Exposing Plagiarism/Fabrication

I agree completely. I think any time a random person is quoted in a story, the writer should have to produce the person's phone number so editors can verify that the person actually exists. If I was going to try to expose writers for fabricating things, that's where I would start because it's very tough to catch them and I think a majority of editors don't want to catch them.

 

I covered a game in 2000 or so and the lead columnist (now a very prominent national columnist) from one of the local papers had a quote from a fan after the game. The quote was perfect, too perfect. My friend who worked at that paper said, "I drove with him to the game. I sat next to him during the game, I walked down with him to the postgame press conference, I walked back with him to the press box, I sat next to him as he wrote and I left with him and drove back to the hotel. There was no way he talked to this guy..."

I think that kind of stuff happens all the time...

 

You also have to question how often it happens per writer.

A writer under the gun on deadline who fabricates a quote once just because he doesn't have time to interview someone, vs. the writer who does it habitually, in nearly every story he writes.

Is one worse than the other?

 

Only if you're trying to justify it and it cannot ever be justified...

 

Seriously, you address it when it happens, and you don't make it part of a larger problem.

It remains an aberration, should be dealt with severely, but we've got bigger issues to address in this climate, like how to, uh, remain in business.

 

Print journalism surely has many problems, but plagiarism and fabrication decay the credibility of journalism. If readers can't trust what they read, there is no reason to invest their time and money.

With so many high profile cases, involving prestigious titles, don't you think this is a huge issue?

And, you say it's an aberration, but how do we know?

Yes, plagiarism is easier to detect now, but would Lynn Hoppes have been exposed without someone like Deadspin spending considerable time researching his writing?

And, as others have said, fabrication can he harder to detect. Would Lehrer have been caught if he wasn't fabricating quotes from someone who is both as famous, and media shy, as Dylan?

I would guess it becomes easier to do it each time, once you've crossed the line the first time. It's human nature.

You get away with it the first time, and think, "why not?"

 

There's a national columnist with whom I share several friends, though I do not know him/her. I've heard from more than one of those friends that said columnist ALWAYS has that "perfect quote" and it's just a little suspicious. Especially when it's not like columnists go out in the stands every game, so for him/her to find someone to say exactly the right thing, on deadline, every time? Raises a flag.

 

In 2002-03, I took a leave from this job. They guy they had working it while I was gone was a poor writer at best (He wrote one golf story that had the high score winning). When I came back in '03, one of the first people I talked to was the juco men's basketball coach. He told me that he had never met my replacement nor talked to him on the phone, yet somehow he was quoted in the guy's stories.

 

Plus give them a small digital camera and tell the reporter to take the person's mug shot. If their picture is in the paper, it would make it hard for them to make up people and/or quotes.

 

So, are "whistleblowers" frowned upon or ostracized in some way?

Why is there no desire to expose these people? Is it not worth the hassle, or you think you couldn't prove it, or are worried no one would follow up on the accusations?

In the past, maybe you could only go to your boss, but now, depending on the offender, you could pass along a tip to Romenesko or Deadspin, or someone else.

 

I don't think whistleblowers should be ostracized, but I think they probably would be.