HOME / press box: Media criticism.

The Return of Michael FinkelThe work of the disgraced Times Magazine writer appears on the cover of National Geographic.

By Jack ShaferPosted Friday, July 27, 2007, at 6:39 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

In early 2002, right after being exposed, Finkel clawed for wiggle room. "It's an isolated incident, without question a wrong decision," he told New York magazine. "I hope readers know that this was an attempt to reach higher—to make something beautiful, frankly. In the article, there's no question of the quality of reporting, just in the journalistic techniques employed."

But you can't "reach higher" by labeling fiction as fact. Nor is constructing composite characters a "journalistic technique." It's cheating. Journalism is a hard business because you're not allowed to make stuff up. If a lawyer took the same liberties in making something up in a brief, he could be permanently disbarred. Luckily for Finkel, journalists aren't licensed.

Finkel also told New York, "Look, I wrote a 6,000-word story without a single quote, without a blink in the shift of tone and pace. It was an ambitious attempt. I slipped. It deserved a correction. But there is a great deal of accuracy. Not once has the prose been called into question."

I suppose there's a great deal of honesty in a bank heist, too, if you drive the speed limit to the scene of the crime and don't litter on the way out.

In 2005, when promoting his book, Finkel accepted full responsibility for his actions while simultaneously speculating that his transgression was not unique. "I'm not saying this to exonerate myself or anything," the New York Observer quoted him. "But it would sort of be interesting if 10 writers were picked at random, if their work was gone over with a fine-toothed comb—I wonder what the result would be."

I questioned the wisdom of sending Finkel back to the continent of his journalistic crime in an e-mail conversation with National Geographic Editor in Chief Chris Johns. Johns says that the magazine applied the same scrutiny to Finkel's piece they would to any cover story—which is to say a lot. Johns is very happy with the piece.

Johns writes that after talking to several of Finkel's previous editors, he decided the writer had learned from his mistake and could do the malaria story justice. When I offer that calling fabrications a "mistake" is generous, he replies, "I use the word 'mistake' in the generic sense, while recognizing there are degrees of mistakes and that Finkel's mistake was very serious."

"Perhaps one could say I've worked in South Africa too long, but I believe in forgiveness, especially when a person admits a mistake, asks for forgiveness and works to right a wrong," he writes.

The short biographical note about Finkel in National Geo names True Story as one of his works but does not mention his Times Magazine disgrace. The 600-word author bio on National Geo's Web site is also silent on this score. Most readers of National Geo won't get a chance to forgive Finkel because they won't know that he ever did anything wrong.

In a disconcerting passage on Page 178 of True Story, Finkel gets to the essence of what caused him to fabricate. He writes that he had budgeted only half the usual amount of time to complete his Youssouf piece because he had an upcoming, long-planned Himalayan hiking vacation (with his sister) that couldn't be rescheduled. That's an excuse for doing a rush job?

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 SINGLE PAGE

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Follow him on Twitter.

Photograph of Michael Finkel by Chris Anderson.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

My favorite articles on The Slate inevitably revolve around what I think of as a presumption of "journalistic integrity."

Here we have a writer filled with incredulity at the notion that so many journalists have passed off the writing of others as their own, while still keeping their jobs? How can this be? Journalists are supposed to be above reproach, people of pristine character, wise beyond their years, etc.

When will journalists ever learn? They are the only people who believe their is such a thing AS journalistic integrity. The rest of us have pretty much rolled our eyes, and moved on.

Attention all "Journalists." We readers already know you don't have any integrity, so maybe quit pretending this is an issue. It's not....

--FBH

(To reply, click here.)

Just as there's a law against criminals profiting from books about their crimes, there should be one against journalists profiting from books that explain and excuse their ethically criminal forays into fiction.

Anybody remember Little Jimmy, the eight-year-old heroin addict who won Janet Cooke a Pulitzer before he turned into a "composite" character? Cooke gave back the prize and (at least to my knowledge) had the grace not to write a book about what she did. But that was so long ago. . .

Compared to Finkel's $500,000, (which Shafer says he believe he "earned") Jayson Blair was a piker. His book advance was said to be in the $100,000 range. Finkel got half a million dollars for his book? There are thousands of hard-working journalists the country over who wouldn't dream of doing what Finkel admits doing, let alone writing about it. Maybe Finkel's prose is sterling. Maybe he used to be a gifted journalist, and he made a lot of friends at a lot of magazines. But he wrote fiction disguised as fact, sold his editors and his readers a bill of goods, and for that he gets $500,000 to rationalize his actions?

How does a disgraced journalist pay his debt to his profession and to his readers? That's a question Michael Finkel appears never to have asked himself. He's been too busy "earning" his way back to to an unsuspecting public's good graces, thanks to too-forgiving editors who are more concerned about poor Michael than their readers.

--jeremiad40

(To reply, click here.)

(7/30)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES