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 Christyn Pettway
When it comes to journalism, it could easily be argued that the most important code of ethics is to be truthful. This truth, however, should not only extend to a writer’s audience. Before even sending the story to an editor, a journalist should first be truthful to themselves and their profession. So when a journalist accidentally or sneakily writes falsities in their work, it’s a huge issue. Yet, too often, journalists continue to fall short on telling the truth- turning to plagiarism and fabrication as an attempt to get by (for the ones carrying out these infractions deliberately). But why? This decision negatively affects not only the writer, but the entire publication they work for and the image of journalism as a whole. It weakens the trust of our audience and honestly, could you blame them for losing trust in us? Fortunately, there are ways to stop this.
To understand how to put an end to fabrication and plagiarism, it is important to understand a journalist's reasoning for even committing this crime in the first place. In “Why Writers Lie (and Plagiarize and Fabricate and Stretch the Truth and…” by Paul Elie, (the perfect title by the way because someone is always finding a way to put out unoriginal work in some way), talks about how fabulists come in two forms according to Dr. Ronald Schouten, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. These two types of fabulists consist of the “garden variety” of liars that lie to get ahead and the pathological liar who either “lies to put himself in the best possible light,” or “the one who, like an entertainer, lies to gain and hold the attention of an audience, delighting in its reaction from one astonishment to the next.”
Janet Cooke serves as a good example for the “garden variety” fabulist. For Cooke, not only did she decide to fabricate an entire story that she wrongly ended up winning a Pulitzer Prize for, but she even started her career as a Washington Post reporter by lying on her resume. Her greed for getting ahead stemmed from being a black reporter during times when minority reporters were actually being sought after. “My goal was to create Supernigger," Cooke said in the Washington Post article “Janet Cooke’s Untold Story,” in an attempt “to outperform her white colleagues.”
This pressure and desire to get ahead is common in most cases of fabrication and/or plagiarism, especially when it comes to struggling journalists like Cooke and others who are already at a disadvantage as minorities. “Confronting the Culture” by Lori Robertson discusses this by mentioning how “...economic pressures for the less fortunate are mounting. Journalism salaries haven't gone up much over the past two decades, while the cost of living, particularly in urban areas, has risen dramatically. (And the load of debt students take on to pay for college has skyrocketed as well).”
But is being pressured into taking this step worth it? Only a few days after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for her story “Jimmy’s World,” about a fabricated, eight-year-old, third-generation heroin addict, she was caught for her make-believe story and stripped of both her Pulitzer Prize and her job as a Washington Post reporter. As a result, Cooke explains in the Washington Post article that “I've lost my voice. I've lost half of my life. I'm in a situation where cereal has become a viable dinner choice.”
Meanwhile, others have faced far less for worse. Pathological liar Stephen Glass is a good example of this. In 1998 it was revealed that former reporter of The New Republic, Stephen Glass, either partially or completely lied about “27 of the 41 bylined pieces” that were published according to “Shattered Glass”, by Buzz Bissinger. In CNN’s “Trust Me, An Infamous Serial Liar Says,” Glass’ psychiatrist compares Glass’ lying to the “behavior shown by gambling addicts: ‘They just want it to be over. They’re physically and emotionally exhausted and they can’t lose it fast enough, they can’t stop, they’re just going through it as quickly as they can until there’s nothing left.”
In addition to this, Buzz Bissinger also writes in the Vanity Fair article “Shattered Glass,” that Glass went out of his way in an attempt to escape his wrongdoings, explaining that “Glass created fake letterheads, memos, faxes, and phone numbers; he presented fake handwritten notes, fake typed notes from imaginary events written with intentional misspellings, fake diagrams of who sat where at meetings that never transpired, fake voice mails from fake sources. He even inserted fake mistakes into his fake stories so fact checkers would catch them and feel as if they were doing their jobs. He wasn’t, obviously, too lazy to report. He apparently wanted to present something better, more colorful and provocative, than mere truth offered.” Instead of simply taking out the time to carry out good, truthful reporting, he instead continued to spin a web of lives in order to cast himself into whatever light he saw fit. Because of this, Glass is a “best possible light” pathological liar.
Unlike Cooke, however, Glass doesn’t have to deal with the reality of eating cereal for dinner. In fact, Glass was able to flip his lies to somehow work in his favor.
But how is it that someone like Stephen Glass can become a popular-selling book artist and have a movie made, both about his fabrications, when people like Cooke have to face more severe consequences? How is it that Janet Cooke currently works as a clothing store sales clerk while Stephen Glass works for a California law firm as the director of special projects?
Like everything else, fairness and equality unfortunately tends to not exist, even in the supposed “unbiased” community of journalism. When it boils down to it, Cooke is a black woman and Glass is a white man, able to blend in without speculation from the trust of his peers, employees and employers. And this isn’t the only case of fabulists slipping through the cracks because of people’s trust or love for them.
Howell Raines speaks on the unfair differences between The Globe pardoning reporter Mike Barnicle for fabrication versus that of former reporter Patricia Smith, whom they fired. Once again, it’s the difference between a “loved by many”, white male in comparison to a black, female reporter.
In his New York Times article “Editorial Observer; The High Price of Reprieving Mike Barnicle,” Raines mentions that “The Globe dropped Ms. Smith like a hot rock, and rightly so. But upon her dismissal there were immediate rumblings that the newspaper had, for years, looked the other way when confronted with reports that Mr. Barnicle was writing what Mark Twain called 'stretchers’ in his colorful but apparently well-reported columns.” Raines argues that by the Globe diluting Barnicle’s consequence for fabrication, it “ ...says to young journalists that the contract of trust that we ask them to sign -- about what they write and what they tell their editors -- is not really absolute or equally enforced," and that Barnicle is just another “product of a male-dominated, mostly white tribal culture that takes care of its own."
The more I read about various journalistic infractions, the more I continue to see how unbalanced the consequences are for fabulists in the field, and I’m not the only one who’s noticed. David Uberti speaks about this imbalance in “Journalism Has a Plagiarism Problem. But It’s Not the One You’d Expect,” explaining that while fabrication is black and white, plagiarism is grey “And it always has been. A CJR cover story in 1995 analyzed 20 cases of plagiarism in the previous seven years, concluding, “Punishment is uneven, ranging from severe to virtually nothing even for major offenses.” The determining factor for a minor punishment is usually based on the person’s pull on the people around them and what they can offer the company- besides a plagiarized story. “Some editors will keep a plagiarist on staff or will knowingly hire one if talent outweighs the infraction,” Columbia Journalism Review’s Trudy Lieberman wrote.
In addition to this, “Paradigm Disguise: Systemic Influences on Newspaper Plagiarism” by Dr. Norman P. Lewis, notes that “ sanctions, terminology and newspaper size seem to be intercorrelated such that larger newspapers are statistically more likely to keep journalists accused of plagiarism and refer to the offense with a synonym. Although a majority of journalists accused of plagiarism lose their jobs, the outcome is associated with the size of the newspaper. Newspapers of more than 250,000 117 circulation tend to retain journalists accused of plagiarism, while newspapers of less than 250,000 circulation generally dismiss theirs. The same differentiation shows in the terminology used: termination cases are usually associated with the word “plagiarism” while synonyms are offered when the newspaper wishes to keep the employee.” This was actually surprising to me because I would think bigger news publications would have a stronger desire to uphold their reputation and platform by automatically letting go of any fabulists they catch.
Yet, regardless of a reporter's popularity, talents, reputation, privilege or whether or not they were lucky enough to work at a bigger publication to help in avoiding a strict penalty, all fabulists contribute to the weakening of journalism as a whole and the way we’re viewed by readers. “Nothing but the Truth?” by John Leo recognizes that “...so much journalism today has turned away from the old ideal of objectivity,” and that “the old notions of ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ are in danger of being replaced by the new ones of ‘opinion,’ ‘perception,’ and ‘credibility.”
The once firm decision to stick to the rules of journalism and remain truthful in creating original work has become more about simply not getting caught. This lax attitude from reporters, combined with the not so firm background checks from editors, makes it easy for reporters to become repeat offenders of these ethical infractions. If left unchecked, the lack of trust from readers could be detrimental to the reputation and even productivity of journalism.
Already, the public has less trust in journalists. According to “How a Disgraced Reporter Tested the Public’s Trust in Journalism,” focuses on former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair who resigned after getting caught both fabricating and plagiarizing his stories.
“What happened with Jayson Blair really challenged the faith of a lot of readers. I mean, public faith in the media has been in decline for ages, but this story really was difficult for people to absorb because the New York Times was sort of the last holdout, says filmmaker Samantha Grant, “And when this type of fraud took place at such a highly regarded institution, I think a lot of people just threw their hands up and said, everyone's corrupt.”
Afterall, these aren’t small, community newspaper companies being put under the fire; the New York Times is the third largest newspaper company in the United States. Matthew Creamer writes in “MEDIA BRANDS: News Media Should Work Together to Find a Way to Establish Trust and Protect Its Image,” that “...the news media’s image is a long-suffering one...still, image problems can be fixed. Some papers have tried to deal with it on a local level by appointing ombudsmen or public editors and adding layers of editing or fact-checking. Those involved in the biggest scandals, like The Times and USA Today, have made a show of their transparency, meticulously detailing the missteps of their reporters and releasing committee reports on the incidents,” and I think others should follow.
Providing transparency is a way of saying to the readers, “Yes we messed up. Here’s how it happened, why it happened and what we can do to move forward.” Creamer then goes on to mention that however, being overly transparent may do more harm than good because “it all focuses too intently on the crisis management mentality. It's reactive, rather than proactive, and does nothing to call attention to the good journalistic work done daily.” I disagree. Instead, I side with Craig Silverman’s piece “Journalism’s Summer of Sin Marked By Plagiarism, Fabrication, Obfuscation,” and how there’s actually a need for better transparency.
“Here’s the issue: If we in the press stonewall and hide behind vague public statements when ethical breaches happen within our ranks, then we embolden politicians and other public figures and sources to do the same, Silverman says, “This practice offers critics a reason to avoid accountability and ignore the press, and sends the message that news organizations are adrift without an ethical compass...newsroom leaders are starting to see silence and message control as the preferred strategy for handling an ethical transgression.” No one is taking away from “the good journalistic work done daily.” When someone does well, they should be rewarded, and they have been. There are many journalists who are awarded Pulitzer Prizes for their work. But when someone does wrong, why would we still take that time to talk about the good? Are we supposed to just overlook their wrongdoings? I see transparency as a way of owning up in order to then move forward because it shows that even if a publication isn’t perfect, they’re honest enough with their viewers to admit it and show that (in most cases, cough cough) fabrication and plagiarism isn’t something taken lightly.
This is why before even getting to this point, there should be systems in place to catch fabulists before their work is published, or better yet systems to stop plagiarism and fabrication from happening at all and I think it’s possible. There are now systems like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s, “initiative to restore trust and credibility to the craft of journalism” mentioned in the LexisNexis ™ article by Teddi Dineley Johnson, “The Cost of Credibility; New Plagiarism Check Raises Concerns”. Local stories are randomly selected each week to be reviewed by Senior Editor and Reader Advocate David House, who carries out a thorough examination of the story under review, making sure to find out “how it was researched and reported. House also contacts every source named in the story to ask if they were quoted accurately and if the paraphrasing was correct.” It’s ridiculous that it even has to get to this point, but if it will help decrease plagiarism and fabrication and increase consumer trust, so be it. “Editors hope the new fact-checking initiative will serve as a constant reminder to staffers of the company’s expectations,” Johnson adds, “while simultaneously reassuring readers that their trust is well placed.”
This is just one option. Craig Silverman’s article also gives suggestions to limit fabrication and plagiarism in the field of journalism. He discussed the three steps that need to be taken to achieve this, stating that “It’s more important than ever that the profession work to create basic guidelines and processes for handling an incident of plagiarism, fabrication, and/or a major error. It’s also essential that this be done on a large scale and subsequently endorsed at the highest levels,” and provides “a basic guide for dealing with plagiarism and fabrication” written by him and Poynter’s Kelly McBride as a starting point.
After this, Silverman’s first step is to have leading publications have their ethics committees review current policies and provide guidance to nesrooms about clear rules and guidelines pertaining to plagiarism and fabrication. This would mean allowing newsrooms to fully understand the rules against it, how investigations for assumed fabrication and plagiarism would be investigated and how these infractions should be discussed both internally and externally if found to be true. Silverman says that “This needs to be an initiative that cuts across organizations, mediums and disciplines to serve all journalists.”
The second step would be to educate these newsrooms and get people on board with any new changes and details made to the rules of ethics. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but first, the higher ups need to change in order for the people under them to change as well. “This helps send the message that a new standard has emerged, and it comes from the top of the profession,” Silverman says, “Newsroom leaders have a major role to play in changing the way newsrooms handle these incidents. A clear, omnibus set of best practices is one step. Publishing them and promoting them is a critical part of the process. This will provide clarity and create a culture of transparency and accountability that stops the slide towards avoidance and obfuscation.”
The third and final step is very similar to what The Fort-Worth Star has begun practicing: random checks for plagiarism, fabrication and other ethical breaches. To check for plagiarism, Silverman explains that it’s “a straightforward and affordable initiative” to run published work through a plagiarism detective service. To check for fabrication, editors should contact sources from said published work to verify quotes. These steps can actually prevent fabrication and plagiarism from surfacing in articles later on if these checks are done before articles are published.
Other ways to prevent plagiarism and fabrication from happening is by holding your own self accountable. For journalists, this means checking your work before sending them to your editor. For editors, this means fact checking sources and making sure all the reporter’s resources are real and credible. “The Counter-Plagiarism Handbook,” also written by Craig Silverman, provides tips for editors and writers to help spot and avoid plagiarism (aka the “starting point” mentioned earlier).
Silverman notes that unintentional plagiarism is “the most common excuse offered by journalists caught plagiarizing.” So, to avoid this unintentional act, writers should constantly be writing before and throughout the research process. In doing so, “expressing your own thoughts and using your own words will force your brain to flex the self-expression neurons, rather than the repetition neurons.”
Another tip is to differentiate between your work and the work of others by keeping the two separate, using a different font or color for research and making sure to write quotes as quotes, including the quotation marks.. This way, you’ll know which writing is your original work versus the work of someone else, even after you paste your research into your own writing. I personally have learned to do this for any story I plan to write. During the outlining process of my work, I make sure to highlight my sources, also including the author and publication, which I highlight as well.
Silverman provides other tips for writers to follow, but the last and most important is to google large chunks of your finished piece to see if you face any accidental plagiarism. “Plagiarists are often busted by someone plugging a few sentences or paragraphs into Google. Do the same for yourself,” he explains, “Google large sections of your piece just before submission in order to ensure you haven’t accidentally mislaid a few quotation marks. And use Factiva and/or Lexis-Nexis if you have access to them.”
For editors, Silverman “can recommend no better advice than what was offered by John McIntyre, the former head of the copy desk at the Baltimore Sun, in 2008. These tips consist of an editor’s responsible to spot changes in diction and syntax, specialized information, dubious sources and improbabilities In addition to this, editors should also pay attention to writers that turn in work filled with “top-notch quotes” and “solid research” right after struggling with their piece until the last minute.
Following these tips, as either a writer or an editor, can help limit the amount of articles that get published containing plagiarism or fabrication.
Overall, it’s important to understand the reasoning and pressures behind journalists turning to fabrication and/or plagiarism in their writing in order to understand how these ethical codes are broken so frequently. It’s important for us to not only recognize this issue, but aim to fix it. As journalists, we have a responsibility to provide our audience with truthful, credible information that can be easily backed up. Yet, there’s a long list of journalists who have chosen to take the risk of tarnishing their own reputation, the reputation of the company the report for and the reputation of journalism as a whole by accidentally plagiarising or, even worse, intentionally decided to plagiarize and fabricate. When this happens, everyone involved is seen as untrustworthy: the writer, the editor, the publication, and the entire field of journalism. To gain this trust back, various regulations such as random plagiarism checks, deeper-digging for sources by editors and personal accountability should be implemented to avoid these transgressions. For published works that are found to be from fabulist writing, newspaper companies are responsible for being transparent with their consumers.
This way, the already morally sinful act isn’t further tainted by companies trying to keep these violations a secret or make them seem like no big deal by using diluted synonyms and unnecessary jargon for the words “plagiarism” and “fabrication.” Following Craig Silverman’s tips and using practices like The Fort-Worth Star already uses and Silvean suggests, puts us on the right track to getting back to the trustworthy field we’re meant to be, but first, the higher ups of big companies such as The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New York Times and other big companies need to make the change and start the domino effect.
Comentarios