Publisher’s Note: The publisher has had no role in editing this essay, which is published as the writer submitted it with the intention of publication in BEACONS.
By Carly Newton
It was alarming to me how many journalists have given into the temptation of plagiarizing or fabricating. It makes a person wonder why these journalists give-in and ruin their careers over something so idiotic. Naturally, humans are flawed, but I cannot help but question what pushes a person to commit the worst acts of journalism when they are viewed as trust-worthy, model citizens. It has been interesting to read about these journalists and trying to dissect their actions each week of this class.
Over the course of the semester, we have read about many journalists who have either plagiarized or fabricated in their articles. These journalistic sins are inexcusable and most of the time they could have been prevented from happening if their editors had been aware of the red flags. The journalists that we examined often had a history of either plagiarizing material or fabricating and were either never caught or never faced consequences for their actions. To me, this says that newsrooms and editors need to be more thorough in their hiring processes while also keeping a close eye on their current employees.
As an inexperienced and young journalist, I always thought that not plagiarizing was simple because you simply do not copy someone else's words and pass it off as your own. The more I have read about plagiarism, the more I have realized how easily it can happen. The article "10 ways to prevent plagiarism, fabrication at college newspapers (and in any newsroom)," points out that plagiarism can happen unintentionally and without malicious intent. Sometimes if plagiarism habits are caught early enough, the bad habits can be corrected. Like this article says, I agree that having training classes for every aspiring journalist and current journalist would be beneficial. It may deter anyone thinking about plagiarizing even a few words, and it may help educate anyone who is unsure of what qualifies as plagiarism.
Though, in the end, I believe that only so much can be done to prevent it, because ultimately the responsibility falls on the journalist.
The article "Why the emphasis on young, promising journalists who plagiarize or fabricate?" focuses the attention on young writers. This is because the author believes that a lot of the plagiarism cases we are seeing today could be prevented. Red flags and early warning signs should not be taken lightly, and I firmly agree with this. While not all journalists that plagiarize are young, as the article points out, a lot of them are, and being strict in the early years of a journalist's career can prevent problems down the road.
Teaching journalists not to plagiarize early in their careers is similar to teaching children basic manners. As a journalist you do not behave in a certain way, and the most disrespectful thing you can do is plagiarize. This is because you broke the trust you and your readers had and hurt the reputation of the people who employ you, and probably ruined your career in the process. While I believe in human errors and making mistakes, journalism is not a profession that hands out too many second chances. It is imperative that a young writer learns this before they have the chance to ruin their career.
Every plagiarism case that is revealed to the public is met with more and more dissatisfaction and distrust with the media. The statistics from "Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%," are the most interesting. These statistics are important and relevant to journalism because of the drastic decline in the public's trust of the media over the years. I have talked to my parents about this problem before, and they have said they do not remember a time where so many people did not trust the media. The more people I have asked, it is always the same response. And even from what I could remember in the past decade and a half, I do not recall there ever being this much divide among the public and the news media. It is an alarming trend, but it makes you wonder what has caused this steep decline over the years and what could be done to rectify this growing issue.
It is not like plagiarism is new to journalism, but plagiarism cases have become easier to detect in recent years. In the article, "Plagiarism and attribution," the author discusses anti-plagiarism programs that easily search the Web for similar wording used in someone's article. This is just one example of how advancing technology has made plagiarism easier to spot, and therefore the number of plagiarism cases have increased. It seems that the more plagiarism cases that arise, the more the public is becoming distrustful of the media.
The media can combat the public distrust issue by being honest and not showing any biases toward their own opinions. This is especially important during an election year because this is when the news is watched the most. If a certain news channel wants to improve their credibility with the public then that is the perfect time to do so. No news channel should be showing any bias or favoritism toward any specific candidate of any party. Every candidate should get fair coverage of their agendas, and each candidate should receive equal treatment — good or bad. The public watches the news to be informed, not to be swayed in any way. The media needs to remember their role with the public, and that is to provide them with unbiased, factual news.
If every news station did this in the media, then there would be a lot less skeptical viewers who would otherwise be wondering whether they are getting quality news. Plagiarism cases have hurt the trust between the media and the public, but if the public does not already have reasons to distrust the media, then repairing that relationship could be made easier.
One example of a journalist in the media who used their influence to misguide readers was Walter Duranty. Duranty was a journalist who seemed to have been working with the Soviets and in his writing, he downplayed every atrocious thing they did to their citizens. Duranty never came clean about the famine that was killing millions in Ukraine in the 1930s because of how well he was being treated by them.
Duranty did not plagiarize, but he fabricated his stories enough so that the world did not know what was happening in Ukraine. How his work won the Pulitzer Prize and how it has not been revoked yet is baffling and saddening. Duranty’s work affected many lives that could have been saved had he lived up to his profession as a journalist.
The case of Walter Duranty was one of the worst ones we had to read about. This is because his fabrications and not telling the whole truth helped the Ukraine cover-up their disastrous famine. Duranty’s decision to do this affected so many people while also disgracing the Pulitzer Prize. Journalists are held to a high standard for a reason, and that is because they can yield a lot of power with their words. If he had decided to do the right thing and speak out about the atrocities in Ukraine, he would have been believed and the famine may have been resolved sooner. It is hard to comprehend how Duranty was able to live with his actions.
It is unsure how Duranty’s story could have been prevented. It was written in the 1930s and there were more opportunities to lie and get away with it back then. In the ‘30s there weren’t nearly as many cameras everywhere capturing every overseas situation like there are today. Editors back in the day had to rely on trust with their writers and this only could have been prevented had editors gone on the trip to the Ukraine with Duranty. If this had happened, the editor could have seen the truth first-hand.
Thankfully, in today’s day, there are much easier ways of fact-checking stories and articles. For example, editors can reach out to any sources that are mentioned in an article, as well as viewing any footage that is available to them to try and match any events that were mentioned.
But just because editors can work extra to validate articles as being truthful, does not mean they do. We have seen this time and time again with journalists who have gotten away with plagiarizing or fabricating for years without anyone noticing. One journalist who is a perfect example of this is Stephen Glass, who worked for The New Republic.
Glass had gotten away with fabricating stories multiple times at The New Republic, and it led him to believe he could keep getting away with it. The article, "Crashing a Career," explains how his lies knew no bounds. Glass had lied about a 15-year-old who had hacked into a company's website and was then offered a job by the same company. Only the entire thing was fabricated, there was no company, and there was no 15-year-old kid. The realization by Glass's editors that this story was fabricated led them to investigate past articles he had written, and they discovered he had fabricated many of them.
Glass was a pathological liar who took advantage of the fact that the public and his colleagues had a lot of trust in him. He believed that whatever he wrote would automatically be trusted because of the reputation he had built for himself and he was right to an extent. In the New York Times article "Rechecking a Writer's Facts, A Magazine Uncovers Fiction," it was revealed editors had admitted that the reason Glass had gotten away with fabricating so many stories was because they trusted him. Charles Lane, Glass's editor at the New Republic, said "When you're working together with someone, you assume you're being dealt with in good faith." Glass's articles were fact-checked but not strict enough because of his trust-worthy reputation. Which tells me that while Glass is at fault, the editors share the blame as well.
A way to resolve this is easy. Simply do not hold certain writers to different standards than any other writer. Whether or not they have a good reputation does not matter, all stories should be given the same treatment in terms of fact-checking and following through with sources. Also, anonymous sources should be a rarity, and the privilege to use them should not be abused like Glass frequently did. I feel like the repeated use of anonymous sources would have been a red flag for the editors but apparently, they did not care enough to look into it.
It's mentioned in the article "Through A Glass Darkly: Magazine Pays Piper For Stories Lax On Facts, Chock Full 0' Fiction,'' that Glass did a lot in order to ensure his lies were believable such as "TNR said Glass forged documents, printed phony press releases, and invented a Website in an effort to deceive editors." It seemed like Glass had gone through more trouble to back-up his lies than he would have gone through had he just told the truth. Knowing this, it must have been hard for the editors to spot the lies, therefore it is important to look out for red flags early on in a reporter's career, so they do not get good at lying. It is obvious that he was not in the right line of work and that he was probably better suited to be a fiction writer.
Which is why it was not a surprise to me to see that in 2003 he was doing interviews to promote his new book, and the movie that just came out about his fabrication scandal. In his interview, he seemed adamant in convincing the public he has changed and has sought therapy for his pathological lying, which is what he said caused him to fabricate his stories. While the therapy part may be true, it seems hard to believe that he had changed when he was profiting off lying.
Janet Cooke was another journalist who was young and eager to make it big that she fabricated her entire story “Jimmy’s World” to impress her readers. I believe Cooke did this because she was in a bad place mentally. She had gotten caught up with the glamour and lifestyle of being a successful writer and she forgot what it meant to be a journalist. Cooke was too immature and young to realize what she was doing and had to pay the ultimate price for her actions.
Unfortunately for Cooke, her story won the Pulitzer Prize. This would normally be a good thing and something to celebrate, but for her it brought her story under heavy magnification. Cooke’s situation was like Glass’s in that it could have been prevented by her editors before it became a national catastrophe.
In the article written in 1982 "Nation's Editors Plumb 'Jimmy's World'," it is mentioned by the Cleveland Press that the editors of the Post were partly to blame because they put sensation over good editorial judgement. Personally, I agree with this statement. If this story had been investigated more carefully before being published, the whole Pulitzer Prize debacle would have been avoided. In my opinion, it seemed like the Post just wanted to break a good story and look the other way instead of paying attention to the red flags in the story.
For example, it was known that Cooke’s sources for this article were not reachable. This should have been the number one reason why this story should never have been published. The editors should have known that when Jimmy, the young boy in the story, and his mother could not be found anywhere, that it was fabricated. How they turned a blind eye to such a red flag and then let it be submitted for a Pulitzer Prize is unthinkable.
The editors, as well as Cooke, had a big role to play in the Janet Cooke debacle as she did. She made a big mistake that cost her career, but the editors did nothing to prevent it — which is equally as bad. Cooke also lied about where she went to college on her resume and had the editors fact-checked this during the hiring process, Cooke most likely would not have been hired to begin with. Therefore, it is so important for newsrooms to vet their potential employees, because lying on a resume is a major red flag for someone who is working in a career where telling the truth is all you do.
With each plagiarism or fabrication case, we always hear every excuse in the book for why they did it. To me, there is no excuse worthy enough for plagiarizing or fabricating your work. One journalist, Ruth Shalit, of The New Republic, had claimed she confused her work with the work of others when she transferred it onto her computer. My first impression when I read her excuse in the article "A WRITER'S REPETITIVE STRESS," was that I could not understand how she thought someone else's words were her own. I would think it is obvious for someone in her position to be able to tell what her words are and what aren't her words. Even I can tell my writing apart from other people's writing — we all have our own voice when we write, so I did not buy it when she said that. She claimed it would not happen again, and then it happened again, so it was obviously not a mistake either time.
The article "Goodbye to All That" by David Carr, mentions how Shalit's rise to celebrity status so quick and early-on in her career in Washington D.C. may have had an impact on Shalit and how it inevitably led her to a path of plagiarism. I believe this may have influenced her and put more pressure on her to put out quality pieces, but there is never an excuse to plagiarize. Yet, Shalit had plenty of excuses for her decision that got her fired. In one part of this article, she said “I was 23 years old, I was writing New Republic pieces, I was writing cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, I was filing columns for GQ, and at the same time, I was bopping around and being a 23-year-old and buying miniskirts with my GQ money."
Obviously Shalit had taken on too much too soon. I would blame her age and immaturity on her decision to plagiarize, but in the years since she does not seem to harbor any guilt over what she had done. Oftentimes, she paints herself as the victim and believes she should be remembered for more. She even mentioned in the same article how it was a “drag” that the rest of who she was got dumped after people had found out she had plagiarized. I cannot say I have much sympathy for her because she is the one who put herself in that position, and she did so multiple times.
Like other journalists who plagiarize or fabricate, Shalit could have been fact-checked better. From what I can tell, her work was not heavily scrutinized and examined until after she had written her controversial piece about affirmative action. After she wrote that, it seemed like people were looking for a reason to get rid of her and they eventually did. In my opinion, her work could have been examined more closely earlier for red flags to prevent her plagiarizing from getting out of hand. Because she had been caught plagiarizing multiple times, she did not deserve a second chance at writing again. But she got it anyway more than 20 years later writing for the Atlantic.
It is uncommon for a known plagiarizer to get a second chance in journalism, but it does happen. Shalit was able to get her second chance 20 years after ruining her first chance. The article "Ruth Shalit just wrote for the Atlantic. Would readers know it from the byline?" mentions how Shalit had managed to write an article in the Atlantic under an unrecognizable byline. This was her attempt at becoming untraceable and people would not realize who she was — not even some of her editors. At first, I thought it was odd how the author, Erik Wemple, was tracking Shalit down and scrutinizing her work so many years later. But then I read the article "The Atlantic retracts niche-sports story by Ruth Shalit Barrett," and I realized he was right to do so. Shalit was still fabricating her stories and it showed that she never learned from her mistakes. And that all along her plagiarizing and fabricating had not been due to her age or immaturity, but due to her lack of judgement and morals.
Shalit’s case surprised me because there were people on staff at the Atlantic who had known her plagiarism past, yet they did not think to carefully edit and fact-check her work. It is endearing that they gave her that much trust to write freely, but it ended up back-firing on them in the process. I am not saying her work should have been examined more closely than other writer’s work, but it did not even seem like it was examined at all. A simple follow-up with sources and fact-checking from the editors could have prevented the embarrassment the Atlantic had to face.
Julie Amparano, who worked for the Arizona Republic, was another journalist who had been caught fabricating sources for her articles. The fact her employer did not catch this sooner just shows me that they were also not properly following up with sources. According to the article "Writer Fired for Uncertain Sources," Amparano had even used the same fabricated source, Jennifer Morgan, four times. Each time she made up a different profession for the fake woman. This is what surprised me the most — I do not understand how her editors had not noticed the same source being used in different articles. If they had read more closely, proper consequences could have taken place much sooner. Amparano had 65 people identified in columns, and the editors were questioning the legitimacy of 40. I just think this is a case where it absolutely could have been caught sooner if they had followed up with the sources earlier. Amparano was rightfully fired after only four sources were found to be legitimate.
This was such a preventable case of fabrication that it is an embarrassment to journalism. Like I have said before, it is nice to have trust with the staff writers you employ, but it becomes a problem for you and your publication when that trust blinds you from noticing obvious errors in their writing. This blind trust was also a problem at the Associated Press with journalist Chrisopher Newton, who hopefully is not related to me.
Newton, who worked for The Associated Press straight out of college, was a serial fabricator. In the article "Fib Newton," it was revealed that he had quoted sources that did not exist in at least 40 of his published articles. He quoted many vague sources from well-known institutions and somehow did not get caught for almost three years. Normally, with plagiarism and fabrication cases, I tend to believe that most people deserve a second chance. In Newton's case, it was not a first-time offense — he was a repeat offender who obviously knew what he was doing and continued doing it until he had gotten caught. I do not have any remorse for Newton, and he deserved to get fired. He tried denying that his sources were fabricated and even went as far as hiring a lawyer to represent him. He tried to make himself the victim when it was his decision to fabricate sources.
A big reason for Newton getting away with his fabricated sources for so long were because of the boring quotes he used. According to Kelley Smith Tunney in the article "A.P. Says It Couldn't Find 45 of Fired Writer's Sources," she said that the quotes were "innocuous and tangential." She even said that they were blindsided by the situation. While this may be true, it is still unfathomable to me that not one of his 40 plus articles never got caught by an editor. And that in the end his fabrications had only been caught because of a reporter at the New York Times. This could have been prevented if the editors at the Associated Press had investigated his sources early on. When the paper’s reputation is on the line they should not have been so trust-worthy.
The American Journalism Review article "Confronting the Culture" brought up a lot of good points about journalism and how fabrication and plagiarism can be prevented. A few ways that were brought up were "Drawing clear distinctions between what is acceptable and what isn't, getting rid of double standards and drastic inequality, and making accuracy as big a rallying cry as beating the competition." I like how they mentioned double standards especially. There have been a lot of journalists we read about this semester who got star treatment — they were not susceptible to random source checking or fact-checking because they automatically had the trust of their editors when other journalists who were not stars had to have their stories checked thoroughly.
This double standard had been responsible for journalists such as Jayson Blair getting too comfortable and relaxed in their reporting methods. If they had been held to the same standards as everyone else, a lot of plagiarisms and fabrications may not have happened. This article also mentioned how ethical work is not always rewarded, but technical work like being the first to break a story is. In my opinion, I believe ethical work should be rewarded in some way — maybe a bonus in their paycheck or any kind of recognition. If ethical work was rewarded routinely, more journalists may be more apt to focus on their accuracy.
Another preventative measure that could be taken to fight against plagiarism is mentioned in the article "The Cost of Credibility, New plagiarism check raises concerns." It brought attention to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. This newspaper had reports of fabrication and plagiarism and decided that they had had enough and decided to implement a new policy to catch cases before they get out of hand. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram selected one story each week and ran it through a new program called iThenticate. This program is supposed to be able to catch any cases of plagiarism. I can see how this would be nerve-wracking for some journalists. Even if you try your best not to plagiarize and you know you have not knowingly done anything wrong, one simple human error may be caught in this program.
I mostly agree that this was a good idea, but it also shows a lack of trust in your employees and they may be scared to make any mistake in their writing. On the other hand, if this is what it takes to lower plagiarism cases then so be it. So many times, we have read about newspapers not doing anything to prevent plagiarism or fabrication and then when it happens everyone in the newsroom acts surprised. At least this newspaper is trying to do something about it. I especially like how they go through and do source checking with sources in an article. I think that is one of the most effective ways of catching someone who is fabricating or plagiarizing.
Looking back at all these cases it is easy for me to sit here and judge what the editors and newsrooms could have done differently. With that being said, if I were in the position of an editor in a newsroom of a magazine or newspaper, I would handle things way better than some of the editors we have read about. I would implement a source-checking policy instantly. Also, there would be a limit on the number of anonymous sources used and each one should be identified to me personally, so I know they are a real person. This measure just ensures that no sources are fabricated and that the sources have been quoted accurately. As far as plagiarism goes, I would implement the use of plagiarism detection software like The Fort Worth Star-Telegram did. With any paper’s reputation on the line, this is what every publication should do at the minimum. I would want my writers to feel safe writing about anything they want to, but at the same time I would need to protect myself and the publication first.
It would also be helpful to have classes for new journalists and veteran journalists to learn more about how to not plagiarize or fabricate on accident. Also, all editors should take classes on how to spot plagiarism and fabrication before it is too late. As an editor, I cannot assume that my whole staff understands what constitutes plagiarism or fabrication. It is my responsibility to teach them to the best of my ability and give them all the tools to succeed and have a successful career. I would also implement a strict hiring process. This hiring process would check a potential employee’s background for any clear red flags they may have exhibited in college or any other places of employment. I would look for any inconsistencies in their resumes as well and make sure it is all true. Combining all these techniques together would make a newsroom environment that would be best at preventing journalists from plagiarizing or fabricating. If every newsroom around the country implemented measures like these, we would see a dramatic decrease in plagiarism and fabrication.
Comments