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 Jake Sherman
Most people would say journalists maintain a “watchdog” authority in the role of society. Fewer people talk about how some journalists are in fact guilty of abusing their position of importance. Reporters and journalists alike, share the responsibility to inform the public on current and/ or relevant events. They provide readers with a lens to understand something in greater detail than that of their own knowledge. Based on this information, people are given the opportunity to draw their own conclusions and beliefs from the author's work, thus sometimes basing their own decisions and actions in correspondence. However, it becomes a problem when reporters and journalists become less than ethical in which techniques they choose to convey their stories to the public.
When we look at cases that involve journalistic malpractice, we see some recurring offenses being committed across the board. The use of fabrication and plagiarism can vastly alter the credibility of any given journalist's work. Fabrication in journalism can embody many different forms ranging but not limited to: embellishing, falsifying, and making up details within any literature piece. People who are caught fabricating often attribute quotes to people in their work who have in fact never said what has been claimed. Fabrication is also used to make the piece more emotionally moving and capturing for the reader. Plagiarism is when an author fails to properly attribute ideas or words and therefore tries to pass them off as their own. Plagiarism can pose a threat to the integral structure of society because by doing so you are essentially stealing another person's “intellectual property”. This can lead to people gaining merit or accolades for work that is stolen. Both are cardinal sins in the eyes of journalism and one should assume that by committing these injustices, that their career will be tarnished.
Throughout the class we have studied individual cases that reflect these malpractices, and how or why journalists seem to go from good to bad. By committing one of these offenses, journalists and reporters are not the only ones to receive flack. The journalism profession, readers, employers, and society all reap the consequences and fallout from these actions. We have also discussed efforts to mitigate fabrication and plagiarism from the core by implementing standards to encourage truthful, meaningful, and original work. When reading some of the case studies I often find myself in the shoes of the accused, trying to piece together why or what forced them to commit the act. From this perspective, we can learn many different things that ultimately served as a catalyst for the individual to go from good to bad.
Cooke wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning story, “Jimmy’s World” in 1980 while working for the Washington Post. When reading the articles about Janet Cooke’s infamous “Jimmy’s World” fabrication, I began to boil. The way she picked out such an innocent figure of society; An eight-year-old boy, who's addicted to heroin via needles. In my opinion, she knew exactly what she was doing in order for her to get recognized and stand out. She knew that mentioning these key qualities in such a young figure would catch the attention of readers nationwide. Janet knew, just the right strings to pull to make the people buzz. In relation to how her own malpractice, also affected people surrounding her, Mayor Barry initiated a search party for the young boy named jimmy and then later retracted his statement and efforts. Interestingly enough, it was mentioned in another article that there were plenty of young kids in the same situation as the falsified jimmy. Yet nothing was done to help people in the same situation as a FAKE boy. This shows just how much the media influences progression or the lack of in society. If the article was true and the boy was found, maybe something would have been done for these young addicted kids elsewhere. But because it was fabricated, the article and the problem of addicted youth were swept under the rug.
Furthermore, there is an argument to be made about being born good or bad in the eyes of journalism. Maybe some people from the jump are not destined to be good journalists. Cooke should not have been hired in the first place considering the fact that she lied so much on her resume. She also continued in the article to talk about the effects of heroin on Jimmy in his everyday life. She wrote fabricated direct quotes from Jimmy, his mother, and her boyfriend. In efforts to mitigate this story from being published, or fabricated in general, Cooke should have had a partner or second eye-witness accompany her through the interview and writing process. Even easier, the editors could have made it protocol to video/ voice record all interviews as a prevention measure. Cooke’s behaviors lead to her downfall and she reaped the consequences throughout the rest of her life. She was never able to find another reporting job and now works at a local retail store.
Claas Retolius, was a reporter for Spiegel and its online publication. He also worked for German new outlets like Cicero, Financial times Deutschland, Welt, and FrankFurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. It is noted that Claas resigned after being caught embellishing and fabricating numerous cases, for years. It's mentioned that he dramatized/ fabricated numerous stories in an effort to capture readers and the “fear of failure”. Claas was a decorated and respected journalist who was employed by a “big and colorful” news organization. Which is not the two best-describing words to characterize an industry where hard cold facts and credibility reign dominance. His early success and the pressure to produce captivating stories likely got to him because of the scale of his employer. He also probably felt the need to keep growing as a journalist, and fabrication was his only means.
In the third article, “When the news really is fake: German reporter admits fabricating coverage at leading news magazine” by Rick Noack and Luisa Beck, The Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2018, it mentions that Claas’ partner eventually outed him for sketchy suspicions regarding his work. Juan Moreno, told editors before the story was published, of his doubts. Yet because of Claas’s track record and achievements, the accusations were brushed under the rug. Moreno then went to speak with Claas’ sources in Arizona which attested to never speaking with Claas. ONLY was it at this point when editors began to look into his work and notice that there was a trend. This could have been detrimental to Moreno, by working with Claas on the project he could have been convicted of fabrication without even knowing it. His name could have been tarnished just because one greedy journalist wanted to take shortcuts.
Claas used Blair-like techniques, creating false Facebook profiles, fake emails, and went to great lengths to please his editors. In Konigskinder he fabricated a story about orphan siblings who had been displaced from Syria. He had lied about one of the orphans seeing the execution of his father, and the death of their mother along with more. It’s a shame that such a decorated reporter went down this path to please his peers and readers. It’s even more of a shame that Spiegels fact-checking department relied too heavily on his presumed credibility and thus took heat from it. Spiegel should focus on truthfulness rather than pleasing the public with things they think they want to read, to prevent cases like this from happening again. Random source checks and editor reviews should be implemented to mitigate fabrication.
A great example of a good journalist gone bad is Rick Bragg of the New York Times. Bragg was a well respected and decorated journalist who had won a Pulitzer Prize. However, like any decorated person of power or authority, Brag became complacent and neglected to attribute credit to any of his stringers or interns in his publications. I understand the corporate hierarchy and the right of passage “senioritis” that comes with power, but there can't be double standards. From the curated sources, it seemed as if this was something you earned, hard work in the first few years, and then the ritual passage of “mailed- in” work for credit when you are established. Bragg was ultimately caught plagiarizing because of the cultural realities of the very industry he was a part of. To Braggs dismay, this was said to be common practice and that journalists have been doing it for years.
Braggs case was interesting because it brought to light the internal injustices of the journalism and media industries. From this, we learned that it’s not always the reporter at fault for malpractice. It also shows us that the harm done is greater than that of the individual. Bragg silenced and belittled his stringers by taking credit for their work. He also made readers question his own past work, and if the Pulitzer Prize was deserving or not. Bragg may have started out as a good journalist but because of his decisions, he is now deemed bad in the eyes of journalism.
Another example of this would be the Shaun King case study. After his editor deleted various quotation and citation marks from his work he was accused of plagiarizing from a FIVETHIRTYEIGHT article, a Drexel university article, and a blog post from PhotographyIsNotACrime.com. This did and would continue to have affected Shaun King's career greatly. Thankfully King’s boss, Mr. Rich was able to save him from the plagiarism cops and validated that it was indeed his editors’ mishap. Like Bragg, King was accused of plagiarism based on what the industry noticed as normal. Bragg was sticking to culture and normality by using stringers and interns and King was victimized because of an editor’s mistake.
“Is Youssouf Male a Slave?” by Michael Finkle was another fabrication that made headlines. The heart-wrenching tear jerker that made you feel as if you were in the shoes of the main character, Youssouf was about an African boy leaving home in search of work so that he could buy himself a nice pair of shoes. Through his journey to find fresh kicks, he was a victim of the slave trade where he would work for $102 a year. In less than ideal conditions, nutrition, or housing, Youssouf worked 6 days a week to earn his freedom and eventually pay. The article described the hardships he faced and what was expected of him in detail. To Mr. Finkles' demise, he notified his higher-ups that the boy pictured in the article was not Youssouf Male. This apparently raised red flags at the NY Times. An investigation was launched and the truth eventually came out. Finkle admitted to fabricating the story and that It was in fact a compilation or composite of multiple boys and not just Youssouf.
I agree with Finkle’s overall message about the bigger picture, and how the story does it justice. However, you have to let people know that the details and accounts were that of numerous people and not one individual. By doing this, it seems like you are hiding details or narrating a more favorable truth. Finkle’s heart was in the right place but lacked proper journalistic technique in this story. It’s mentioned that he worked hard on the piece and was turned down many times by editors for different reasons before he resulted in fabrication. It doesn't justify his wrongdoing but in fact, puts into perspective how the media is looking to get a specific message out to the public and how hard journalists work to meet their employer’s standards. It makes you think if the editor knew that the story was compiled accounts of west African boys, and let Finkle reap the ultimate detrimental consequences at the expense of trying to please the public. Finkle went from good to bad in this case because he was trying to create a story to please his editors while conveying a message to the public. Unfortunately, he could have been spared by proper, ethical, and efficient leadership.
Karen Jeffrey is another journalist who slipped under the radar for years. She was a reporter for the Cape Cod Times that infamously fabricated numerous stories. One that stood out was the “Chipman” family from Boston, who forgot about the holiday Veterans day and the parade that comes with it. When asked to verify the family she told investigators that she had thrown out her notes. She duped her editors for years merely because of her age. It’s said in one of the articles that editors were shocked by her wrongdoings because of her time at the organization and quality of work. This affected the RI community greatly because she was known for her work regarding politics and law enforcement in the area. Her work and that of Cape Cod Times were in question because of how long and how many sources and articles she fabricated.
It also mentioned Jeffrey being in the dumps because of a demotion. This could have sparked a carelessness in Jeffrey because she was no longer writing about her passion. If I was almost done with my professional career and was recently demoted, I too would most likely take shortcuts and produce less quality work. When people get old they tend to obtain the mentality that they are “deserving of”. Maybe Jeffrey was fed up with working for an organization that didn’t compromise with her. Another possibility could have been that she felt as if the subjects she was writing about were not important and that she could fabricate details because it wasn't going to be checked like political and law enforcement articles would be. I think she did not strive to improve her work each time she wrote something and thus the decision was the right one regarding her demotion. However, it's a good idea for editors and higher-ups to give topics to reporters that they are actually interested in or enjoy reporting about to prevent this and further fabrication.
In conclusion, fabrication and plagiarism are the roots of all evil in the journalism industry. It contributes to the stigma that all news sources and media outlets are for the benefit of themselves. Without proper enforcement and supervision, journalists can become their own worst enemies. In most cases, journalists fabricated and plagiarized in an effort to please their peers and expand upon their writing. Unfortunately, by doing so they paint a picture of self-righteousness to readers by neglecting the true facts over their own professional gain. The same goes for the employers, evidence suggests that despite the track records of journalists, employers will hire them based on how liked they are not the quality of work. Each journalistic deviance can be looked at through lenses differently, but in the eyes of journalism, it is still a sin to fabricate and plagiarize. Misleading your readers and peers looks bad not only on the author but on the publication and industry as an entity.
By not following journalisms' code of ethics, you are subject to the lack of credibility offered when writing any future literary piece. It’s a shame that journalists feel the need to fabricate and plagiarize, especially when they are capable of producing great work. Above, I discussed some reasons why journalists fabricate and/or plagiarize, but there are a slew of more reasons that one may be unaware of. Another common excuse when being convicted of plagiarism is that something went wrong in the editing process, or that they mixed up their sources with that of an already published source. Fabrication excuses can range and are not limited, they also commonly ring to the same tune of being overworked and under pressure to produce. Excuses can range, yet the act that has been committed and the crime has been done. The aftermath and consequences fall upon all who bear witness.
But the question is, do journalists turn from good to bad on behalf of their employers? Or because of their own ill-willed characteristics? Many seem to fall victim to cultural realities. What I mean by this, they are the product of their environment. Journalists might see all of this going on around them, they see other reporters using fake quotes and failing to attribute and still, no punishment. It’s almost as if they are being taught to do it and told not to get caught. It’s only when people complain that there tends to be a problem, thus there must be consequences dealt with in response to the crime. It’s extremely hard to pinpoint whether the catalyst of change from good to bad is the employer or not, however, there are some cases of journalists doing this transition before getting to the professional stage (like Cooke lying on her resume). Furthermore, it’s hard to predict exactly why journalists turn bad, we can assume anything under the sun, the truth of the matter is we will never know the true reason, only construct ideas.
In regards to preventative measures, there is a ton that can be enforced to mitigate the publication and thus the overall embarrassment of fabricating and plagiarizing in journalism. For starters, media sources should implement classes or “freshmen seminars” related to the code of ethics in journalism. This will clearly identify the aspects of a good, professional journalist. If I were in charge, I would create a curriculum that outlines editing/ reporting procedures, how to efficiently and properly attribute, and display a standard to which all journalists are held accountable regardless of age, experience, or accolades. My newsroom would be that of healthy and positive communication to promote a better work ethic and production. I would also put into effect random editing and sourcing checks to ensure the utmost level of work. Tips like changing the font color of outside sources and proper sourcing will also be taught. I would also take into consideration my staff's level of expertise and passion for any given subject so that no one feels the way Jeffrey did. By integrating more than one editor in the process, and requiring the submission of notes and sourcing, pre-publication, journalists will feel less likely to cheat the system. This will also give the journalist the opportunity to defend themselves with an entire portfolio, should they have the excuse that they lost their notes.
To play the role of devil's advocate, not all fabrication and plagiarism is detrimental to society. I wholeheartedly agree with the article “Why Plagiarize When You Can Rip Off a Writer's Thoughts?” It clearly states the pros of plagiarism and how it can be used as a tool for growth and creativity. With that being said, “in all forms of art and culture, appropriation of others’ work is essential to creativity. The American mistake, he says, has been to adopt a mercantile, legalistic ethic in which a piece of writing is a commercial product rather than a way to advance ideas and spread information for the public good.” Is it the worst thing to use another's work for inspiration? I believe that copying an individual's ideas and passing them off as your own is bad. However, adding your own personal twist and making it your own can be beneficial. Good plagiarization is the catalyst of future creativity, It all has to start somewhere. Fabrication is its own beast, of course, go balls out with it in fiction pieces, but for the greater good and sake of society, keep it completely out of news sources. Yes, a white lie never hurts anyone, but in journalism, it’s what is done with the information and the beliefs/ ideas that can pose a threat to the greater good.
To sum it all up, good journalists gone bad is nothing new in the industry. Young reporters looking to strike gold with words have sustained throughout history. However, experience, or lack thereof, will not shield journalists from the sins they have committed as Jeffrey and Retolius did. As journalists and reporters, it is their occupation to provide cold hard facts for the audience to base their own opinions upon. By portraying the details in a manner that is biased or untruthful is doing the author and publishing company injustice. Yet, there will always be young go-getters willing to stretch the truth for their five minutes of fame. It's important for organizations to take that into consideration and have protocols that identify and correct such behavior. I would hate to see the “fake news” epidemic continue to spread because organizations fail to include preventative measures in advance. As an audience, it is our duty to hold journalists, reporters, and news media accountable for their malpractices in efforts to better society and unite as a country.
Comments