Actually, I don't think I understand the question.
Does it mean that awards should only be given for good writing?
Does it mean that some book awards should not be good for writers/publishers?
Does it mean that some book awards are not good for writers/publishers?
The question is: is the statement true or false?
Or is it comprehensible or not comprehensible?
Or grammatical or non-grammatical?
Though I don't see any reason why an award should be inherently good for its field, I also doubt that it's possible for an award to be particularly harmful. Given how little effect awards have on the business of publishing, I doubt that even a particularly wrongheaded award can be said to encourage bad writing.
I doubt that even a particularly wrongheaded award can be said to encourage bad writing.
I'd agree. After all, it is not as if bad writing needs any encouragement. I do wonder if the cummulative effect of wrongheaded awards is a lax complacency which inhibits good writing.
It's not unhinged - but I'm not sure it's true.
Maybe the award for "Best book that was still better when they turned it into a TV show." would be bad for writing. But other than that...
But only false because "unhinged" is a huge word. "Wrong" maybe, but "unhinged" suggests that there is absolutely no possibility of the statement being worth considering, ever.