“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values“- Canadian theorist Marshall McLuhan-
One of the key elements of journalism is the ability to report facts from a legitimate standpoint. And whether the story is a feature in your local newspaper, or a controversial expose, courtesy of a major publication, telling the truth is imperative.
But what happens when fabrication overrides the truth and becomes a front-page headline? The answer: embarrassment and a critical debate as to whether ethics still play a pivotal role in the news industry. Such questions surfaced in 2003, when New York Times reporter Jayson Blair “committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud," ranging from manufacturing quotes to stealing information from competing newspapers.
Blair who wrote articles on Washington snipers John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo has since resigned from the venerable tabloid. A man whose creative prowess speaks for itself, Blair was occasionally reprimanded for unprofessional behavior and errors in his writing. Case in point: In April 2002, Johnathan Landman, Metropolitan editor,wrote an e-mail addressed to the Times newsroom administrators stating that “We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."
Obviously, Landman’s e-mail was ignored, since Blair remained at the Times. Then in a move to improve his job performance, Blair took some personal time off, with the warning that his job was on the line. When he returned, he was determined that his articles would become the stuff that great writing is made of. Thus, began the “improvement" stage. His writing was crisp and burgeoning with a hint of drama that made readers want to see more, and they did.
And to add more intrigue to the drama, Blair was sent to the national news desk to assist in covering the sniper story. It is at this point that Blair’s stature grew. Hence, his articles were used by other organizations, and in one story he wrote that Malvo was primarily responsible for the murders. A comment which set off a storm of controversy. But now his career is over, and critics contend Blair only has himself to blame. Or does he?
According to experts, today’s newspapers are more competitive than they were 30 years ago. For example, editors urge their reporters to go after the big stories. Hence, the bigger the story, the more papers they sell. And nowhere was that competitiveness more evident than in the late 90s during the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky scandal. The sordid details about the escapades of President Clinton and the love-struck intern, captivated Americans in 1998 and throughout the early months of 1999.
Consequently, newspapers capitalized on the public’s fascination by writing about everything under the sun and then some. All of a sudden, every woman whoever came in contact with the charismatic commander-in-chief came barreling out of the woodworks. And when you think about it, who knows if everything they said was true. For example, did the women who claimed they had sexual contact with Clinton actually do so, or were they just clamoring for 15 minutes of fame?
Likewise, did writers do a thorough background check on those people who were all too willing to divulge information? And lastly, did the reporters ask the women why they suddenly decided to come forward after years of silence? The answer to all those questions is, may be, may be not. Why? Because newspapers are willing to deliver the goods at any cost.
As for anonymous sources, I have a feeling that there were more than a few parading as fabricators. But we will never know, and that is what is so troubling. In reviewing this debacle, and for anyone who thinks the Blair case was an isolated incident, wake up. At this moment there are reporters at major newspapers who are doing the same thing as Blair.
And whether they get caught, depends on the extent of their misdeeds, which reminds me that, fabricating the news is nothing new. It has occurred in the past and will continue in the future. And for those who insist that journalism has lost its integrity over the years, who can argue with them? After all this is an industry that focuses on sensationalism. A perfect example of a society in which titillation has taken a tremendous edge over truth and honesty. |
