5 ms·

If some of these stories seem a little too fantastical to be true, it’s possible that they are. Michael Finkel, the author of this article was fired from the T

by eig 3y ago

If some of these stories seem a little too fantastical to be true, it’s possible that they are. Michael Finkel, the author of this article was fired from the Times in 2002 when he admitted that a character profile he had published was actually a “composite character” who didn’t really exist [0]. I wouldn’t be surprised if some embellishments has been added to this character sketch as well, at least in the book if not in this article. [0]-https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/5740/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/5740/

toxik 3y ago
No no, he was just hallucinating.
verbify 3y ago
The Times seems to be pretty strict with their journalists - in the late 1980s, Boris Johnson (he later became Prime Minister) was sacked by the Times because Johnson invented a quote from his godfather, the historian Sir Colin Lucas. I'm not sure how common this is in the industry- whether lying is a slap on the wrist among some newspapers... Johnson still works as a columnist for other papers.
- eig 3y ago
  I don’t know either, and hopefully someone here in journalism can comment on how serious it is to do what Finkel did. I like how the New Yorker Book Review article (recently on HN [0]) reviewed both the book as well as the author. I thought that was a fair assessment- bringing the prior journalistic issues to light while also discussing the merits of the book. [0]-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581
  - jahsome 3y ago
    Fabricating events, people, or facts is pretty much the worst thing a journalist can be accused of, but sadly it's all to tempting for some. Journalism is hyper competitive, but the reality is proper reporting is an often boring, greulling grind. The remarkable, career-defining stories are so rare most could never dream to break them. Sources almost never provide coherent quotes, and facts sometimes contradict each other. It's an extremely unfulfilling pursuit most of the time. So it's not too difficult to understand why some reporters might embellish a quote or something small, trying to better illustrate a larger narrative, or perhaps make their piece more appealing to their audience or their colleagues. Once that line is crossed, they can soon find themselves inventing entire people or scenarios. History is littered with examples, but the reality is we probably only know of the most prominent cases, i.e. those who were caught. I look at it the same as steroids in professional athletes or white collar crime. Those in the lower echelons are constantly looking for a way to climb the ranks of esteem and further their careers, but the tangible opportunities to make their mark don't often materialize. In journalism school, I think most programs have at least one ethics course effectively dedicated to studying rather famous instances of journalists disgraced for one reason of another, most often fabrication. Huge cultural strides have been taken since the days of yellow journalism and so facts are usually vetted by a small team. I think it's usually a matter of one small untruth spawning a network of supporting lies. The coverup is often worse than the crime, as it were. In a role and industry where credibility is the only currency, it's extremely serious to make any factual error, even mistakenly. I left the industry more than a decade ago, but can offer the following real-life annecdote. I was almost fired for mistaking one mountain for another on one of my first pieces. It was a weeks-long ordeal of meetings, "trainings," and reprimands both official and casual, and that was a dumb mistake my editor made and I mindlessly agreed with, not even something I introduced surreptitiously, or even with any intent.
    - eig 3y ago
      Thanks for sharing your experience. To what extent do you trust Finkel‘s writing here?
      - jahsome 3y ago
        Personally, I have zero trust. In reality, the entire article could be thoroughly vetted, and Finkel may well have made a full "recovery" and rededicated themselves to the truth, but fabricating facts at that level is unforgivable.
- ciabattabread 3y ago
  New York Times != The Times of London
  - subtypefiddler 3y ago
    It's just The Times, not "The Times of London" The Times != The New York Times
- MagnumOpus 3y ago
  1. This is about the NY Times 2. The Times sacking BoJo for lying was before News Corp turned it into a tabloid without editorial standards in the early 2000s 3. That was BoJo's first graduate trainee job after uni - sacking a pimply faced newbie for making up stuff is not a hard decision even if he went to Eton and Oxford...
vanderZwan 3y ago
> I wouldn’t be surprised if some embellishments has been added to this character sketch as well, at least in the book if not in this article. We're talking about an art thief though, they usually need no help with embellishing their stories. Although perhaps I confuse them with art forgers ("F for Fake" comes to mind). I guess I'm saying is that I agree with you, but would give this the benefit of expecting to be lied to while only caring about how entertaining the story is (again, see "F for Fake"). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

by eig 3y ago

toxik 3y ago

No no, he was just hallucinating.

verbify 3y ago

The Times seems to be pretty strict with their journalists - in the late 1980s, Boris Johnson (he later became Prime Minister) was sacked by the Times because Johnson invented a quote from his godfather, the historian Sir Colin Lucas. I'm not sure how common this is in the industry- whether lying is a slap on the wrist among some newspapers... Johnson still works as a columnist for other papers.

eig 3y ago
I don’t know either, and hopefully someone here in journalism can comment on how serious it is to do what Finkel did. I like how the New Yorker Book Review article (recently on HN [0]) reviewed both the book as well as the author. I thought that was a fair assessment- bringing the prior journalistic issues to light while also discussing the merits of the book. [0]-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581
- jahsome 3y ago
  Fabricating events, people, or facts is pretty much the worst thing a journalist can be accused of, but sadly it's all to tempting for some. Journalism is hyper competitive, but the reality is proper reporting is an often boring, greulling grind. The remarkable, career-defining stories are so rare most could never dream to break them. Sources almost never provide coherent quotes, and facts sometimes contradict each other. It's an extremely unfulfilling pursuit most of the time. So it's not too difficult to understand why some reporters might embellish a quote or something small, trying to better illustrate a larger narrative, or perhaps make their piece more appealing to their audience or their colleagues. Once that line is crossed, they can soon find themselves inventing entire people or scenarios. History is littered with examples, but the reality is we probably only know of the most prominent cases, i.e. those who were caught. I look at it the same as steroids in professional athletes or white collar crime. Those in the lower echelons are constantly looking for a way to climb the ranks of esteem and further their careers, but the tangible opportunities to make their mark don't often materialize. In journalism school, I think most programs have at least one ethics course effectively dedicated to studying rather famous instances of journalists disgraced for one reason of another, most often fabrication. Huge cultural strides have been taken since the days of yellow journalism and so facts are usually vetted by a small team. I think it's usually a matter of one small untruth spawning a network of supporting lies. The coverup is often worse than the crime, as it were. In a role and industry where credibility is the only currency, it's extremely serious to make any factual error, even mistakenly. I left the industry more than a decade ago, but can offer the following real-life annecdote. I was almost fired for mistaking one mountain for another on one of my first pieces. It was a weeks-long ordeal of meetings, "trainings," and reprimands both official and casual, and that was a dumb mistake my editor made and I mindlessly agreed with, not even something I introduced surreptitiously, or even with any intent.
  - eig 3y ago
    Thanks for sharing your experience. To what extent do you trust Finkel‘s writing here?
    - jahsome 3y ago
      Personally, I have zero trust. In reality, the entire article could be thoroughly vetted, and Finkel may well have made a full "recovery" and rededicated themselves to the truth, but fabricating facts at that level is unforgivable.
ciabattabread 3y ago
New York Times != The Times of London
- subtypefiddler 3y ago
  It's just The Times, not "The Times of London" The Times != The New York Times
MagnumOpus 3y ago
1. This is about the NY Times 2. The Times sacking BoJo for lying was before News Corp turned it into a tabloid without editorial standards in the early 2000s 3. That was BoJo's first graduate trainee job after uni - sacking a pimply faced newbie for making up stuff is not a hard decision even if he went to Eton and Oxford...

vanderZwan 3y ago

> I wouldn’t be surprised if some embellishments has been added to this character sketch as well, at least in the book if not in this article. We're talking about an art thief though, they usually need no help with embellishing their stories. Although perhaps I confuse them with art forgers ("F for Fake" comes to mind). I guess I'm saying is that I agree with you, but would give this the benefit of expecting to be lied to while only caring about how entertaining the story is (again, see "F for Fake"). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake