# Print Media Credibility Problems **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472 "2004-03-20T23:12:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/1 "2004-03-20T23:12:50Z")
Seems like journalist are just making stories up at an ever increasing rate. NY Times & USA Today are among the latest major publications to be stung. What’s the solution to their problems? How do they fix their quality control problems in order to continue to pump stories out while not loosing their competitve edge? How do they repair their sullied reputations or do they even care anymore? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/2 "2004-03-20T23:25:23Z")
Funny thing. When a print journalist gets caught making up a story, they get fired and it’s considered a major scandal. When a television host gets caught making up a story, there’s usually no response at all from the network they work for. Remember Sean Hannity and the “gays are trying to get AIDS” nonsense? Double standard. Maybe the correct response for newspapers is to stop pretending that they care about journalistic ethics, just like everyone else has. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/3 "2004-03-20T23:37:31Z")
“Making up stories” is a bit strong for what happened is the problem. That’s certainly the pitch angle, I’ll grant you. But what actually seems to have happened is that these individuals plagiarized stories from a variety of sources and then fabricated the detail work to fill in the blanks and cover their tracks. It’s not like Jason Blair was lying about there being a former POW that was receiving a lot of attention. Many of his quotes were even legit. He just yanked them from other people’s stories. It’s the same mindset as using Google to write a research paper basically. I’ve heard a lot of things blamed for this. Journalistic corruption, a society of cheating, social engineering, blahdy blah blah blah. You know what it is? It’s the fact that quality doesn’t matter. Nobody gives a crap about an intelligent story that covers unbroken ground or provides new insight. They want a story on that thing that CNN was going on about last night, and they want it to fit in 4 inches of single column. The headline they might take some interest in QA’ing, since that’s all most people are going to read, but the story itself just needs to convey the message “Yeah, about that thing…” Which is a shame, because in the nightmarish realm of braindead pseudojournalism print sources used to give a small amount of actual depth, but now they just seem to be the day after summations of the parent networks. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/4 "2004-03-20T23:43:42Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Funny thing. When a print journalist gets caught making up a story, they get fired and it’s considered a major scandal. When a television host gets caught making up a story, there’s usually no response at all from the network they work for. Not what happened with a Sky News reporter who pretended to be on a submarine active in the Gulf, when it was actually docked in England. Can’t remember whether he resigned or was fired, one or the other. Sad postscript - found dead at home several months later, probable suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/5 "2004-03-20T23:49:20Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Funny thing. When a print journalist gets caught making up a story, they get fired and it’s considered a major scandal. When a television host gets caught making up a story, there’s usually no response at all from the network they work for. Remember Sean Hannity and the “gays are trying to get AIDS” nonsense? Double standard. Maybe the correct response for newspapers is to stop pretending that they care about journalistic ethics, just like everyone else has. Even funnier is when people call ‘nonsense’ on [an actual story.](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/23/asb.00.html) ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/6 "2004-03-21T01:04:52Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > “Making up stories” is a bit strong for what happened is the problem. That’s certainly the pitch angle, I’ll grant you. But what actually seems to have happened is that these individuals plagiarized stories from a variety of sources and then fabricated the detail work to fill in the blanks and cover their tracks. Might want to check out the following article: [USA Today Says Reporter Faked Stories](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040319/D81DGNKO2.html) > [@](#): > > ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper’s former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/7 "2004-03-21T01:09:00Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Even funnier is when people call ‘nonsense’ on [an actual story.](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/23/asb.00.html) Funnier yet when you read the “actual story”. From your transcript: > [@](#): > > NEEDHAM: No, this is a true story and we have **two case studies** of men who happily cooperated and told us the full facts of their willingness to become HIV-positive. It’s undeniably this > > (CROSSTALK) > > NEEDHAM: … exists. > > BROWN: Well, **two is not 25 percent**. > > NEEDHAM: No. And **we do not make claim that it’s a trend or that it’s 25 percent**. > > BROWN: Well, go ahead. > > MNOOKIN: **There’s nothing I can do except point to what’s in the article. There is a sentence that says up to 25 percent**. > > And it also – it goes on to say, with about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean about 10,000 each year attributable to this definition of people trying to get HIV. That’s another conflation, because **almost half of all infections now are heterosexual**. > > So, when I look at the figures in this story, I get the sense that there was an effort to sort of pump it up and make what is an alarming story, even if it’s **two people** , turn it into something much greater and do this enormous trend story. Are you saying you believe this is an “actual story”??? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/8 "2004-03-21T01:13:16Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Funnier yet when you read the “actual story”. From your transcript:Are you saying you believe this is an “actual story”??? Errr, unless you are contending that Mssr. Brown had a phony conversation with a figment of his imagination, then yes, it was an ‘actual’ story. Humorously enough, it was an ‘actual’ story that print media (Newsweek), yet again, jacked up. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/9 "2004-03-21T01:15:56Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Might want to check out the following article: > [USA Today Says Reporter Faked Stories](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040319/D81DGNKO2.html) Hmm, fair enough then. I was figuring this was similar to the Jason Blair scandal. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/10 "2004-03-21T01:27:59Z")
The Brown interview was, as he said himself, “a story about a story”. The “actual story” is the supposed trend that gay men are trying to get AIDs (which Hannity trumpeted and **ITR champion** called “nonsense”). My question to you was: Do you believe that two case studies qualifies the “gay men are trying to get AIDs” story? Why is it not “nonsense”? If you were trying to make a different point, I didn’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/11 "2004-03-21T01:37:45Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > The Brown interview was, as he said himself, “a story about a story”. The “actual story” is the supposed trend that gay men are trying to get AIDs (which Hannity trumpeted and **ITR champion** called “nonsense”). > > My question to you was: Do you believe that two case studies qualifies the “gay men are trying to get AIDs” story? Why is it not “nonsense”? > > If you were trying to make a different point, I didn’t see it. Hannity was just passing along what _Newsweek_ had reported, if I understand correctly. _Newsweek_, as you may know, would be considered ‘print media’, being that you can buy their ‘web pages’ printed on paper! **ITR** was calling nonsense on what was at root a print media problem. The story actually happened (at least _some_ gay dudes are trying to get the AIDS), and was blown out of proportion by…print media! ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/12 "2004-03-21T01:42:14Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Even funnier is when people call ‘nonsense’ on [an actual story.](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/23/asb.00.html) Errrrr, By what standard is it “an actual story”? To me, when you say that something that something is a real and true story, that means that the journalist reporting the story is telling the truth. As [Andrew Sullivan demonstrated](http://www.salon.com/opinion/sullivan/2003/01/24/rolling/index.html), the claim that one quarter of new AIDS cases among gay men result from ‘bug chasing’ is a blatant lie, and Hannity had evidence it was a lie when he chose to report it as the truth. So why don’t you explain to me how it qualifies as “an actual story”. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/13 "2004-03-21T01:48:12Z")
I agree it was started in print media, but it wasn’t _Newsweek_, it was _Rolling Stone_. _Newsweek_ had debunked the story, in print, and in the Brown interview. It still seems as though you believe 2 cases make this story newsworthy. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/14 "2004-03-21T05:03:33Z")
Somebody call the police, we’ve been hijacked… ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/15 "2004-03-21T06:43:24Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > The Brown interview was, as he said himself, “a story about a story”. The “actual story” is the supposed trend that gay men are trying to get AIDs (which Hannity trumpeted and **ITR champion** called “nonsense”). > > My question to you was: Do you believe that two case studies qualifies the “gay men are trying to get AIDs” story? Why is it not “nonsense”? > > If you were trying to make a different point, I didn’t see it. So I mixed up the two magazines involved. Doesn’t change the crux of the matter: 1. Some gay men _are_ (were, whatever), trying intentionally to get AIDS. 2. Two print media sources disagree over the numbers involved. One says that two, and only two cases are involved, the other that ‘up to 25% [of new homosexual AIDS cases]’ are involved. 3. Somehow, Hannity gets the blame for this. Not the original (print media) sources in question. Golly, but I do so wonder why!? Sullivan, BTW, while he may be a great author on so many other topics, is a bit too ‘close to the story’ to be taken seriously with his ad hominem riddled rebuttal to the Rolling Stone piece in question, especially given his past history. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/16 "2004-03-21T07:42:52Z")
]\ > [@Brutus](#): > > So I mixed up the two magazines involved. Doesn’t change the crux of the matter: > > 1. Two print media sources disagree over the numbers involved. One says that two, and only two cases are involved, the other that ‘up to 25% [of new homosexual AIDS cases]’ are involved. > [/quoteNo. Go back and read the transcript again; you’ve mixed up more than the names. _Rolling Stone_ “conflated” the story as being “up to 25 percent” with no verifiable basis for it. All they’ve got are those 2 case studies. [quote] > 2. Somehow, Hannity gets the blame for this. Not the original (print media) sources in question. Golly, but I do so wonder why!? _Rolling Stone_ is to blame for publishing this nonsense in the first place, but Hannity should also be accountable for running with it when he _knew_ that the story lacked credibility (and don’t come back with “maybe he didn’t know” - it’s part of his job to vett the accuracy of his sources - do you think he was unaware of the debunking it received in other media?). \ Back to the OP? How to prevent fabrications? [Here’s](http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.analysis20mar20,0,2669814.story?coll=bal-features-headlines) a good idea: > [@](#): > > Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University’s journalism school, recently proposed that major newspapers assign “a guerrilla team of fact checkers” to check selected stories at random before publication. > > “It would be insuperably expensive and logistically impossible for a daily paper to check every story before publication, the way magazines do,” Lemann wrote in the March 15 edition of The New Yorker. “But most of the journalism scandals involve a certain type of story, a vivid feature from an exotic location. If reporters knew that every once in a while somebody would pluck a story of this kind out of the in-type list and talk to all the people quoted … it would have a powerful effect.” This would work for the type of stories he mentioned. But the credibility problem goes further than that, IMO. What about the “hijack” example on this thread? What to do when mainstream media picks up on these stories, as Hannity (and others) often do? Are they just as accountable or not? I suggest checking out [The Daily Howler](http://www.dailyhowler.com/) for some insights. Yes, they are left leaning, but also point out problems with the more liberal pundits/sources and non-political news coverage. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/print-media-credibility-problems/235472/17 "2004-03-21T17:02:50Z")
**annaplurabelle** , thanks for the link on The Howler. While it is left leaning (at least from what I’ve read so far), they do address problems with the press corps. I don’t know that McCain is the poster boy for Bush or the republicans that they hold him up to be, but that’s another story. As for the OP problems, do we need to establish a clear punishment for these make believe journalist? Maybe banishment (including no book deals) would be an incentive to actually do their jobs. As for the additional “domino” problem you provide the example for, I agree with it being a problem. But if we make it the responsibility of mainstream media to 100% verify every story’s credibility, then that creates additional problems including the time to do the investigation, costs, plus sources being hounded by scores of media types trying to verify a story. Maybe if we have a clear “punishment” established the problem will eventually correct itself (at least I would like to think it would). Maybe the media just needs to do a better job of policing itself and stop rewarding those who break to rules of professionalism and ethics when it comes to accuracy.