Richard, in his very interesting Twitter feed, points to a thought-provoking and troubling story. It’s a New York Times piece about another journalist who apparently has fabricated sources, quotes, and, therefore, stories.
The reporter was a 30-year veteran who worked for The Cape Cod (Mass.) Times. She had covered the police and courts beats tor the paper and was held in high regard by those she’d covered. However, she wrote an article about a Veterans’ Day parade that struck her editor as just a little too pat, yet unbelievable. When the editor tried to identified the people quoted in the article, she couldn’t. The newspaper, to its credit, then undertook a careful review of the reporter’s human interest feature stories, found other indications of non-existent sources, and reported the fact on its front page as part of an apology.
The Cape Cod (Mass.) Times‘ straight-up response to this makes this former journalist proud; its response speaks well of journalistic ethics and responsibility. It also shows why newspapers staffed by skeptical, fact-checking editors still should play an important role in our democratic society. Favorite news websites are nice, but how much of their content is reviewed, considered thoughtfully, and checked by someone as careful as the editor in this case? And for those who complain that the newspaper should have uncovered the problem earlier than it did, isn’t the affirmation of journalistic skepticism shown by this story reassuring — and don’t most of us agree with the saying that it is better late than never?
The tale nevertheless makes you wonder how much fabrication may occur in our nation’s newsrooms. If a respected reporter who’d worked for the paper for 30 years makes things up, how rare can it be?