Fakes and frauds

While reading the book chapter and articles about fakery in journalism for this week, it made me ponder the rather thin line that separates real news from fraudulent reporting. Jack Kelley certainly crossed that line several times in USA Today when he fabricated certain stories or embellished the facts to be more dramatic. Whatever one thinks of that newspaper, it does generally follow basic journalistic guidelines for accuracy and reliability. Whats even more disturbing about his situation is that he denied any culpability or poor judgment after confronted with solid evidence of his frauds.

The Mike Barnicle situation is similar but a bit more complex. As a columnist whose role is more about telling stories and expressing opinion, he has more latitude for creativity in his writing, but because his approach is less formal, it also is more important that we can trust that the anecdotes he describes really happened and that he accurately convey the statements or opinions of people he interviewed. As the Boston Phoenix piece explains in great detail, on several occasions he hedged the facts or bent the statements of people to support the story he wanted to tell (it looks like most of his transgressions occurred in the early 1990s, which may or may not be significant).

My own take on Barnicle is that I liked his columns for a while, in his early years at the Globe, but over the last few years there he became very predictable and more annoying than insightful. I sense that he became rather complacent and comfortable in his role as a highly visible and "respected" pundit for Boston and New England, so laziness crept in. The columns seemed more phoned-in than heart-felt and he seemed to coast on his credentials. The Globe was quite justified in forcing him to resign finally in 1998, and should have done so sooner. However, he had attained a certain superstar status of the local media scene, seemingly too valuable to fire, but much like Manny Ramirez with the Red Sox, management finally reached the breaking point and found the guts to get rid of him.

Both situations reveal that journalists are all too human, as they say -- susceptible to taking shortcuts and making things up when reality isn't quite appealing or interesting enough. I'd like to think that I wouldn't do those things, but in all honesty it probably would happen. It makes me realize that the daily or weekly requirements for journalists/columnists to write interesting and compelling stories will mean that sometimes the material they have in their notes might seem a bit skimpy and in need of poetic license to make it have more impact on the printed page. I also come to appreciate more that the work of a foreign correspondent is somewhat like a doctor or policeman, where you can do your job well 99% of the time, but having a few instances of poor judgment or questionable ethics will draw attention and possibly permanently stain your reputation.