HOME / the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Malcolm Gladwell and Wendy Kaminer

the breakfast table:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Dead Men Don't Lie

By Wendy Kaminer
Posted Friday, June 12, 1998, at 4:43 PM ET

How clever of you to read the obituaries. Just last night I heard someone say that you should read a newspaper back to front, starting with the obits and working your way to the front page. That way, you begin with the most accurate part of the paper and end with the least. (Is that a hoary old newspaper joke?)

RSS

In any case, it seems fitting that the Times has a front page story today on recently fired New Republic writer Stephen Glass, who, not content with being merely inaccurate, fabricated entire stories. According to the Times, (who called Glass an "illusionist"), TNR's investigation found that six of the stories he wrote for them (which they blithely published) were entirely fictional; an additional 21 stories were fictional only in part.

I've heard the explanations from TNR editors, but I still don't quite understand how any editor can simply assume that writers always operate in good faith, don't exaggerate or misinterpret what they hear, and don't make innocent mistakes. While I appreciate the trust that some editors confer on me when they don't vet my work, I appreciate the painstaking factchecking at The Atlantic Monthly even more. It's extremely thorough and instead of making me lazy, by giving me factcheckers to fall back, it has made me more vigilant. 1) If I make a mistake, they'll catch it, and I'll be embarrassed; and 2) the process underscores just how scrupulously assertions of fact, and quotes, ought to be checked.

This e-mail exchange has been interesting for me because I'm not used to publishing notes essentially written off the top of my head. I think I've used more question marks than usual in my e-mails to you because I don't have the time to review, much less check, what I'm writing. And the spontaneity of our virtual conversation is supposed to be part of its charm. But it feels like a risk, and it's apt to make me very lazy. This is so much easier and more amusing than researching and carefully composing an actual essay, much less a book.

I realize that this is the future--a part of it at any rate--this spontaneous, unmediated communication that's supposed to represent a new digital democracy. And it's tempting to attribute Glass's transgressions partly to the digital culture, not because it necessarily encourages inaccuracy (that's too simplistic) but because it does involve a fair amount of role playing. Identity is so mutable in cyberspace. For some people, it's a place to act out fantasies. It may not be a great leap from constructing your own alternate identities and telling stories about yourself (as if they were true) to telling stories about other characters you've created.

Still, before I get too caught up in my own theorizing I'll remind myself that (according to the Times) Glass was exposed because one of his stories was investigated by another suspicious online journalist. So, in the end, this is a story about a lying print journalist who was caught by someone online. Like most interesting stories, it defies easy generalizations.

the breakfast table:
entries