Doing the right thing
I've been reluctant to comment on the Reidsville Review 's dealings with the reporters who falsified quotes because we are involved in reporting it.
I will say this, though. I admire the reporters and editor involved. for standing up and facing the music openly, rather than ducking and covering. By all accounts, these are talented journalists who screwed up. (And there should be no question: for journalists, it's a big screw-up.) From their comments, it seems they've learned a big lesson. I wish them luck.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Taking the high road (thanks for explaining it, I didn't understand why you didn't address it) often pays off. When I first read about it, I thought, "What a small thing to muck up with such huge consequences."
What do you think of what probably used to go unnoticed but is now, due to the Web mostly, so apparent to so many? Can anyone live up to this scrutiny? Are journalists going to become fearful of not triple-checking the tiniest "facts?" Will this growing accountability stifle creativity?
Not for bloggers (we just use "strikeout"). But for the print folks?
Posted on July 31, 2005 1:20 PM
The New York Times Book Review has a cover story addressing this very thing, Sue. Personally, I think the web scrutiny is making us look harder at detail. We know that we get called on our errors; Hogg's corrections of Hardin's column is a case in point.
Our responsibility is to be accurate and fair. Being checked by others should only reinforce that. I definitely think it won't stifle responsible creativity. Of course, I hope it does stifle creativity with the truth.
Posted on July 31, 2005 5:32 PM
I was reporting for a summer in MA when the Jason Blair thing broke - and then the increased scrutiny tagged Rick Bragg and a lot of other reporters whose work I enjoy for not being as cautious as they might be.
I was reporting this story on fish poaching (excitement galore) and became so paranoid I felt like asking people to prove the names they gave me were legit. In print it does feel scarier - to me, at least, because once your errors are out there, they're out there. You can correct them, but more slowly and clumsily with more embarassment.
Posted on August 1, 2005 9:21 AM
There is a difference between getting a fact wrong or an attribution backward, these things happen and are forgivable. After the correction is printed the problem mostly goes away. But making stuff up out of whole cloth is just plain stupid, especially for a feature that was so minor. Hopefully these guys have learned their lesson. I admire the fact that they are standing up to what they did and acknowledging they were wrong.
Posted on August 1, 2005 4:14 PM
late to the party, but -
"The New York Times Book Review (?) has a cover story addressing this very thing"
(fwiw, Jack Shafer didn't like it)
Different topic -
I have questions relating to the (former) Reidsville Review editor's letter of explanation, in which he says:
"Earlier in the day I had a disagreement with my publisher and some advertising staff over the independence of the editorial department and what should be an ethical wall between advertising and news. I was upset at the path the paper was taking..."
How often does this happen? How would someone go about measuring this wall, and how strong it typically is at different papers?
Also, a semantic question - what is the "editorial department" - is it the department where written pieces get edited (i.e., including news), or is it the folks who write the editorials?
Posted on August 2, 2005 12:13 AM