Lede in Esquire: Pushing the bounds of "nonfiction"?

Remember Junod's article on Michael Stipe from several years ago? Similar sort of controversy. He couldn't get Stipe to talk much, so the story ends up being half fiction, half truth (there was a note in the issue explaining that, but I don't think the article said what was fake and what wasn't), with the result sort of being a statement about all celebrity profiles.

http://www.mediabistro.com/feature/archives/01/05/16/

 

Well, apparently not.

 

When the hell did I say that?

If I did, I don't know why.

I said I don't have a problem with this lead to this story, for reasons stated.

 

This just makes me wish I worked at Esquire ... because I'd love to write for a readership made entirely of 'reasonable' people.

EDIT: I still wonder ... why in the world not just throw an editor's note on there? "The following story was painstakingly researched and fact-checked. The first page, however, is a recreation of what we believe to have happened on that day, based on research and the evidence collected at the scene."

That doesn't break up the flow at all and he can guess till his heart's content with no worries.

 

What's really funny is that Granger's monthly "Editor's Letter" is about the story, and two pages later there's a little blurb about it called "Backstory" and while they say the writer did exhaustive research, they never address the fictionalization. All that 'splaining and they obviously expect us to swallow this fudging and assume the writer is a clairvoyant or something. It's the very pinnacle of editorial arrogance.

 

Yup.

 

Maybe it's just Esquire creating a new genre of nonfiction writing, similar to the New Journalism stage it helped usher in. They can call it Truthiness Nonfiction.

 

Here's an interesting paper given by Elliott Parker of The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication on "In Cold Blood". It's from 2001.

He addresses both the idea of literary/narrative/new journalism in the context of "In Cold Blood".

Worth reading.

http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101b&L=aejmc&T=0&P=7693

Here's a sample.

Literary journalism historians Kerrane and Yagoda similarly praised Capote's portrayal of Perry (Smith) and Dick (Hickock). They stated that, "For a journalist to re-create events he did not witness requires a prodigious amount of reporting, and Capote could not have written In Cold Blood had he not met the two men after their capture, obtained their sympathy and cooperation, and interviewed them for hour after hour."[35]

Yet Kerrane and Yagoda also questioned Capote's credibility:

Even so, novelistic re-creation raises new issues of accuracy. In traditional journalism, unless an event is witnessed by a reporter, every fact is reflexively attributed to a source. Here, Capote implicitly pledges, for example, that Dick told a particular joke in certain particular words. It is a pledge he cannot back up.[36]

Kerrane and Yagoda concluded their commentary on In Cold Blood by arguably giving Capote the benefit of the doubt regarding his veracity as a reporter/author:

Re-creating events is now a journalistic convention, sometimes practiced very honorably, sometimes less so. Dialogue remains sticky for all: how can any witness remember exactly what was said years, months, or even days before? The questions and concerns surrounding the technique will not be soon resolved, but it is indisputable that Capote, with his novelist's ear, heard what his characters could have said and transcribed it more faithfully than any journalist before or since.[37]

 

Indisputable my ass. He told George Plimpton he never used a tape recorder or took notes when he interviewed people:

 

I don't need to have an opinion on the ethics of the story to totally dismiss it.

As a cops reporter, I was sometimes tempted to speculate on stuff no one saw or could prove. But I always came back to the same conclusion: Go with what you know. Especially the lead. If your reporting is solid and the story's worth writing, you shouldn't have to speculate on any of it, (or if you do, you say it's speculation.)

I doubt a reader is going to read the piece and conclude that the author was there minutes before the man went on a rampage. But a reader will probably ask why the fuck the guy is speculating when so many spectacular facts are right there.

 

See, this is why narrative doesn't work anymore.
Not because the public doesn't understand it.
Because too many journalists don't understand it.

If you're writing non-fiction, it has to be about one thing: facts.

A literary license doesn't give the writer freedom to make shit up. It only means he can be creative in presenting the truth. That is, the storytelling.

If this guy made up his lede, then his story is no different than "The Perfect Storm" or "Titantic." He just crafted a story around true events. I don't care how many documents he read, I don't care how many people he interviewed. It's based on a true story. In other words, it's fiction.

I havent seen the story -- I haven subscribed to Esquire in some time -- but if the magazine's leadership is OK with fabrication without a disclaimer, then I have to wonder about everything in that magazine, including -- gasp! -- Jones' outstanding piece a few months ago. See, this is what a story like this does. It casts a shadow over everything published.

Journalism is journalism no matter if it appears in newspapers, magazines, newsletters, on television, radio or the internet. If you're presenting something as fact, it ALL has to be fact. Not 90 percent of it. Otherwise, readers will start wondering, OK, what's true and what isn't?

 

I don't think readers, except those of us in the business, give it 5 seconds of thought.

And again, the major hangup on this entire thread is labels. Fiction? Non-fiction? OK, if that's important, here's the label:

"Meticulously researched non-fiction with a recreated fiction lead based on known facts."

Everybody happy now?