All the articles that appear today are likely to take one perspective, and because I'm feeling generous, I'm going to say it's because they need a hook, and this year's hook is going to be "Neil Gaiman is famous and popular! Weird!"--not because all the journalists are cruddy and rude.
But this article from the AP is a really funny one.
--apparently, Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! is too "difficult" (first I've heard of it; I bought it for my five-year-old niece, even if not necessarily for her to read to herself)
--and The Higher Power of Lucky is too "disturbing". What? Maybe someone thinks children will be so disturbed by the word "scrotum" that they'll... run off into the desert? There are quite a few objections to Lucky as a distinguished book (I can't wait to find out in the sequel how Brigitte is going to make a go of a restaurant in that impoverished town that no one visits), but "disturbing" is one I've never heard.
But the killer is the last paragraph: "Gaiman, 48, has three children. Two have grown and moved away."
Since most of the article is talking about whether The Graveyard Book is horror, or too disturbing, the emphasis on "grown and moved away" makes it sound like... well... SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS happened. I mean, did NOT happen, and we shouldn't think anything else.