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 Shikira Fisher
This semester we focused on good journalists turning bad. Over 15 weeks, we’ve looked at case after case of plagiarism and fabrication, and we discussed how it was looked over for so long. In many cases, journalists were doing it for so long they just kept it up until they were caught, or they weren’t given editors that fact-checked their work. The Plagiarism and Attribution article highlighted the golden rule. The golden rule as we know it is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In connection with journalism, you would want someone to give you full credit if they use your work, so you must do the same. Any plagiarism is too much, as the article states. In this digital age, there are more than enough ways to make sure that you’re not plagiarizing anyone’s work. There are even anti-plagiarism programs that you can run your work through to check it.
T he SPJ Code of ethics article gave a list of things good journalists should do. Within the code of ethics, it says journalists should take responsibility for their work, provide context, provide access to sources, and many more things. This article showed that if a journalist does these things they can avoid plagiarism and fabrications. And still, writers continued to ignore these rules.
Early on we discussed the Great Moon Hoax. In, “ The Great Moon Hoax Was Simply a Sign of Its Time, “ we read about what is known as the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, from the findings of Sir John Herschel. He was an English astronomer who traveled to catalog the stars, but he recorded more than stars in his findings. Herschel claimed to create a telescope lens that was 6 times bigger than the telescopes at the time. He also claimed to see brown bison-like animals in herds and single-horned goats. The article, “ The Great Moon Hoax,” further revealed Herschel’s findings. Herschel also claimed to see plant life on the moon and human-like creatures living in a ring of red hills. After the article was released many people didn’t believe the story, but some did believe the story was true. The article says, “Although the lunar narrative may not have been met with credulity as widespread as most accounts of the hoax suggest, it certainly wasn't dismissed as a fraud out of hand. It was plausible enough to give most people pause.” I wonder if Herschel thought people would really believe this, or he just wanted the attention and publicity. If a story that crazy came out today I wouldn’t believe it but I can see how back then it was easier to believe with the lack of scientific developments. Many people back then tried to look for clues as to whether the story was made up or not, but the clues were ambiguous. When I hear the news today that sounds unrealistic, I look for clues and I look at other sources to see if there is some validity in the story.
Next, we learned about Janet Cooke. Cooke wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning story, “Jimmy’s World” in 1980 for the Washington Post which was later found out to be fabricated. “Jimmy’s World” was about an 8-year-old heroin addict from Washington D.C. The article tells the story of Jimmy and his rough upbringing. It was said that his mother’s boyfriend got Jimmy addicted to heroin. In Cooke’s article, she writes, "I said, 'Well, s . . ., you can have some now.' I let him snort a little and, damn, the little dude really did get off." She continued the article to talk about the effects of heroin on Jimmy in his everyday life and how he barely goes to school. Throughout the article, Cooke gives detailed examples of Jimmy’s life and direct quotes from Jimmy, his mother, and his mother’s boyfriend Ron.
In April 1981, Cooke won the Pulitzer Prize for "Jimmy's World”. Days later the Prize was revoked after she admitted her story was a fabrication. In a statement, Cooke said, "The [article] was a serious misrepresentation which I deeply regret. I apologize to my newspaper, my profession, the Pulitzer board and all seekers of the truth." When turning in the article Cooke told her editors that she promised the family anonymity, and the mother’s boyfriend threatened her life if police discover Jimmy’s whereabouts. In the city, the police chief assigned social workers to find Jimmy and the child could not be located. This caused him to question the plausibility of the story. After her story was questioned, Cook persisted that it was true and Jimmy existed. She even told the police chief that she could prove that Jimmy was real. There were no notes of her interactions with Jimmy or his family, and she drove around his supposed neighborhood, and she was unable to find his house. It was thought that Jimmy's World" could have been a combination of the lives Cooke heard about. There was a long meeting with Cooke and editors of the paper, and she kept with her story. The next day she confessed that Jimmy didn’t exist, and she combined many people in one story.
There was outrage in Cooke lying and making up an extremely sad story. But there was even more outrage on how this story got to be published. In the Washington Post article, “Jimmy' Episode Evokes Outrage, Sadness,” A radio personal says, “(we were) shocked, dismayed and angered by the fact that a lie was hoisted in the press; that the story was not checked sufficiently; that it has caused undue political stress on the mayor and the police chief to find a 'Jimmy' that didn't exist." The chief editorial writer at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, William F. Woo, said, "How the story slipped through the system, that's what concerns us professionally." Many were confused and concerned as to how this article made it so far. I believe Cooke was young, and she wanted a story that would really wow people and take her to the next level. She was so focused on getting a good story that she made up her characters.
Through her writing process, Cooke should have had a partner when she went to go “interview” Jimmy and his family. Or she should have had to have proof or tapes of this conversation. If she had to check in and give facts then this situation could have been avoided. After the incident, Cooke left the paper and her short career as a writer was over. The worst part was that Cooke’s fabrication was made more important than the actual heroine problem going on in Washington. In the “OP/ED: Janet Cooke’s Scandal- 35 Years Later” writer Shantall marshall says, “ The saddest part? There were countless kids in Washington D.C. at the time with those problems. The community for a few months when the article was originally published. And then once the story was proven false, forgotten were the children who needed the help.” This lie overshadowed this major issue that was affecting many young people, and no one was talking about it.
Stephen Glass was a writer for the New Republic who was accused of fabrications for over 20 stories. To go through with these fabrications he would create fake websites, emails, and even phone messages. In 1998 he was fired from the new republic after his story “ Hack Heaven” was found out to be a complete fabrication. The story was about a 15-year-old computer hacker who penetrates the security of software named Jukt Micronics. In reality, Glass crested the website himself. According to “ Through A Glass Darkly” Glass completely made up 6 stories and fabricated parts of 21 others.
Before this, he was a very young sought-after writer. In his interview on CNN, he said he did what he did because he wanted to earn the “ Love and respect from the people around him.” He lied because he wanted people to think he was the best writer. After watching the video it seemed like he wanted pity. He didn’t seem truly sorry, he seemed sorry that he got caught in the act. When asked if he was a pathological liar he said no. but story after story Glass lied and didn’t confirm it until he was already caught. Glass was such a great writer that he was trusted, nobody thought that he could be capable of such journalistic sins. In the article, “Rechecking a writer’s facts” it says, “How could The New Republic allow Mr. Glass to repeatedly use anonymous sources? Because Mr. Glass was considered a hard-working, trustworthy member of the staff, editors who worked with him say, fact-checkers gave him the benefit of the doubt.” If he was never confronted he would've kept the lies going. Glass is s great example of letting fame and praise get in the way of his career. He wanted to be the best so bad it cost him his whole career.
Next, we learned about Mike Barnicle. He was a writer at the Boston globe who was asked to resign due to acts of plagiarism and fabrications. Barnicle published a column that used jokes similar to those in the book, ''Brain Droppings '' by George Carlin. When asked about the similarities he said a friend had told him the jokes and never checked the origin. Later a tape resurfaced of Barnicle recommending the book on a television show. Quickly after The Globe's editor, Matt Storin asked Barnicle to resign. He later changed his mind and said, “ that his original decision had been hasty and that it was unfair to give Mr. Barnicle the same penalty as Ms. Smith since his lapse was so much more marginal than hers.” Eight days after this Barnicle resigned at the newspaper’s request. He was asked to resign after writing a story in 1995 about two young cancer patients with no evidence to back up the story. The story was about two boys, one black and one white, who had cancer and were hospitalized together. He was told the story was told to him by a nurse whose name he could not remember, and he never spoke to the boy’s families.
Over 25 years of being a journalist, Barnicle had many instances of plagiarism and fabrication accusations. In the article, “Furor Over Globe Columnist Exposes Fault Lines in Boston” editor Sara Snyder said, ''It's my belief that his work has never been scrutinized to the degree any other reporter's work would be,'' This situation could have been avoided if Barnicle had a partner with him when he did his work, or if he had to give proof of his findings. With reporting there should be recordings or documents of the first had accounts that these writers say they have. If they interviewed someone there should be proof so things like this won’t happen. Barnicle being a white man in the field helped his case. He was given a second chance whereas Patricia smith being a black woman didn’t have that second chance. As stated in the article, “ Editorial Observer; The High Price of Reprieving Mike Barnicle,” “If you take Mr. Barnicle out of the picture and imagine instead Ms. Smith being brought up on the charges of using unattributed material and misleading her editors, she would not have such prominent and persistent defenders. That is because Mr. Barnicle, like this writer, is a product of a male-dominated, mostly white tribal culture that takes care of its own.” This statement is sad but true his offenses weren’t taken as seriously, and he was even forgiven because of his race and gender.
Next, we talked about Christopher Newton who worked for the Associated Press. He was caught fabricating sources and quotes in at least 40 stories and was fired shortly after. Newton was a young writer and got a job at the press shortly after leaving college. In September of 2002, Newton published an article on criminal justice statistics. In the article, he quoted 2 people Ralph Myers and Bruce Fenmore of the “Institute for Crime and Punishment in Chicago”. Both of whom could not be found, nor could the Chicago institute for crime and punishment. Further investigation of his writing led to the discovery of 40 articles that had references that couldn’t be found. In his articles, he cited places such as the ''Education Alliance,'' ''Voice for the Disabled'' and the ''Malen Clinic in New York.'' All of which could not be found. 8 days later on September 16th, Newton was fired.
In an interview, he denied fabricating people and places Newton made a statement and said, ''I was not given an opportunity to account for the names of those people The A.P. did not find,'' he said. ''Setting the record straight is an important matter. I am no longer pursuing the situation with The A.P., but rather with an attorney. We have already located some of those people The A.P. says do not exist.'' Newton denied giving the names and numbers of the people he said he found. The article “Fib Newton” poses an important question, “. What does it say about AP methods and practices that nobody caught him over the course of 32 months?” I think as a new writer Newton wanted to fit in and create great stories that would get him recognized, therefore he fabricated his stories to make them better and more interesting. I also believe that the AP was so busy that they didn’t properly fact-check his work or ask for sources before the work was published. If this was done, then this situation could have been avoided.
Another serious offender of plagiarism and fabrications was Jayson Blair. Blair worked for the New York Times, and in 2003 he was accused of plagiarism and fabrication. He told bosses and colleagues at times that he was reporting from Maryland, Texas, and other places when he was home in New York. He pulled details from photographs and wrote about them as if he was there. He took pieces of other peoples writing and put them in his own. He even wrote a piece about a family grieving for loved ones killed in Iraq, and he wasn’t there for the interview. He also lied in his articles and to his editors about being at a court hearing in Virginia. He did it over the phone. A New York Times article says, “His tools of deceit were a cellphone and a laptop computer -- which allowed him to blur his true whereabouts -- as well as round-the-clock access to databases of news articles from which he stole.” In a Los Angeles Times article “He Stole a Lot More Than My Words”, writer Macarena Hernandez details how Blair stoles sentences from her own story. They were both interns at the New York Times together. In at least 36 of the 73 articles, Blair wrote The New York Times journalist found problems. In 2002 a Metropolitan writer said to newsroom administration, ''We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.'' There was talk of Blair’s dishonesty in the workroom, but the complaints weren’t taken seriously. He was a reporter for nearly 4 years before he resigned.
Years later he apologized by saying, “It kills me personally that (my plagiarism and fabrication) damaged the profession,” Blair said when prompted by university lecturer Sharon O’Malley. “The part that really kills me are the people that I hurt in my personal and professional life who had done absolutely nothing wrong. I’m definitely sorry about it.” His deceit led to the New York times being called unreliable. After this incident, the Times hired a public editor to fact-check work. Blair was a young eager reporter fresh out of college. I think a lack of communication with editors was his downfall. He was working alone, so no one was with him to check if he was in Virginia or Texas or wherever he was supposed to be. He also had complaints about his early work from newsrooms, and even some of his sources made statements that he wasn’t in person for the interview, for a long time these complaints were overlooked. If they would’ve looked into these complaints Blair would’ve been under investigation sooner.
We then learned about Shaun King. King worked for the Daily News and had been accused of plagiarism. In one of his most recent articles, it was found that he had two identical paragraphs to those in a Daily Beast article. He had no quotation marks and he didn’t cite the Daily beast. King said that he added the proper attributions in his article, but the editor removed them without his knowledge. Though he claimed it was the editors’ fault, other journalists brought up previous instances of King plagiarizing. King claimed that in all of those instances he put the proper attributions but the editor took them out. He then claimed he wasn’t aware because he doesn’t read the articles once they’re published. King later wrote on Twitter, "By in large, if you think I plagiarized a damn thing, you can kiss my a**," he wrote. "Feel free to quote that. Those are my words too."
The Daily News editor and chief made a statement and said, “ that the editor in question had "made a series of egregious and inexplicable errors," and on at least three occasions "deleted attribution that made it appear passages from Shaun King's columns were not properly credited." The editor was fired and all of the columns that he edited were under review.
King showed copies of his unedited work, and in his work, he included the proper attributions. Jessica Puccia journalism professor said, “I take issue with that,” she said. “In this instance, it speaks to a larger systemic failure of a newsroom workflow.” this quote is very true. The editors are supposed to check work for plagiarism and fabrications and fix it. In this case, the editor made it look like the writer plagiarized. The Daily News and any other newspapers need to look into their workers better. Things like this shouldn’t happen, and it puts into question the integrity of all the workers.
We ended off the semester talking about the systematic problem of plagiarism. The article, "Journalism Has a Plagiarism Problem. But it’s not the one you’d expect", further talks about the topic of plagiarism and how it differs in different cases. The article says, “ Journalists have continuously grappled not only with the definition of plagiarism but also how to respond to it. Punishment has been consistently inconsistent.” In the cases mentioned above, there were sometimes unfair consequences. In a lot of cases, the journalist was fired, sometimes after years of plagiarism and fabrication, and sometimes the journalist just left the company before being fired. A former editor for the Post made a point, “We save the ‘plagiarism’ word for when we think it’s a really nasty thing, That suggests plagiarism occurs when it’s only a capital offense. And when it’s not a capital offense, it’s not plagiarism. We should have an expansive view of plagiarism. We should not be afraid to call it what it is.” I agree with that statement anything that is along the lines of plagiarism should be called plagiarism. Plagiarism should be equally punished across the board so that there is no confusion. All acts of plagiarism and fabrication should be reviewed and if found true the person should be fired. I think this is the only way for people to see that plagiarism is a serious offense and it’s not respected. If people keep seeing cases of plagiarism getting just suspended they’ll think it's okay.
Overall, I believe most good journalists turn bad because of fame and expectations. They want to make their deadlines, and they want to be the best writer at their office. To do this, they felt like they had to rush and steal material or make up a better story than the real story right in front of them. Doing this greatly impacts the world of journalism as a whole. Many people even today are suspicious of journalists and don't trust them to give people real news. People are very critical of what they read because of all the stories of plagiarism and fabrication. If I were an editor of a magazine or a newspaper I would assign every journalist a partner. They have to work with that partner on all aspects of their story. I would also make sure that they log every encounter they have. For every source they have, I would need a voice or video recording to make sure that there is a source. Even after that, I would make sure that there is an editor for every story. Someone to fact check and make sure that no one is fabrication or plagiarism. Fabrication and plagiarism have been ongoing problems for years and until people in charge start to put their foot down and punish all acts, the problem will continue.
Comments