The Art of Lying

Speaking of Twain: What's happened to the art of the journalistic hoax?

Yesterday The New York Times devoted 14,000 words to correcting the many misstatements of Jayson Blair, a recently resigned reporter with a habit of making things up. To quote the Times' summary: "He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not."

The scandal has provoked much commentary, mostly on whether big papers should be hiring kids straight from college before they've paid their dues in the newsprint sticks. But no one seems concerned with how dull these inventions are. Say what you will about Stephen Glass, but at least his lies in The New Republic were entertaining to read; Twain himself might have concocted the best of them. Blair, meanwhile, created uninteresting details (an interviewee "turning swiftly in her chair") and bland clich?s (a combat veteran declares, "I am still looking over my shoulder"). It's no surprise that Blair is guilty of plagiarism as well as invention: Even when he makes stuff up, it feels like something you've read before.

Glass has a book coming out later this year, a frankly fictionalized account of his spell spinning fabulations at TNR. I can't wait to read it, if only to remind myself how much fun a hoax can be -- when its author puts some care into its creation.

Comments

[Fred App]

The Associated Press encountered a similar problem last year with a reporter named Christopher Newton; in that case, too, the fabrications were completely unremarkable. Seems that the difference between Blair/Newton and Glass is that the latter lied to spice up his stories and make them more interesting, while the former were just covering up their laziness. That might make Glass more entertaining, but it also makes his lies more harmful -- they actually meant something, instead of serving simply as easily ignored and inconsequential filler.

There's another difference, of course. Blair and Newton are black; Glass is not. Somehow, that seems to mean that Glass' deceptions are an individual failing, whereas Blair and Newton's indict an entire race. That's something I cannot understand.

[Anonymous]

Glass and Blair should get together and write for the Onion.

[Stretch Cannonbury]

I agree. I've been surprised by the number of sensible people who think this is an affirmative action story. I mean, it MIGHT be, but there's no evidence.

I think the real reason is in plain sight: Raines and Boyd have terrorized their staff, driving many of the best away. I've read that morale has plummeted and that Raines & Boyd do not tolerate dissent. Witness the whole bizarre Augusta fracas.

I think NYT's middle managers were afraid to contradict their bosses. The bosses liked Blair, and nobody dared to disagree. The blame can be placed squarely at the feet of the three gentlemen directly involved - Blair, Raines, and Boyd. They did not tolerate dissent, and now they've openly declared that they will not tolerate criticism with regard to this story.

[Ranald H.]

The NY Times has become America's Newspaper 'with a' Record.

Look, the problem goes much deeper than Blair, beyond Boyd and even Raines. Journalistic integrity under Pinky Sulzberger's stewardship has not been worthy of a 'paper of record'. Journalists make mistakes, sure, but the NY Times has become particularly unreliable.

I nominate the Blogosphere as the 'Medium of Record'. It was here that the Art of Fisking emerged.

[Jesse Walker]

Actually, it emerged in nightclubs. Of course, they called it "heckling" then.

[Insert emoticon of choice here.]

[Keith]

All I gotta say:

http://wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C53048%2C00.html

[Stretch Cannonbury]

What's the difference between a hoax and a lie? That's a good question for somebody smarter than me to answer.

A few years ago our local TV station was conned by a professional hoaxster who claimed he was terrorizing his neighbors by "hacking" into their alarmclocks, plumbing, etc. His purpose was to expose the disturbing lack of judgment and intellegence that characterizes most local TV (and...lessee...most cable TV, most network TV, most premium TV...)

I guess a hoaxster lies with the intention of revealing himself, and the liar lies with the intention of not. And I guess the hoaxster lies as the subject of news, and Glass, Blair, and their ilk lie as journalists.

Glass is no hero, but he probably did perform some service in straightening up the indispensible New Republic, which proved itself a little too game when it came to reporting the shenanigans of the right wing.

But Blair is just 100% loser.

[Douglas Fletcher]

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers.

[Ranald H.]

...The Greek Chorus, Jesse?

[Thale]

Jesse--any thoughts on the academic Sokal hoax of a few years back? In my view, such stunts as Sokal's can be quite socially useful--in his case, revealing the "emperor has no clothes" quality of many postmodern thinkers. But it can be quite damaging also, in the sense that academic journals and newspapers at least (claim to) aspire to factual accuracy and to be an honest attempt at conveying opinion. Perhaps these hoaxes are only good satirical--and thus "true" in a meaningful sense.

[Jesse Walker]

The Sokal hoax was frankly satirical, and was revealed right after it was published. I approve of it.

Glass' hoaxes were unethical on many levels: putting fake quotes into real people's mouths, for example, or co-writing a piece with someone who's unaware that his real reporting is being mixed with lies. That's different from Sokal, and I don't defend it. But I still admire a lot of Glass' pieces as fiction, whatever I think of the person who wrote them or the way he got them published.

Blair can't even say that much.