A Phantom Called Truth

I’m glad this question finally came up; it gives me a chance to discuss how I really feel about journalism. The cases of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass I cannot speak directly of, but Tom French recreated a story for the sake of cohesion. He crafted his story in a way that can easily absorbed by the reading public. He did so by using information obtained by real sources. Just how much of this story is made up, and how much is real is something only he and his sources will ever really know. The question here is does this make his story any less true? This brings me to the most fundamental dilemma in my life: truth does not exist. It is a phantom. Therefore, there is no truth in journalism. Truths, however, can be derived from many sources (refer to the pragmatic theory of truth). These same truths can be conveyed a number of different ways, but no matter way they are conveyed, they will always be received a number of ways relative to the number of those receiving the message. The receiver will always be missing pieces of the puzzle that the rational mind will have to fill in. Thus there are an infinite number of truths that can correspond to the actual events. How well the journalist curtails these events is, in reality, irrelevant because there is no truth in his story. Truths are derived from the story after it is told, and are subject to the interpreter. Truths can be equally derived from fiction. Sometimes it is impossible to tell the difference. Sometimes there is no difference. Always there are truths to be derived.
This causes me trouble because there is a strong push for truth in journalism. Because truth to me is subjective, truth in journalism can only be understood within the context of the writer. The writer is the observer, and the facts reported contain no truth. Truth is derived from these facts and if the writer removes himself from the story, the only derived truths are from the readers. So the push to remove oneself from the story, and remain truthful is a paradox – both cannot be at the same time. The push for truth in journalism is really a drive to be sure that the observations correspond to actual reality. The only way to measure this is to compare observations and be sure that they correspond. So, truth in journalism exists in two ways: 1) The average perspective of multiple observers can be obtained, or 2) The writer can share his interpretation through a narrative, commentary, language, or any other device the writer can concoct. This, I propose, is the real difference between hard and soft news. All news is of human interest. Hard news is that which is observed or written about by many, and the truth derived by averaging the many perspectives. Soft news is that which is observed or investigated by a relative few, and the truth is derived from the perspective, presentation, and/or feelings of the writer. Surely, this is not the formula that news is written by, but I’m considering the distinction in terms of effectiveness. Would French’s stories be as effective as hard news? What would distinguish his message from all of the other murder cases superficially reported on? His message (or perspective of truth) is best conveyed by a narrative that recreates the intrigue and suspense of the story. He went on a journey, in pursuit if this story, that likely changed him some in significant way. The story becomes more about this transition and how these events had changed all that came in contact with them than the events themselves. This is the truth that lies within this story. Strip the story of the writer and you lose the narrative and the truth. This story would not be as effective as hard news because the perspective would be much vaguer, allowing more perspectives to be considered. The truths derived from this type of story will be more superficial and the effectiveness depleted.
So, now to the question at hand: What distinguishes French from Blair and Glass? Are not the truths derived from Glass and Blair’s stories as valid and truthful as the truths derived from French’s? Certainly, and there is nothing ethically immoral about what Glass and Blair did in the grand scheme of things. This would invalidate any work that great authors like Steinbeck, Lovecraft, Hemingway, and others have contributed to history. There is no less impact or less valuable truth derived from any of their works. The difference between them is the forum in which they choose to share their perspectives. French, Blair, and Glass work within a system where there is an assumption of correspondence. That is their stories are assumed to correspond to actual events. This is where Glass and Blair violate their positions by fabricating sources. The events in French’s story do correspond to actual events and reflect real experiences by real people. The way he chose to convey these experiences reflects what he and the others in his story went through and effectively conveys the truths experienced by the participators.
I’m not sure if we have come full circle or not, but I, for one, am exhausted and must conclude this discussion. The search for truth is just as dizzying as ethical absolution, if not the same circle.

Hearsay Heresy

This seems like quite a conundrum here. I think, though, that once we strip the situation down to its elements, the path becomes clear. First, online forums are public access. Just because you can link information to a persona, the source is still the forum rather than the one posting on the forum. Information contained in these threads is similar to that typically encountered eavesdropping in a public facility (park, cafeteria, shopping mall). The difference being that the banter is more focused with not as many different topics being discussed (although the number of conversations taking place can be similar). You certainly wouldn’t quote eavesdropped material, would you? I mean just because you can link information to a persona, the source is still the forum rather than the one posting on the forum.
So, you can’t quote the forums in your story, but the accusations are still there. This is what we would call a scoop. The story still exists. Someone must certainly feel something about these accusations. What about others that that read the forums? You could try to contact them, and see how they feel. You might try contacting the accused, allowing him a public forum to respond.
Regardless of the angle you decide to pursue, it is important to be sensitive in regards to the name issue. Slander and libel do to credibility what heat does to ice. Because the accusations may turn out to be slanderous, it may be wise to avoid getting caught up in the aftermath. It isn’t really necessary, in this case, to risk your credibility. Not while there are other avenues.
You could, however, coyly reveal the identity of the accused by getting them on the record. He can either deny the accusations or substantiate their validity by accepting or refusing to talk to you. This could be the difference between a lawsuit and a Pulitzer – albeit not quite so dramatic.
Zero or hero is question that could make anyone’s head spin. And with that, we’ve come full circle.

Déjà Vu

It would seem to me that we have already discussed this during our first week. Then we had decided that fabrication not okay. I would think that hypothetical anecdotes and sources are considered to be fabricated, so I’m not sure why we are even discussing this…again. Well, I’ll play; let’s spin.
As we have seen earlier, the rules that govern soft news are a little more flexible than those that rule hard news. I can think of one situation where it may be permissible to concoct an anecdote, maybe even ideal. Let’s say you have a number of factual occurrences that really work together to illustrate the central figure of your story. But to tell them all would take too much space. It might be okay to wrap all poignant points into one neatly crafted tale. Of course you would have to say something like “that may as well have been the case,” or “that’s how it should have happened” to let your reader know that this isn’t exactly what happened.
Of course, you do still need a source to do this. So it might (and I stress might) be okay to fabricate an anecdote, as long as it isn’t misleading, but it is never (and I stress never) okay to hypothesize a source.
Well, it may not be a circle, but the pressure of newspaper space may put a twist on the rules on fabrication. As with ice cream, twist works best with soft serve.

Say What?!

Poor grammar are confusing and making the reader work harder than they are needed. People also tend to be think faster than they is speaking, and don’t mean to say what they say they mean to be more clear. If with me still, kudos to you, for when raw thoughts is cleaned up, it’s amazing how much easier the reading becomes. Readers shouldn’t have to work to get your story. Even worse, when bad grammar just slips in, becomes it more hard to understand, and readers may actually have to backup, or just quit reading. So, as a courtesy to your reader, it is a good practice to avoid grammar that can be confusing.
Also, it has been said in the world of journalism that, as a general rule, you shouldn’t quote unless you can’t say it any better. If a source’s grammar is such that a misunderstanding is possible, then it could probably be better said another way.
When taking notes often times conjunctions, interjections, and prepositions are commonly omitted. Many grammatical errors also commonly occur here, and so this note-taking practice inadvertently cleans up messy quotes.
My circle of ethics has been reduced to a point; that point being this: You are ultimately writing to your readers, and, for them, you should be sure that your story is grammatically coherent.
While on the subject of wording, I would like to make another point. The use of abnormal spelling is largely a stylistic choice. I have found that you can rarely ever really capture a dialect through the spelling alone, and it is therefore useless to that end. You can, however, convey a context, an atmosphere, a vibe, if you will. Using informal words like prob’ly, gonna, ain’t, or, like, like convey a casual feeling. Whereas the proper, formal terms probably, going to, and am not are assertive and direct. Soft news stories may warrant a more casual essence, and loose grammar and informal spelling is desirable. However, hard news stories are assertive in nature, and will be better served by proper grammar and spelling.
In mathematics, when we create two points in space we connect them with a line. In journalism, we should always clean up grammar, and we should strive for a fluid assertive tone. By connecting these points we create a line between telling a story and just confusing a reader; a line that should never be crossed

The Greatest Gift

Generally speaking, it is a good practice to not accept anything from a source. Students of mass communication may recall the payola scandal involving record companies paying off disc jockeys to give their records more airtime or falsify ratings. These dj’s acted as gatekeepers, deciding what music the masses would hear. Journalists (reporters, editors, and the like) share a similar position in that they influence public opinion just by deciding what to include in a story, and what stories to include. Because gifts can create a bias, it is generally a good practice to avoid them.
Strict adherence to this axiom could, however, become costly to a news organization and hinder the free flow of information (free meaning as cheap as possible). If a reporter had to cover the cost admission to events, or to review materials, this cost would ultimately be passed down to the consumer. This does not serve the public interest. Especially considering that the bureaucratic structure of an organization minimizes this type of bias. What I mean is that the organization would typically pick up most of these expenses (which they pass on to customers – mostly advertisers); so, it’s all free to the reporter anyways. Who really cares if the organization pays for it, or gets compensation or a discount? Ideally, the cost of the publicity, good or bad (if there is such a thing), is endured by the object of the story, not those receiving the information.
It seems, at this point, that it comes down to the definition of ‘gift’. Would you define a gift as something given to nurture a relationship or make an impression? Or would you broaden the definition to embody anything that the reporter or organization receives for free or a discounted rate. Either way it is defined, one thing remains true. All journalists routinely elicit the greatest gift from every one of their sources: information. This gift is received free of obligation to present the source in any way other than objective, and no one questions whether a source should be compensated for their cooperation.
After spinning my wheels on this question, I will close the circle with this – If the so-called gift can be qualified as the free flow of information, then a journalist or organization is not only justified, but obligated, to accept. But when the gift is gratuitous, serving only to pamper, the only obligation the organization has is to report on how this company attempted to buy, rather than earn, a good review. And with that, we've come full circle.