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 Kanae Bunch
Journalists have the power to rewrite history and shine a light on a dark story. Journalists' pen is like a sword and their ink is like their shield while the strength to strike the sword on the paper all came from their mind. When I think of a journalist I think of a person who risks their time, money, and sometimes even life to ensure that they give the public truth that is hidden but needs to be exposed. This image of journalists ethically has constantly been depicted as brave, selfless, and nothing short of exceptional. However, just like a drop of ink can change the entire color of a cup of crystal clear water, a few “bad journalists'' can create an entire culture of distrust. There is a common misconception of who or what qualifies someone as a bad journalist, mainly due to the inconsistency of consequences imposed on journalists committing the same act of dishonesty. It would be seemingly impossible to formulate a set of guidelines that would efficiently detect and formally create appropriate consequences for “bad journalists”. However, the core issue with the outbreak of the lack of integrity within the journalism field is the toxic culture or relevance that creates a cycle of journalists who are under-prepared, under pressure, and have a history of deceiving.
With Journalism there is a huge responsibility that is overlooked, which is the duty to provide the public with honest objective grasping real-life stories, Mr. Barnicle was a Boston Globe Columnist who was notoriously known for a very outlandish story about “two young cancer victims he described in a 1995 column that had never existed”(Barringer). Mr. Barnicle's stories not only moved people who went through similar situations related to his stories, but they were also under the impression that these were real events. This behavior affected ordinary Boston Globe Supporters like Tomlinson as stated “Mr. Tomlinson, whose son had survived a spinal tumor was moved when he read the column, published on Oct. 8, 1995, and sought to reprint it soon afterward” ”(Barringer). When the duty of journalism is abandoned, the care for how the neglect affects the audience is the fabrication that has the power to emotional damage. This duty is a selfless duty, it can put in the wrong hands it can cause more harm than good. This duty is not just to the public but it is a personal duty for one own conscience. When this duty is neglected, overlooked, and not taken seriously then the issue of distrust is revealed. In the incidence of Jayson Blair, a once-respected Journalist who worked was proudly used constantly was exposed to has a history of plagiarism detected, “To begin Jayson Blair's work was used respectively by many other writers, nearly two-and-a-half years ago, the school discovered that more than a dozen people quoted in news photo paper stories written by the 21-year-old senior” (Sinderbrand). Due to the huge responsibility of being a journalist and the number of trust people put into Jayson Blair's work he caused other people to plagiarize by reciting his work in their writing. “Jayson Blair caused other students to believe their career was tarnished because of his willingness to take other people's work and lie to the public about its authenticity” (Bunche 2021). Journalism has the privilege of supplying the public with heart-wrenching stories that can potentially and have had long-lasting effects on the way people look at life. People read their writing not just as stories but as news. With this great responsibility journalists are in many ways risking their safety, money, and ultimately their livelihood. There are many sacrifices journalists have to make without the lack of knowing these sacrifices journalists try to stop the inevitable. It results in plagiarism and or fabrication.
“Plagiarism is traditionally defined as taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own. In Journalism, it is considered one of the primary sins of the profession. Many journalists have lost their jobs or faced legal actions for lifting others’ writing or other production” (Online New Association 2004). Fully looking at the motive behind plagiarism as well as the underlying issue as to why plagiarism pokes its head out in a successful journalist career and or successful newspaper articles. When you fully understand the culture of journalism to an extent we can review many different factors that play into the role of plagiarism. One is that the journalist was completely unaware of their mistake from rushed work, laziness, or procrastination. The constant excuse for plagiarism seems to be that the journalist had honestly made an error. Take Ruth Shalit for example, “The weekly political magazines said that in both instances, Ruth Shalit confused other writers’ material with her own after transferring their stories into her computer” (Ahrens 1995). Ruth Shalit, a writer who knows the importance of writing your work and not just once but made this mistake “twice” is still calling this mishap a mistake. I would call this carelessness, for one reason being that journalism is almost solely about your ability to use words to grasp the reader's attention to the story. Journalists should be especially careful when ensuring that they are only submitting their work. Another factor is that the journalist saw value in another’s journalist work that was overlooked and tries to disguise it as their own. The latter one seems to be the go-to explanation when plagiarism incidence occurs because there is no efficient way to prove otherwise. What exactly is plagiarism and why is it taken so seriously? When we see plagiarism is looked at as being a thief. A thief of ideas, a thief of talent, and a thief of recognition. Plagiarism is taken as a form of disrespect because, when you plagiarize you completely disregard and disassociate yourself with the moral rule, “In your work, consider the Golden Rule- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-when assessing whether to credit another news outlets work. A similar consideration holds when sharing photos, updates or tweets on social media” (Outline New Association 2004). Plagiarism shows the character of the person who feels comfortable with plagiarism. It exposes that they don’t have consideration of the time and effort a person put into creating their work. They commit a “journalism sin” that is very personal for the victim, the process of writing can be very intimate and takes constant determination to finish a piece. Plagiarism in the urban dictionary is defined as “ stealing ideas or actual passages from someone else’s work and pretending they are your own”. The idea of thievery evokes negative emotions and the effects exposed plagiarism has on the victim as well as the culprit can never be fully restored. Plagiarism is an issue that has grown in its use which has created a sort of lack of accountability.
Fabrication on the other hand completely captivates an audience with emotions, regrets, and reflection, but does so in a deceiving matter. With fabrication, it is like a snowball rolling down a snow-covered hill. The more attention that story gets the bigger the lies and the more need for proof. Fabrication by the Oxford dictionary definition means “to invent or concoct something with a deceitful intent”. The intent of fabrication comes from the need to receive attention from the public and or supervisor. Journalists tend to fabricate stories when they believe the story would not be accepted without the imaginative input. To cure the problem you have to find the source of where the problem is deriving from. Fabrication usually is from journalists who have a past of fabricating stories that are not detected until one of their fabrication stories are exposed. Journalists such as Stephen Glass is a prime example of a serial fabricator, who exposes the lack of confidence in his writing abilities that he believes that fabricating was the only way he could successfully have a career in writing, Stephen Glass wrote a story about a computer hacker that grasped reader attention worldwide. However the more people began to research the “facts” it was made clear that neither the hacker nor the company this hacker allegedly hacker did not exist, in the article,” Rechecking a Writer’s Facts, A Magazine Uncovers Fiction” states, “The inquiry found that Mr. Glass had completely fabricated six articles and had manufacturer material in parts of 21 other articles.” Stephen Glass fabrication was not something he did out of fear for his career but it was something he did out of comfortability. Although what exposed the untrustworthiness in Glass stories was the story about a computer hacker who broke into a successful software firm called Jukt Micronics, it further exposed how he had previously fabricated numerous articles as well. This proves even more that fabrication does not just stem from a career but it is almost like a habit because if he were never caught Stephen Glass's fabrication of stories would have never been discovered, and who knows what other fabrication stories may have come about. Fabricators in journalism were able to create a career from fabricating because their work is so valued that their honesty is never fully shown but just expected.
Ironically journalists who have fame, recognition, and money seem to be the common culprits for being sucked into the cycle of high pressure, doing whatever they can to come up with the next big story. Although this is unacceptable it speaks for the culture of journalism. It states that the Journalism community is built around pressure. Pressure from supervisors, pressure from peers, pressure from self, and pressure from the public. To discover and professionally formulate stories that are currently occurring with strong evidence to prove that the stories are relevant and provide this type of service constantly. When we take a look at the past fabricators such as Janet Cooke she was known for exceptionally written pieces that showed her magnificent talent in writing, her career was becoming increasingly successful. Yet she still chose to fabricate stories, which reveals that it was due to keeping up with her success, Janet felt although she was only as good as her next story, In the article, “He Players: It Wasn’t a Game”, written by Bill Green it states that, “It was a fine piece of journalism, masterfully... Janet Produced. Fifty-two of her stories appeared in The Post before the ill-faced account of non-existent”. Janet Cooke seemed to have no clear reason to fabricate stories because the reason was behind her achievements. Janet Cooke’s pressure to live up to the expectation she created for herself caused her to make a long-lasting decision that affected her entire life for the worse. In the article “Janet Cooke’s Untold Story”, written by Howard Kutz states,” In Cooke’s view, she did not invent Jimmy to win a Pulitzer or make a big splash; she just was desperate to get off the Post’s Weekly staff”. When the pressure gets high and expectations need to be met, popular journalists, want to keep their places in their journalism career so they resort to writing what the people want to hear as opposed to the truth. When the unspoken pressure of deadlines, higher demands are required than it reveals who and what a journalist is willing to do to meet them. The Journalism world is filled with so much talent that the pressure seems even greater, knowing that your position can be easily replaceable when your stories don’t make the cover or don’t get the public’s attention.
Journalists lack preparation, they neglect preparing young journalists with proper tools to not just make deadlines but to walk in integrity. Due to the fastness in putting out stories and trying to keep up with the extension of the public, it completely disregarded the preparation needed to groom journalists who take more pride in sharing truth than in getting recognition. In Journalism, a career journalist can be ignorant of the mental effort it takes to remain in the spotlight. When new paper articles invest more time and money into preparing journalists then the culture of Journalism will be revolutionized into a more healthy, stable environment. When a worker is unprepared for a job they begin to find unhealthy, unsuccessful, non beneficial ways to prove their worth that could have been prevented through preparation. When young journalists are given such a great amount of recognition with no preparation it is a recipe for disaster. A blessing given when a person is not prepared turns into a curse, “Many say it’s a case of too much too fast for a young woman whose only pre-TNR journalism experience was editing a conservative alternative college newspaper” (Shepard). There is no transitional period that creates a full understanding of the type of pace their working environment will demand and expect. Young journalists are left to fend for themselves and life fast and make mistakes faster. When future new papers are looking o incest in a writer who had can add to their newspapers, there should be space for the potential employees to ask challenging question to give them a helping hand, which will ultimately benefit that newspaper company in creating a molding stand up journalist, “How do I deal with pressure from my bosses to get information as quickly as possible, to scoop the competition, and still be accurate? one student asked as if they might be mutually exclusive. "The tragic thing is that often they're right," says Catherine S. Manegold, a journalism professor at Emory University, visiting professor at New York University, and former reporter at the New York Times. There are a lot of newsrooms, she says, where that's genuine tension. Manegold's students often ask her what they should do if put in a situation where their bosses' demands run counter to ethics and accuracy. As a reporter, "I sometimes held back on even telling an editor about a story until I knew I had nailed it," she says, adding that her students don't yet know that reporters do have some control over when they file a story” (Roberston 2005). With this type of preparation journalists become better equipped to handle fast-paced deadlines, and become more aware of the control they have when wanting to release a story. Preparation is necessary because lack of preparation creates a lack of accountability, lack of communication, and most importantly lack of wholeness.
Journalism is based upon trust, the public trusts the writers to inform them with true relatable stories and so they support their new paper. However, without trust journalism will slowly but surely dwindle away and become just like reading a fictional short story. To fix this huge issue there has to be changed in the culture and the system of ensuring authenticity, “We need new ethics codes, a system of fact-checking, tougher editors who ask hard questions of reporters, lectures for new hires and, if all else fails, the latest plagiarism detection software” (Roberston 2005). The first step to tackle this historically known issue within journalists is to create a non-bias system of ethic codes that incorporate what it means to be a journalist and what are the moral laws journalists should follow to keep the journalist environment as one. Another step would be fact-checking this process may be time-consuming but it is vital if the public is an important factor. Fact-checking would involve showing clear evidence that your sources exist, the people being interviewed actually spoke the words, the events that are written about are reaffirmed. Having editors who are not influenced by the status of writers or by how great a writer writes but edit thoroughly without any exceptions. “What the Times need most; a coherent system to keep fabrications and plagiarism out of a paper” (Times For A Change). Although this will be rigorous it is a system that will keep journalists in check and remind them that their work is seen in such high regard that before it is released to the public it needs to be verified and edited efficiently and constantly. Another change would be re-defining the culture of journalism by applauding journalists who show integrity instead of awarding journalists who show negative attributes of journalism, “If society also stopped handing out six-figure advances to cheaters, we’d all applaud” (Roberston 2005). This article makes the great point that because the culture seems to reward a lack of honesty and integrity, it is no longer important to ensure that they are honest even when their editors do not follow up on their writings. When the culture begins to give homage to journalists who have stuck to ethical values, then journalists will take more pride in being honest and putting more effort into showing that their sources are accurate and reliable. Culture is what sets the tone for what is allowed, accepted, and rejected.
Journalism has a common issue across different newspaper platforms. One of those issues is the lack of consistency in disciplining journalists who commit the same act of dishonesty. The act of plagiarism and fabrication should share similar penalties. This creates a sense of unity within the journalism community because it prevents others from feeling as though they are being discriminated against or seen as less important. Platforms seem to be created for journalists who violate ethical codes and act in their own interest. For efficient changes journalist have to be fully aware of what is accepted and what will be rejected and frowned upon, “But those who espouse taking a look at the journalism culture as a possible cause of ethics ills say a fix requires 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”(Roberston 2005). When there is a lack of positive reinforcement than although careers may be ruined negative attention seems to set journalists up for life. When the penalties for lying to the public are seen as mental then it will continue to happen, but when the consequences for creating or stealing other people's work are more severe then the decline in fabricating will have to decrease. For an odd reason, the consequences seem to be worth the risk.
Some may argue that the increase in fabrication and plagiarism has a lot to do with the editors, which is not entirely true. There should be the responsibility of the newspaper editors to ensure that the journalists are giving work that is accurate and original. Editors should not depend on their trust in a journalist to determine if they should be lax when it comes to editing, but instead, remain consistent in the standard of editing. Oddly the more successful they become the more "slips ups" tends to happen because there is less attentiveness to their work. There is a dual responsibility when mishaps take place, one being on the editors and the other on the journalist. The journalist should make sure to ensure they are putting their full effort into their work and have enough evidence to support their stories as not just stories but facts. Which refers back to the culture of journalism. The responsibility of journalism needs to be reestablished and taken seriously across all platforms in which journalists have a voice.
There are always enough stories to create and there is a surplus in people who want to share their stories with the world. The effort to search for the people has to be made in order to become a true journalist. The truth is hard to discover and even harder to prove but it is worth sacrificing time to give the public what they deserve. Taking the risk that comes with journalism is no easy task, people's lives are being entrusted to what you say, and one wrong move can result in the ending of your career. The road to success in the journalism career can be accomplished by ensuring that you stick to the ethical rule of “treating others how you want to be treated”. This will encourage future and current journalists to tell the public the truth and maintain authenticity. What causes journalists to astray is not just because of pressure, or lack of preparation but culture. Culture is what influences and creates a common way of thinking. When analyzing why these acts against the public or other journalists were committed we can discover one of the reasons by understanding the history of the journalist responsible for such acts. There is no definite solution to preventing “bad” journalists from violating the moral code because controlling what people do is impossible, but we can control how issues are dealt with in unfortunate circumstances. There needs to be a united force within the journalism community whose goal is to maintain and establish a public-serving mindset that is honest, reliable, and takes pride in having integrity. There is never enough proofing, there is never enough editing, there is never enough verification that could prevent fabrication and or plagiarism from occurring; the power is in the hands of the journalist.
Comments