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 Kiyanna Noel
The only side that matters in every story is the truth. Journalism is an industry made up of people who intend on spreading the truth to the public through their words. Journalism is not an industry that welcomes lies, manipulation and deception. Plagiarism and fabrication in the journalism industry is a serious problem and could be a leading factor in the extinction of honest journalists. Plagiarism is when a person takes the work another has done and passes it on as their own without giving the rightful owner any credit. Fabrication is making up any parts of a story with the intention of deceiving and lying to people. Attribution is referencing something without mentioning the causes. These are just three ways to break the Code of Ethics, but this paper is going to explore why good journalists go bad and how we can stop future journalists from making the same mistakes. There are multiple reasons why a good journalist would plagiarize or fabricate, but the real cake topper is the fact that they do all of this lying and think they can get away with it. However, the truth always comes out. Whether it is two years or twenty years later, the truth always finds a way to the light of the public eye.
Good journalists are called watch dogs. This is because they look out for the public and have their best interest at heart. Some writers who are given this title abuse it. The title watchdog is more than just a phrase or a word; it holds value and meaning. The only words that come close are journalist and loyalty; loyalty to the public, to the publication and to themselves. This loyalty to the people increases credibility which is an important factor to take into account when one decides to become a journalist. When a writer loses their credibility, they lose everything. The first thing they lose is the trust of the public. The journalist depends on the public to keep them afloat and to trust them, so that way they can gain superiority and seniority. When one loses the trust of the public, everything soon begins to crumble; Their networks begin to fall through. Their editors and coworkers begin to doubt their abilities and even though everyone knows they are a gifted writer, everyone also knows that they are not a talented journalist. Publications need to make it their mission to check for plagiarism, attributions, and fabrication every time they receive an article. Similarly to the checks and balances in politics, without these reviews in the newsrooms, misinformation makes its way into people’s minds and ruins the trust and credibility the publication obtained over the mistakes of a single person. One bad apple does spoil the bunch, which is why it is important to examine every single one.
Fabricating is a common practice among dishonest journalists which involves creating sources, quotes, or any piece of information is taking the easy way out from doing your job as a journalist. The fabrication of sources and people completely destroys all credibility of the writer. Despite how easy it may be for one to fabricate or plagiarize, journalists should never do it; It is inexcusable. Karen Jeffrey is a great example of a dishonest journalist who has fabricated multiple sources before she was fired from Cape Cod Times. The article “A Cape Cod Times Reporter Made Up Sources” states, “It intuitively makes sense that it is easier to get away with inventing a random man-on-the-street interview than it is to misquote a government official, who could raise an alarm with editors. (As an aside, we’re weirdly interested in the names reporters make up when they fabricate people.” Being a journalist requires hard work, dedication and a sense of morality. It is not about doing the easy thing, it is about doing the right thing. If you are going to be a journalist, then you should know your role. The job is to tell the whole truth and allow the people to make decisions for themselves. Despite the availability, fabrication should never be an option no matter the pressure of the time crunch or the pressure of the anxiety that every job comes with.
Another example of journalists using fabrication as an easy way out is Liane Membis. Membis interned three weeks at the Wall Street Journal when she was terminated for fabrication. In the article, “WSJ pulls story after it discovered intern fabricated sources; intern fired” by Chris Roush states, “‘A Journal spokeswoman provided the following statement: ‘Liane Membis was an intern for the Journal for less than three weeks and wrote or contributed to five published pieces one of which has been removed from our online archives and two of which have been edited to remove quotes that were provided by the intern and that cannot be confirmed. Notes detailing the actions taken have been placed at the original URLs. Ms. Membis is no longer working at The Wall Street Journal’”. This decision made by the Wall Street Journal was a just one and reflected the severity of the ethics violated. They also deserve a pat on the back for having caught Membis so early on in her journalism career. However, it is a shock that Membis only lasted three weeks before being kicked off the publication. I commend them for catching these fabrications so early on, but the kicker here is not only are the higher level journalists fabricating, but even the mediocre beginners. It's unfortunate for her career to be over just as soon as it began but journalism is an industry built on validity and honesty which she simply could not deliver. Her actions were inexcusable and she lost her job because she cared more about putting work out than actually putting in the work.
There are also cases where watchdogs have suspicions and their voices aren’t heard because of multiple reasons, in this case, the seniority of the colleague. Juan Moreno was on an assignment with Claas Relotius of Der Spiegel when Monero made a realization and things began to turn south. Relotius was a strong writer, he had been receiving awards for his hard work and dedication towards investigative journalism. However, Moreno noticed something was off in the progress and overall process of writing of Relotius followed. In “When the news really is fake: German reporter admits fabricating coverage at leading news magazine,” it states, “In his case, it does not appear to have been a reader complaint that ultimately exposed him — but instead one of his colleagues, Juan Moreno. with whom Relotius had teamed to report on vigilante groups along the U.S.-Mexico border, but Moreno soon began to suspect his colleague of fabricating facts. He raised his concerns to the magazine’s editorial board, who were initially unwilling to accept the findings.” Editors and publishers need to take these warnings and bring it to the attention of newsrooms. Because the newsroom brushed off his suspicions, Moreno did some investigating. He interviewed the same people that Relotius did. However, there was one problem. Relotius interviewed no one, thus resulting in his termination. Juan Moreno and other journalists will find it hard to trust newsrooms after instances like this because seniority is beginning to trump honesty and true journalism.
Seniority is not the only advantage that can leave the voices of good journalists go unheard. Racism has oppressed people in different industries for centuries, but it has been particularly underlooked in the journalism industry. The fact that Juan Moreno was a Latino man also presents a disadvantage toward speaking out against the injustices of a senior colleague. The silencing of BIPOC (Black Indgenious People of Color) has allowed many dishonest and lazy journalists to go overlooked for decades; all the newsrooms had to do was listen. This is not the first nor will it be the last time BIPOC voices are ignored and undervalued which is unfortunately common in almost all career paths, even modern day. There is also the fact that BIPOC in a workplace were often promoted much less than their white colleagues which proved trivial for BIPOC to achieve seniority therefore, they are not placed in positions of power to heighten the voice of other BIPOC colleagues so the cycle continues infinitely. Though racism was more openly common during this time it still jeopardized the validity of journalism as a whole. Journalists will look back on this moment and realize that the system works at a disadvantage for people who do not have seniority and are racially oppressed by systems and institutions.
Decisions have consequences. In “Roundup of plagiarism & fabrication cases'' by Mallary Jean Tenore, it states, " Detroit Free Press’ Mitch Albom (2005) Wrote a column that made it seem as though he was at a Final Four game when he really wasn’t. Said two college basketball players were there, even though they never attended the game". Blatantly lying in a news article is one of the biggest mistakes a journalist can make. Bad journalists fail to realize that it is not difficult to ask around and figure out the truth of what happened which is ironic because that is a journalists’ job. Mitch Albom made the mistake of assuming no one would fact check his attendance and the attendance of two basketball players. This was just poor judgement and though fabrication is wrong either way, he did not even think of covering his tracks. This article was an overall sloppy job and cost Mitch his reputation as a journalist. Had he been honest or passed up the story due to his lack of knowledge and attendance he could have easily found a new story and avoided this situation as a whole. It's always better to take your time on a factual and interesting story then cheat your way into multiple and risk everything.
Stephen Glass fabricated over 20 articles while he worked at The New Republic. There were no limits as to what Glass was willing to imagine and fabricate into his articles. Anywhere from phone calls to fake websites, Glass had done it all to cover his tracks in order to stay in good graces and be regarded as a good and talented journalist. In the article, "Shattered Glass at The New Republic" by the American Journalism Review states, "'Fact-checking is not a defense against a systematic deception of this kind.' Glass' fabrications could affect more than his own work, marking yet another blow to journalism – and to the star-crossed TNR”. Glass’ crooked ways could have cost people their livelihood and peace of mind all for the sake of his personal image and success. It must be acknowledged that the severity of fabrication and plagiarism are not to simply punish the journalist for being unoriginal. It’s to give credit when it’s due, and to protect the general public from misleading and dangerous information that could cause panic or have negative consequences on society. It is not personal to the writer, it’s just a matter of what’s right and wrong; it is the principle.
Patricia Smith, a black journalist from The Boston Globe, resigned from her position due to the fact that she was caught fabricating habitually. In “Boston Columnist Is Ousted For Fabricated Articles” by Robin Pogrebin it states, "The fabrications appeared in columns on April 13, 20, 24 and May 11. Mr. Storin said further research would be done into Ms. Smith's work". It was not until the summer 1998 that Patricia Smith was caught fabricating information in her articles. Though, the publication company is still at fault because had there been extensive editing and review of her pieces they would have noticed her stories and sources were not truthful and saved themselves the embarrassment. Had Patricia been more worried about her reputation than her fathers validation, and producing a “good” story, not a truthful story, she could have succeeded with the actual skill it takes to be a journalist alone. Patricia serves as an example for all journalists alike as to what the consequences of cutting corners and plagiarism can be.
Similarly to Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle also resigned from The Boston Globe due to a similar situation. Turns out Mike had fabricated a touching story he published about two boys who meet in a hospital while battling cancer. In “The Globe, columnists, and the search for truth,” Mark Jurkowitz, it states, “In a statement released Friday, Barnicle said he had not 'violated the trust, faith and confidence I hope my readers have placed in me. This is a sad time for the paper and Patricia Smith. It is particularly despicable that a pack of parasites has been participating in a feeding frenzy over the misfortune of others''. The only true difference between Patricia Smith and Mike Barnicle was Patricia is a black woman and Mike is a white man. This highlights the racism and sexism that was very much prevalent in the Journalism Industry during this time that Jurkowitz touches base on in his article. Though it is saddening, the unfortunate truth is that we are not all equal and people like Mike Barnicle have historically gotten away with so much corruption while people like Patricia Smith are made an example of and mocked in the public eye. Not everything, and everyone, is as it seems and though both journalists were in the wrong, Patricia definitely got the shorter end of the stick.
In the article, “For Barnicle, One Controversy Too Many” O’Brien states, “The paper's indecisive handling of the incident and the ultimate punishment (a two-month suspension) outraged many Globe staffers, who bridled at what they saw as special treatment for Barnicle”. Mike had originally been caught plagiarizing when he included someone else's work without giving proper credit. This was in addition to the fabricated story about the two boys with cancer, and any other plagiarism and fabrication he has taken place in over the 25 years he’s written for The Boston Globe. The fact that Patricia was forced to resign almost immediately and Mike was not displays the lack of racial equality when justice is demanded against corrupt journalists. The double-standard presented between the two journalists were evident and most people were aware of the drastic difference in treatment and how these problems were resolved. Mike had simply received a slap on the wrist when he broke the trust of the public and violated the code of ethics every journalist is expected to follow, unlike Patricia who was punished almost immediately. Though topics like sexism and racism are still enforced in institutions such as the journalism industry, it is important for these double-standards to be exposed and for everyone to be held accountable when necessary.
Julie Amparano is another example of a journalist who was fired because she fabricated information. The Associated Press news states, “PHOENIX (AP) _ The Arizona Republic said Saturday it has dismissed a columnist because the newspaper’s editors were unable to substantiate some of her quoted sources. Julie Amparano, a Republic reporter for five years, began writing ‘Conversations’ in July." The Arizona Republic was able to catch her themselves but not before the damage had already been done as she had already been reporting for five years. Amparano was well aware that she was breaking the Code of Ethics, as most dishonest journalists are, which is another reason it is important they are punished for the severity of the crime. Unlike in many cases, this one resulted in termination rather than recognition, both equally as bad on the journalists’ part. It's unfortunate when journalists feel the need to include fictional information instead of doing the time-consuming but honorable work and finding credible sources for her articles. Taking the easy way out should always be frowned upon because the journalists that do the hard work and put in the effort should not have their awards and recognitions stolen and given to those who cheat their way to the top.
Though not as common, there are many cases where journalists plagiarized unintentionally and it costs them their reputation, or worse, their entire career. Ruth Shalit at 24 was already a talented writer who was known for her skills as a journalist. She worked on multiple pieces at once and made the mistake of jumbling up her sources and ideas which lead to her accidentally plagiarizing. Although journalists are human and are bound to make mistakes, plagiarizing is still unacceptable and the importance of editing and reviewing articles before publishing is stressed for this exact reason. To be such a young writer and already have a mistake like this lingering over your reputation is dangerous, and though she apologized, this will be a stain forever marked on her and everything she has worked for. It’s important that journalists understand the severity of plagiarism and fabrication so they can be cautious and avoid that type of humiliation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so regardless of it being accidental, journalists are in a position of power, they are the gatekeepers of knowledge for the general public and need to be held accountable as such.
Trust in the public means more to journalism than some people think. Without trust in the public, journalism wouldn’t exist. In "Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%" by Meghan Brenan it states, "Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, but in the current highly polarized climate, the views of political partisans have become increasingly divergent. President Donald Trump's description of the media as "the enemy of the people" has undoubtedly colored the views of all Americans". The public's trust in the media is decreasing significantly. If the public does not trust journalism then it is time to do some serious revamping on what the issue is so that way we can find solutions, so future journalists are already aware of what is at stake when they break the Code of Ethics. Politicians have hated journalism because we tell the public the truth about what is truly at stake when someone is elected. Therefore, politicians can and will say anything to get the public to choose them over good honest journalism. Journalism highlights the amendment of freedom of speech by giving people the resources they need to form their own opinions. If the news is corrupt then all the value and meaning in journalism is stripped away.
The other reason for plagiarism and fabrication is the time crunch. The time it takes for someone to go outside and find a story, they could be inside creating a novel. This isn’t an excuse to do so. However, a publication should worry about getting one good story in a month rather than ten fabricated stories in two weeks. Publications should put more stress on finding the right story instead of finding the perfect headline. In “A Daily News Editor Is Fired After Plagiarism Accusations” by Christopher Mele, Jessica Pucci states, “But prioritizing speed and exclusivity often causes us to be disloyal to the public, and that actually has a more significant negative outcome on our newsrooms, the journalism profession and ourselves’”. This quote was chosen to highlight the mindset of dishonesty and lack of accountability within the journalism industry. Deceiving the public in exchange for career advances and recognition is selfish and fails to hold the people's best interest at heart. Many bad journalists feel they have justifiable reasons to plagiarize and fabricate information, but whether seeking validation from the public or a solid reputation, neither matter if it is built off of dishonesty and selfishness. Corrupt journalists like Mike Barnicle should model after watchdogs like Juan Moreno who seek to guide people so they do not take aimless shots in the dark. It sounds infantile, but journalists must understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction as well as between credible and noncredible sources. Good journalists do not tell stories, those looking to write fiction should consider seeking a new profession.
Furthermore, I believe the best way to end plagiarism and fabrication is stressing the importance of following the Code of Ethics as well as having set punishments for those who break this foundation. We should take into account people who have accidentally plagiarized and those who have done it on purpose in order to set the standard for what each publication stands for. "A prescription for journalism's ills" by Tom Rosenstiel states, "So what is the remedy for good journalism? Simple but difficult: Tell us what you stand for. Then practice what you preach". Even when something of this magnitude may be difficult to do, it is a necessity in order to stay true to the journalism industry, the public, and one's own accountability. A good publication should do whatever it takes to make sure there is no plagiarism or fabrication being published as honest news. A good journalist is an honest journalist and not everyone has what it takes to meet that level of responsibility. Journalists need to feel comfortable with the fact that in this profession their word represents them and their character therefore, everything is at stake. Patients would not want a doctor who cannot diagnose them similarly to the way the general public would not want dishonest journalists writing their news articles and spreading false information. Journalists are meant to be allies of the people when all else fails, not enemies. It is crucial that we continue to stress the importance of honest and factual journalists and serving appropriate consequences for those who feel the rules do not apply to them. This will help return some honor and faith in true journalism from the public eye over time.
Comments