Fact vs. Fiction

What happens when a tragic story, one that grips your heart and boggles your mind, one that wins a prize, wasn't ever true? What happens when you discover that a heralded reporter is in fact a very gifted fiction writer? That's what happened when Janet Cooke's heartbreaking article Jimmy's World was discovered to be completely false, utterly fabricated.

The story follows a 5-year-old boy who is addicted to heroin. It's a harrowing story of street smarts, drugs, abuse, racism, and possible early death. You can't read this story and not be moved by it. Since it was published in 1980, nine years before I was even a twinkle in my parents' eyes, I could only approach this story with the knowledge that it was fake.

However, that didn't stop me from becoming engrossed. It's beautifully written, and the language and tone create a stark honesty that made it so convincing. I wanted to believe this story; I wanted to believe in the nitty gritty and profound journalism that would have been necessary to find a story like this. I began to read the article like a chapter in a novel. I found myself analyzing the dialogue and wondering how long it took her to master a dialect, master the voice of a 5-year-old drug addict. There were times when I wondered how people didn't question this immediately, and there were times where I felt betrayed as a reader because the voice was so strong.

It left me wondering what would drive someone to do this. Completely fabricating a story in journalism is a risk I couldn't imagine taking. Why would you take a chance on your career, your reputation? Cooke later went on to offer a small explanation, but it didn't seem good enough. Even though the ways of fact-checking in the 1980s weren't nearly as extensive as they are now, the core values and heart of journalism remain the same. If someone could do this then (for the sake of producing something great under pressure), what's stopping it from happening again?

Something needs to change, starting with the interior of journalism. Whether it's re-evaluating values, taking a closer look at the stories, or reestablishing faith and trust amongst the reporters, this cannot happen again. Unfortunately, I'm sure it already has.

Fox Reigns Supreme

In a recent poll, FOX News was voted the Most Trusted Television Network, with 49 percent of Americans placing their trust in the network. That's 10 more percentage points than any other network involved in the poll; CNN was voted second with 39 percent of the vote. So, I pose this question to you: Why do you think FOX won this poll? It certainly doesn't have a reputation for being unbiased. So why FOX and not CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS? Is it a choice between the lesser of the evils? Or, is it because FOX "tells the public what they want to hear," according to the PPP President Dean Debnam.

Is this surprising, or no? Tell me what you think!

No Bias, Huh?

Cardinal rule #1 of journalism: if you have a political affiliation, SHUT UP. Do not tell, show, display, announce, etc. what your political leanings are. Guess the rules don't apply to Washington Post reporter Deborah Howell, who in her article Remedying the Bias Perception, only makes matters worse. 

First of all, in the third paragraph, she admits that she voted for Barack Obama.

WHAT? Did you just admit your political leanings? And it doesn't stop there.

She goes on to say how conservatives have a right to be pissed at the press, because most of them are indeed liberal. That's just how journalism is. Sorry, Republicans, but there is a bias. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Woah. Woah. Woah.

I almost couldn't believe what I was reading. Never have I read an article that was so incriminating to journalism. Never. I can't believe this article went to press. For her to come right out and go, "Yup. It's unfair. We could try to fix it, but because we want to change the world, we're still gonna be liberal."

So, now "changing the world" is the excuse for bias?

Mistaking Incompetence for Corruption

It goes without saying that the press isn't going to win any popularity contests.

Most of them were probably never King or Queen of their prom.

Like that really matters.

Anyway, most people on the street would concur that the media has a pretty bad rap. American news organizations have long been accused of being biased, underhanded, and just downright wrong.

But is this hatred of the media unfounded?


Roy Peter Clark thinks so. In his article, The Public Bias Against the Press, he acknowledges the media's shortcomings but argues that they, in no way, deserve the reputation that's been forced upon them. He claims that people don't trust the media because that's what they've been taught to do. He says that because of sites like this and shows like this, journalism will be forever tainted.


He goes so far as to say that reporters today are some of the most well-trained, well-prepared people out there. And while it's true that it's courageous for many of these men and women to risk their lives for a story, I think the awwww factor does little for Clark's argument. 


Reputations are not wrong always accidental or misleading.

Sure, journalists absolutely take a beating through television portrayals. Some of the stories they report are amazing, eye-opening, and important. Without them, we wouldn't be connected to the world around us. But I don't agree with Clark that bias is wholly on the part of the public. The public wants to believe its news, but it's finding more and more that it can't.

That's just reality.

Yes, politicians hate the media (I think with good reason). Yes, some of the "fluff" journalism and celebrity gossip is undermining the seriousness of the reporting world. Yes, journalists are made fun of in late-night TV. But you can't compare yourself to lawyers for child pornographers. That's going way too far. No one hates journalists as much as criminals. That's just an unfair bias against the public, Mr. Clark.

If you want us to give you the benefit of the doubt, try returning the favor first.

Vendetta Against Pink

I hate Valentine's Day. As it creeps closer and closer, I find myself bracing for all those engineered Hallmark moments. Cute couples strolling hand-in-hand, candlelit dinners, boxes of chocolates, roses (or any flower, for that matter), declarations of love (on Facebook of course) and cuddly teddy bears.

It all makes me want to barf. And it's not just because I'm an angry, bitter single. It's because Valentine's Day is such an obnoxious holiday. It's a marketing ploy that turns people into crazies because for one day a year, they're supposed to remember how much they love each other.

My ideal Valentine's Day goes like this: a nice boy (preferably with dark hair and a really good smile) sitting on my couch, eating takeout, and watching a movie. If V-Day was in the summer, I'd wanna chill on the beach. But not just on February 14th. I hope whoever I end up with remembers that they love me everyday.

Take that, Cupid.

Shame on You

If you haven't heard of the fiasco that happened at Fairfield University this past semester, click here. Catch up, read up, then come back. And we'll chat (if you can still formulate coherent thoughts after your brain eeks out your ears from the utter stupidity of what you're about to read).

Finished? Good. Let's get into it.

Coming from the perspective of a high school newspaper editor-turned college newspaper reporter-turned college newspaper copy editor, I would have never, ever in a million years published this piece. First of all, it's revolting. The language used to describe a "one-night stand" is so degrading, so offensive to women, I can hardly formulate words. Second of all, the topic is inane. The "She Said" sister column was so bland and poorly written that no one bothered to pay it any attention. This topic has no business in a college newspaper. Where's the news? The journalism? It's fluff, pure and simple. Not that there's anything wrong with a little fluff, but this was mind-numbing. Whose idea was it?

It goes without saying that the campus, and the surrounding community, burst a blood vessel when this article made print. All of a sudden, harassment claims were being filed, protests were accruing all over campus, and damage-control hit an all-time high. The editorial staff apologized for the lewdness of the article, but stood on their right to free speech.

Here's my personal opinion. Free speech is extremely important. It's what drives every print/media/news organization here in America and is, without a doubt, one of the most beloved and treasured rights we have as citizens.

It's also a scapegoat.

For me, freedom of speech does not cover Chris Surette's offensive and horrific article. I can see where some students felt harassed by the content. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and if this is his, I can't tell him he's wrong. But when you print that opinion, using that kind of language, in a Catholic, private university's newspaper--now I can tell you that you're wrong. That was the wrong avenue for such a column. You want to run your mouth, brag about your conquests--go right ahead...somewhere else. Get a LiveJournal, a Blogspot, whatever floats your boat. Keep that nastiness out of the student paper.

However grossed out I am by Surette's piece, I'm more disappointed in The Mirror's editors; that column never should have left the cutting-room. As a copy editor, I never would have edited that piece for publication. I would have informed my editor of how offended I was, and discouraged her/him from publishing it. I'm baffled by the thought-process of the staff. They messed up, big time.

The issue was eventually settled, and the He Said/She Said columns were disbanded. While this was an appropriate and smart move, I think it came a little too late. Shame on you.

The Journalist and The Murderer

It's a label all journalists both despise and fear:

LIAR.

Being labeled a liar, a fabricator, a fraud in journalism is career-ending. In a world where the truth pays the bills, anything less is unacceptable. There are rules in place, ethical rules, that don't operate on a "three-strike-and-you're-out" mentality.

Lie once, and you can pack your things.

That's what happened to Michael Finkel, a reporter for The New York Times who fabricated a character in an article he wrote about child labor in Africa. After he was caught and fired from his job, Finkel was faced with the most bizarre twist of fate that seemed too unbelievable to be real.

Christian Longo, a man wanted for the murders of his wife and three young children, had been living in Mexico under the assumed identity of a New York Times reporter.

Michael Finkel.

The disgraced journalist soon formed a bond with the convicted killer, and through the unconventional relationship, reevaluated his own life and deceptions.

This all boils down to one question: what happens when a journalist becomes a part of what they're reporting? All the blog entries for class this week will deal with that question. Can a journalist accurately and impartially report a story that they've become emotionally and/or physically involved in? Michael Finkel saw Christian Longo's story as his chance for journalistic redemption, but in the end, it became a lot more.

The brief article I read in Vanity Fair (a small excerpt from Finkel's book) fascinated me. I was completely drawn into the story and curious as to how everything worked out. If you're like me and want to know more, order a copy of True Story from Amazon. I think this is a very interesting issue, one I'm anxious to explore further.

In Too Deep?

Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the ever-expanding social media has changed the way reporters play their game. Now, the spotlight is even harsher on those knowledge-seekers, those community watchdogs. People trust the media to be as unbiased as humanly possible (a standard that I find completely ridiculous). According to this article, newspapers like the Washington Post are completely correct in cracking down on their employees' social networking activity.

Me? I think it's all a bunch of rubbish.

First of all, since when did journalists become robots? They're real people, just like us (except with a much bigger sense of curiosity than the majority of us news-receivers). Social media is a fast-paced, rapidly-expanding phenomenon. I think it's extremely passe for newspapers and other news outlets to restrict the growth of such a new-age technology. They may be preventing "damage control," but they're also preventing some really great things from happening.

Social media is the future for news, advertising, social networking, and jobs. It's absurd to ignore its advances and try to inhibit its growth. It can't be stopped.

Now, there are some concerns with social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. These sites are innately personal, meant to showcase little details about an individual. It's easy to see where the conflict comes in for journalists. They are supposed to be unbiased, so obvious political affiliations, embarrassing pictures, or inflammatory posts/comments aren't going to put anyone in a good light.

But can you make a rule that warns people against being stupid?

Just What's On My Brain...

Love, love, love this song.