3 ms·

He's specifically mentioned in the article, unsurprisingly.

• GFischer 14y ago
  Indeed: "Malcolm Gladwell got into hot water in 2005 by telling a story about games he played in the pages of the Washington Post that turned out to be almost entirely untrue. In print, Gladwell is often knocked for reducing social science to easy epiphanies and is occasionally called out for ignoring evidence that contradicts his cozy theories"
  • tptacek 14y ago
    I dispute how much "hot water" Gladwell got into over the Moth story. First, it's hard to listen to that story and take it seriously; it's pretty over-the-top. Second, The Moth is a somewhat informal venue; for instance, Mike Birbiglia's Moth performance is more or less a standup routine. The story was covered in the media because it suggested (playfully) that major publications were sometimes run more by gamesmanship than by a duty to report the facts; true or not, it was obviously catnip to media critics. The latter allegations --- that Gladwell's stories are too pat, and that they exclude contradictory evidence --- amount to Gladwell being "wrong" about things. But being wrong isn't a journalistic crime; journalists, columnists, and essayists are wrong all the time. It's disingenuous to lay that case out in an article about someone who committed real journalistic crimes: fabrication and plagiarism. In the actual NYMag piece, the case against Gladwell consists largely of innuendo: that he gives a lot of high-priced talks, that in marketing himself and The New Yorker, he created a brand that he can milk for his own personal gain. Well, we all milk things for our personal gain; it's called "having a career".
    • GFischer 14y ago
      Thanks, I didn't have the context - that's a quote from the article. Undoubtedly, Lehrer's journalistic crimes are pretty serious, and shouldn't be compared to Gladwell. And you're right that having a brand is no crime :) .