quote: Writer Fabricated Boston Globe Story on Seal Hunt Fri Apr 15, 2005 06:54 PM ET By Greg Frost
BOSTON (Reuters) - A Boston Globe freelance writer fabricated large chunks of a story published this week, the newspaper said on Friday in the latest incident to embarrass the U.S. media.
The Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Co., said it stopped using writer Barbara Stewart because of a story that ran on Wednesday about a seal hunt off Newfoundland -- a hunt, it turns out, that had not taken place.
The Halifax, Nova Scotia-datelined article described in graphic detail how the seal hunt began on Tuesday, with water turning red as hunters on some 300 boats shot harp seal cubs "by the hundreds."
The problem, however, was that the hunt did not begin on Tuesday; it was delayed by bad weather and was scheduled to start on Friday, weather permitting, the Globe said in an editor's note.
[...]
This is the second time in recent memory that a widely-read, formerly-respected American newspaper has published a made-up story (the last time involving Canada was when The New York Times published a story about people dropping like flies in the streets of Toronto during the SARS outbreak.)
The Boston Globe is also owned by The New York Times. Coincidence or trend?
posted
Coincidence. I find it hard to believe that the New York Times is going to sit there and say "lets hire shotty workers, then publically fire them later, and embarress the hell out of us. More so, lets involve Canada."
posted
Hmm. I didn't mean that it was a deliberate trend. Just one that would inevitably pop up in a media environment where reporting of news is spun and tailored to support a certain point of view...
Granted, this is by no means a characteristic exclusive of American news media, but they are the only ones I know of that have been caught red-handed so far.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's been several made-up news incidents that haven't involved Canada, so this one's probably a coincidence.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think it has less to do with spinning the news than the concept that news is a business. The free press used to be a societal institution. Guys like Rupert Murdoch strongly objected to the word 'free' however.
These stories get through because no one cares enough one way or the other to check facts. Checking facts costs money so they let a lot of stuff slide. It is difficult to imagine either the SARS or the seal story would pass even a cursory fact check.
Smaller papers have been reducing original content in favor of news services for years. Larger papers are under pressure to reduce the cost of content while maintaining the appearance of original reportage.
Just like the government produced TV news spots, some stations relayed them for political purposes but most just took advantage of free content.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is SO not right! You'd think that there's enough actually going on in the world that no one would have to make stuff up...
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You get more of whatever you reward. When reporters' careers depend on whether they "make the front page" or not, then the temptation to lie and cheat in order to get there is greatly enhanced.
The incredible thing is that this writer thought the lie would not be caught. Then again, people get away with outrageous lies for YEARS, just because other people want so much to believe them.
By the way, one reason American newspapers have so much of a problem with stories that are flat-out lies is that our libel laws are so ridiculously slanted in favor of the media getting away with nomicide - ruining people's good name without evidence. If you're in any way a celebrity, it's hardly worth suing somebody who lies about you; and if a false story isn't about YOU, you have no standing to sue - what punishment, then, IS there for lying? Sure, the newspaper is "embarrassed," but do people even cancel their subscriptions over things like this?
Maybe they will, now that you can get movie listings and comic strips online ...
In Britain, even famous people can go after newspapers that lie and can win their case.
Then again, despite those laws British newspapers are outrageously scandal- and gossip-centered, in the main, compared to American papers. They may have to be more careful about lying, but that doesn't mean they don't find other ways to be shameless and disgusting <grin>.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, we have a delayed seal hunt, a deadline and probably an editor breathing down the reporter's neck.
Slam down the dateline, write the story she "knew" was going to happen and turn it in. No biggie and no one would track it down. Probably was scheduled to have the story in the day before the hunt began so she could make the late print deadline. Create some immediacy to the news (as an editor might put it) for the story to hit the streets right as it was happening.
But they, the entire newspaper, not just the reporter, got caught in a big flop rather than a scoop.
Whoops. Let's hang the reporter (or stringer maybe) out to dry. Then the newspaper hunkers down and let's it blow over.
There could be lots of reasons for the story:
1. As above, just a massaged story trying to meet a deadline that blew up in their faces.
2. A lazy reporter who has done this a few times before and just got caught for the first time. This actually happens more often than you might imagine. A news writer might miss a government meeting and then crib it together from other stories or following up with sources, but writes it as if he/she was there. If it works once, some writers will skid in another one like it down the road, then another and another until it becomes old hat. Lazy editors won't catch it and before they know it, their prized reporter is just phoning it in and no one is the wiser until something like this happens.
3. The reporter was following her own agenda and had the story written before she even saw what was happening. She had a point to get across (and the seal pup hunting one is one that is very easy to get emotionally or politically involved in). She penned the story early because she knew what would happen and what she wanted the public to hear. Another very, very common thing and lazy editors often don't catch this and weed it out. Especially in this day where taking a political stance is almost a must in the news business.
4. She's a mole or sleeper for some organization. It sounds stupid or like something out of a dime store spy novel, but it is happening at newspapers and news channels all the time. Your mild-mannered reporter has stronger ties to a political group or social group than they do to their job. We've seen the reports of "tame" newspeople working for both political parties recently (some even paid to shill for the Dept of Education, etc...) and an operative for PETA isn't a very far fetched idea. This is a real disease in the newspaper industry and they let their own axes they have to grind be published for all to see, or they mercenarily grind other groups' axes.
Whatever happened to the old news axiom of attend, observe, report? It's a rare news outlet today that enforces this of their staff. Just go and tell us what happened... don't tell us what to think.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So all those reporters in Baghdad who have never stepped foot outside the Green Zone but send in reports about car bombings in Mosul and Basra... Are they lying?
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they pretend that they were there and saw them, yes.
And if those bombings and stuff didn't really happen, but they report them because they may have happened, or because similar things have happened in the past, then yes, that's lying.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The beauty of third person narrative is that it makes no requirement to say you actually saw something. A bomb went of in Mosul, blood ran in the streets. A hunt went off in Newfoundland, blood ran in the water...
Reporters are always reporting from remote locations about stuff they didn't see. So as long as she didn't claim to see it in the first person, is it still a lie? Or just poor timing?
posted
Not if she didn't claim to be there and everything she said actually happened. But it wouldn't be good journalism.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the day that Saddam went for his preliminary trial, Christian Anamanpour was reporting live from the scene. The night before there had been reports that he was expected to be clean shaven for the event.
Anamanpour comes out just after his appearance, she had been one of the few reporters allowed in to witness, and then reads the report she had obviously prepared the evening before, describing him as clean shaven but visibly defeated, a loser in all respects.
Of course, he still had his beard and once the translation became available it turns out he was not at all contrite or cowed by the fresh young judge they foolishly put in charge.
Was it a lie to have prepared her report beforehand or is that just part of the process and sometimes mistakes are made?
Anamanpour didn't skip a beat on her next slot, reported the opposite of what she had said 15 minutes earlier without batting an eye.
posted
Perhaps not good journalism, but without the mistaken timing, the Boston Globe would have stood by it as acceptable journalism.
That is the part I find disturbing.
The Globe is embarrassed because they got their facts wrong. They make no pretence to even know what truth is.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an experimental model, the double blind is used to separate facts from the truth.
For instance, a scientist confronted by a homeopathic appologist was urged to go try the 'memory of water' experiments for herself. She did so with great diligence and was shocked to find her results supported homeopathic effectiveness, repeatedly. She counted the bugs in each of her samples and factually reported her results.
She was too diligent however, and in an effort to be fair, was unconsciously counting her homeopathic samples more carefully than her controls. Add the double blind to the experiment and the truth emerges. Homeopathy is a crock, of course.
Our intrepid Boston Globe reporter certainly didn't suffer from diligence. But even if she HAD managed to get her facts right, the night before or even days before the actual event, it was never even intended to be the truth.
She and the Boston Globe don't believe in the truth. Only in little truths. That's why they run stories about homeopathy and run adds from the practitioners. And why it perfectly valid journalism to prepare your story the night before. She was fired because she didn't check her facts. The Globe is embarassed because they didn't check her facts. The truth about the seal hunt is beside the point.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
!!![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That is SO not right! You'd think that there's enough actually going on in the world that no one would have to make stuff up...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
