Liar, Liar...

[khaosworks]

So, by now you've probably read the New York Times report on Jayson Blair and his career of deception, plagiarism and just plain making things up. Gotta tell you, when news of this broke a few days ago I rushed back to see if I had quoted any of his articles and am glad to say I've never relied on anything he said for news.

Be that as it may, these things happen. Which is why I try to take Frank Zappa's view of the media - everybody has an agenda, everybody is biased. So what he did was he read everything, and what they all tended to agree on would be the closest to the truth. That is not a perfect system by any means, but it's a pretty useful filter. Me, I don't pretend I have time to read every perspective on every news item, so I rely on a few sources I've generally found to be reliable or, shall we say, less suspect than most.

What I like is the way the New York Times has handled the situation. They realize that credibility is their best, only resource. That's what they're selling the public, and if they lose that, it's all over for them. They investigated it quickly, came up with their report and their conclusions, which I agree with. Jayson Blair was an aberration who took advantage of the system of trust that journalists work under, who lied bald-faced when confronted with anomalies, but could have been caught if there had been more communication between editors.

The sad part is that the New York Times' credibility might never be as high again. The good thing to come out of this is the lessons learned. No, not that journalists can lie. We've known that for decades - remember Janet Cooke of the Washington Post (and more recently, Stephen Glass of the New Republic )? The lessons learned include things like realizing that even great newspapers can be deceived, and it is incumbent upon the editors to ensure that they can identify those who would abuse the trust that is given reporters. The other lesson is that the reader should not take what they read at face value, but adjudge it with a critical eye and see if it fits the known facts. Finally, the best lesson to take away from all of it is this:

Buy the goods from the guy you know can be relied on. And get a receipt.

(thanks to camwyn for reminding me about this news item. I already knew, but it's nice to be notified in case I didn't.)

Comments

For what it's worth,

[camwyn]

the Times was forthcoming enough to not only print the article about this on the first page, but to put the headline (and several column inches of text) above the fold in lettering almost as big as that used for the story next to it about religious leaders in Iran. And then to devote two more entire pages inside to the entire story and all the details about it. Full disclosure is a good thing.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Makes you wonder what sort of "journalism" is being practiced at papers not so forthright and careful as the Times.

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, the thing that got me about the report was how high Blair's correction rate was; something like 50 or so published corrections in 3 years. Now, I compare this to my knowledge that, with one exception, every newspaper article I've ever been referenced in, or that was about something I had intimate knowledge about, has contained 3-4 factual errors at a minimum, and I wonder 1) whether the press is deluding themselves about how accurate they actually are or 2) just what the severity of error is required for an official correction or if people even bother to let the papers know about such. 'Cause that number of reported errors sure seems low to me.

The one exception was a story in the UMichigan paper on Harlan Ellison, due to Harlan speaking at UM that evening. I'd managed to convince the reporter to let me do a factchecking pass on it before it was published, telling her I wouldn't say a word about any opinions, but I'd point out any hard facts that were wrong and if I could, show her a reference to prove it. She could then do what she wanted with it. I recall that I caught about 3-4 factual mistakes, which she corrected. Harlan actually stated during his talk that this was the first article about him of hundreds that had no factual errors, and lauded the reporter. Who was kind enough to call out from the audience that it was due to my factchecking.

Tom Galloway