Exposing Plagiarism/Fabrication

Given everything going on with newspapers these days, I don't think there are too many editors out there who would do their due diligence if they thought one of their writers might be guilty of fabricating stories.

Most of the people who are caught are caught by accident or if they're exposed by one of the websites... Even then, Hoppes wasn't fired and the Sports By Brooks stuff wasn't enough to get Woody Paige fired, granted, the stuff they accused him of fabricating were from 10-15 years ago, not that that makes it OK.

When layoffs are decimating staffs, morale is low as is, so I doubt any editor is going to go out of their way to expose of of their writers unless they are presented with proof, and even then it might not be enough...

 

Getting a phone number and a picture of someone might work for features, but not very often if you're doing hard news or a story involving a sensitive subject. Hard enough getting people to talk, but to say you need a picture and their phone number? Forget about it.
One paper I worked for made us tape record all interviews, even if we used shorthand/wrote notes, so there would be recorded "evidence." I thought that was an idea that worked better. Also helps back up if there's any confusion about quotes after the story is printed.

 

Record everything. If it was a quote from a team release, say that's what it was. Two good steps toward covering yourself.

 

Yeah, I think that would be fine as well. Just some kind of proof that you did it. If you start asking for something like that, I think you would see some of this shit stop. Coincidentally, the quotes would start getting a lot worse...

 

Just to clarify, I don't think 'most' means 50+1.

As in any profession, there are professionals and there are lazy cheats. Most are professionals. More than 51 out of 100.

About writers who always seem to have the perfect quote at the perfect time, and whether that indicates some sort of hijinks or wishful creativity: Don't overlook the possibility that the writer had the quote, and then framed the story around it, instead of writing the story and stumbling upon the quote.

 

These last two paragraphs particularly hit home with me.

At my last two shops, I had to deal with a fiction writer. One was a rook, the other a vet. In both instances, it only took a few weeks of editing their work to catch on. You sort of see a pattern.

The aforementioned vet is so incompetent and been at the shop so long practically everyone in the community knows he's a boob. But, he's disabled and I think corporate is afraid to fire him. It was such a frustrating experience I moved on.

Appreciate all the previous posts on this subject.

 

There just doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in examining how big the problem is, or in rooting out the offenders.

It does remind me of the steroid era in baseball.

And, if "everyone knows" about offenders who have gone unpunished, then the credibility of all journalists is dampened.

And, while I'm not saying anyone here is defending it, the idea that management would sweep infractions under the rug blows my mind.

Coverups are the kinds of things journalists should be exposing, not indulging in.

It erodes trust if you don't expose it.

 

But how do you REALLY feel?

 

Freelanced for a medium-sized paper that was super diligent about this. Even if I just named someone, never mind quoting. For instance, I wrote a story about kids getting therapy by going on hikes with this legally blind guy. He told me a great anecdote about one of the kids. Didn't end up writing a quote from the kid, but used her name, and took out her last name for confidentiality reasons. My editors wouldn't let it go until I gave them the kid's last name and a phone number, to make sure she was real. Really struck me, in a good way.

 

This link - - from JimRomanesko.com - - contains an interesting look into the fabrications and the attempted cover-ups by Stephen Glass. The column is written by a journalism professor who was the one who "caught" the fabrications and ran them to ground.

Interesting reading...


http://www.fastcompany.com/1800761/stephen-glass-lawyer-fabulist

 

What's interesting is that the handful of people who were caught doing this are almost never caught by their editors.

I would love it if Deadspin or one of the other sites started randomly policing those journalists who write something that looks suspicious.

Sports By Brooks did a good job with the Paige story awhile back, but even then they didn't have anything recent to cite.

 

I remember hearing of city editors and managing editors who would do regular spot checks on sources by calling them at random and making sure they talked for the respective newspaper stories. Great idea, even during hard times. Accountability and quality assurance go hand in hand in this business, and it never hurts to be up front about it.