Please read the linked stories below. Why do you think Jonah Lehrer did what he did? How did he get away with it -- that is, how come his fabrications weren't caught by his editors? What do you think should happen to him in the aftermath? Is lying in stories by journalists ever ethically justified? By PR professionals? By advertisers?
Your response is due Sunday, Feb. 17, by 4 p.m.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/jonah-lehrer-resigns-from-new-yorker-after-making-up-dylan-quotes-for-his-book/?hp
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/13/171864733/book-news-disgraced-new-yorker-author-talks-plagiarism-for-a-20-000-fee
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
24 comments:
I think Jonah Lehrer did what he did because he knew he could get away with it. He is an intelligent guy and a good writer and knowing that, he knew his credibility would not be questioned. He had admitted recycling works from previous publications for his blogs at the New Yorker, and the editor kept him on the staff. Well that definitely backs up my introduction. Lehrer knew he could get away with fabrication because he got away with his first misdemeanor. The fabrication in his book may not have been caught by his editors and publisher because they clearly did not do extensive research and they held this guy up to such high standards. Why question him? Also, why would he suddenly make quotes up when he has written articles for the New Yorker for years and nothing like that came up? He was trusted. Lehrer should never get a job in this business again. He lied once and reused old material so who is to say he will not do those things again. He is not a credible writer and broke the trust between his readers and editors. Lying in stories by any professional is not ethical nor can it be justified, especially for journalists. Journalists are not trying to sell anything so they need not elaborate truths as PR and advertising specialists do to sell a product or program. Journalists number one job is to report an unbiased truth to the public. They have to write the facts and let the readers decide the rest. But when journalists begin to write fabrications and break their reader's trust, the credibility of the media in general goes down. There is no formal way to keep ethics in check for reporters as it is in professions like medicine and law. If you break the rulers, you won't get arrested, sued or loose a license to practice. You might not even loose a job or position in the industry. It seems that people who lie are praised. Lehrer lied and as punishment, was paid $20,000 to speak on a panel about his mistakes. Where's the justice in that?
I think Jonah fabricated his source because he knew his credibility wouldn’t be called into question easily. He was notably a gifted writer but since he has also gotten away with similar situations in the past without any consequence, I think he felt the same would happen for this “misquotation.” The fabrication in his book may not have been caught because of the lack of prosecutorial editing, the editors, most likely, were just looking for spelling and grammar errors and not validating sources. In the aftermath, I think that Jonah should not (and at this point, probably could not) get a job in writing again. His credibility has been destroyed publically and I would hope that any editor with this man’s resume on their desk would throw it in the trash. If he were to get a job in this industry again who is to say he would make a 180* and suddenly be an ethical writer? I say there is a nearly a nonexistent chance and he cannot be trusted, by editors or readers, with the responsibility of seeking the truth and honestly reporting it. Sadly, for a man who should be punished for his actions, he is being glorified and is getting paid $20,000 to speak about his fabrications. Lying is not ethically justifiable in just journalism, but all professions. PR professional and advertisers have mastered the art of not really telling the truth but not really lying. For example, the Duracell battery slogan is “No battery lasts longer,” which, yes may be true, but there are batteries that last just as long. This I do not see as unethical because it is not blatant lying.
Because Jonah Lehrer already had a well established reputation in the world of journalism, he felt confident enough to continue fabricating quotes and reusing old material for his articles. Frankly, I am surprised at the sheer amount of chances Lehrer had been given. I would have thought the first time he was caught fabricating or recycling old material, he’d face serious consequences. I also am confused as to how he took some of his previous work from The Wall Street Journal, Wired and other publications and recycled it in blog posts for The New Yorker. Unless he was writing about the exact same topic for these publications and his New Yorker blog posts, it makes little sense to me how no one caught on sooner. And if he was writing about the same topic, that is even more reason to check and make sure a journalist isn’t double dipping for multiple publications. Clearly, prosecutorial fact checking was not taken seriously enough in Lehrer’s case. But then again, why should it be if you are dealing with a journalist who is considered so reputable, so well-known, and so talented? Just goes to show how crucial it is to fact check your writer’s stories, regardless of how high up they are in the journalism world.
In my opinion, Lehrer should never be hired again the field of journalism. Sadly, he is profiting from his mistakes because people are so infatuated with how and why he did it. And how and why did he do it? Above average intelligence, arrogance, laziness, and lousy fact-checkers. If he were an average journalist of average intelligence with an average career, I doubt he would have been paid $20,000 to “tell his story”.
Regarding the topic of PR professionals and advertisers lying, I agree completely with Natalie. There is a certain “bend” to the truth they are allowed because their responsibilities are selling products, not selling the facts.
I think Jonah Lehrer did what he did because he didn't think there would be consequences, and he didn't think anyone would check up on him to see if he was lying. Unfortunately, he was proven correct, because the very editors that should have seen and corrected the mistakes ignored them. Whether or not they say they were "fed up" with his errors, I feel that in reality, they thought that even if Lehrer was a liar, he was a talented, charismatic liar, and that sells papers. His editors didn't care that he might be making things up, because he was contributing to the success--meaning sales--of their magazine, and that was apparently more important than telling the truth. Magazines can change their stories in the next edition, but customers can't un-buy a magazine; either way, they make a profit. I don't think that Lehrer should be allowed to get a job in journalism again, because he clearly cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He didn't want to do his research, or only did the bare minimum, without seeming to care that he might be distributing information that wasn't actually truthful. There shouldn't be journalists like that. As for whether or not lying is ever ethically justified, I don't believe it is. While the job description of a journalist does include being a sort of "gatekeeper," as in they have some measure over how information is reported to the public, the first and most important responsibility of a journalist is to tell the truth. If a journalist is allowed to lie to the public, effectively giving the public false information, then they are no longer a journalist that can be trusted. One might cite "national security" as perhaps the only ethical justification, but there is a fine line between "national security" and "censorship"--and an even finer line between "censorship" and "propaganda."
On particular quote from the story in the Times was “In our age, a guy who looks cute and wonky is better positioned to get away with this than others.” Although, this has little to do with whether he was right or wrong, it has to do with how we often let people get away with things because of their looks. I like to call it "cute kid syndrome."
Furthermore, Fabricating stories is always unacceptable for journalists, PR professionals, and advertisers. The media is supposed to tell the public what is really happening. The media is privileged with access to information and different events and people and is supposed to be a messenger for common people. Advertisers can get away with fabrication in commercials as long as it's very clear that what is being seen has been recreated, is false, or there are paid actors involved. And with those labels on commercials, the advertisers are forced to be truthful.
I think that if was extremely dumb for Lehrer to fabricate quotes by a well known celebrity. I'm glad that his editors were aggressive, however, and were adamant about knowing if the quote was truthful. At least they were doing their jobs and behaving ethically.
In the beginning, Lehrer most likely recycled his work in order to meet a strict deadline, and he most likely forged a quote because he didn’t have enough credibility to get a quote from a high profile celebrity. As he progressively got away with these acts, his confidence increased and he continued to work in this deceitful way. The editors, being impressed with the stories probably didn’t think it needed any fact checking or revision because they were so well written. Keep in mind they were well written because what needed to be said was fabricated to be said in the perfect way.
As for his aftermath, the only editors who would hire him are ones who are looking for a publicity stunt to gain more hits on their page and to possibly get the name of their publication out to the public, he was not hired by another company for his writing skills. Lying in stories should never be justified by journalists considering their our liaisons between us and the government, and the world. PR Professionals again shouldn’t have any justification to lie as they are the ones who are trying to keep the company’s public image clean. I don’t believe its fair to put advertisers in the same truth category considering they aren’t relaying information which is life or death for us, although sometimes they try to make us believe we need their products to survive. As advertising has evolved the publics have let them get away with fabricating facts and leading us into extravagant beliefs, if we let them get away with this in journalism we will surely be doomed.
Jonah Lehrer was already an established writer in his area. He built up a successful career by being one of the “most promising, visible and well-paid writers in the business.” His readers seem loyal and accepting of any information given to them from him. Lehrer most likely fabricated quotes and recycled old publications because he knew he could get away with it. Having created a niche for himself in the science field of journalism, he gathered a specific audience for his work. Lehrer’s editor was also a fan. Even though this has happened in the past, the editor called it “a mistake,” so it is apparent that the editor either did not want to accept that Lehrer messed up or did not want to soil Lehrer’s reputation or the reputation of the publication. If the editor cared about ethical journalism, the facts may not have been checked carefully enough to catch these fabrications. I disagree with the media paying him $20,000 to speak about his “mistakes.” I think that the speech should have been given regardless of him being paid that much money. By putting such a price on the seminar and promoting it as if he was “bought” makes him into some kind of celebrity. I looked further into the speech seminar and Lehrer says that if he is lucky enough to write again, everything he writes will be “fact-checked and fully footnoted.” He is being highlighted in the press, yes to make others aware of his mistakes, but also because he was a big name in journalism and although he has wronged, he is getting more than sufficient payment to publically apologize for his so-called errors or mistakes. Journalism is getting information out to the public, so lying tends not to be ethically justified. I believe in honest public relations in that if something good is being said about a product or service, then the product or service should truly be as good as it is described to be. It seems to be that advertising has some leniency when it comes to lying. In the media, ads admit to exaggerating or embellishing the way products are perceived. As long as they do not flat out lie, the public accepts exaggerated ads over fabricated quotes or recycled work.
Lehrer did what he did in order to meet several requirements, I believe. Not only is he pressed to meet deadlines, having quotes from your book from Bob Dylan helped add sensationalization to his subject matter. He took a well known musician and crafted him to fit his storyline. Honestly, I am surprised no one picked up on his recycled work or his made up quotes. Nowadays, college students must submit their work into turn it in in order to assure that they are not plagiarizing work. How come writers do not have something similar? I understand a human editor cannot possibly have knowledge on every single thing that has been written, but some fact checking and some knowledge of Lehrer's work should have made a red flag come up somewhere. As for the Bob Dylan quotes, they should have been checked for sources immediately right as someone stumbled across them. I would say pure laziness and a abuse of previously created trust helped foster this string of devious acts. He should most certainly never receive a writing job ever again, but in this world, people love damaged gods and I am sure he will get a book signing about his tale of trials and tribulations he faced pre and post disaster. One positive thing that would arise from this situation, if he went to universities and colleges speaking of his wrong doings and help enlighten young writers as to why it is wrong to do what he did.
I do not believe out right lying in stories can ever be ethically justified. The purpose of journalists is to produce the truth to the public and lying betrays the trust of the readings. PR professionals should never lie in their practices either. I know PR professionals have this notion that they lie in order to cover things up or make things better, but their are ways to help unfortunate situations without lying. I think it is a lot harder to alleviate a situation by using ethical methods than it is to unethically do it. Therefore, by taking the more difficult option, you are only proving yourself as a professional. However, most of the world does not operate on that same notion but I know personally as someone who aspires to work in the PR field, I would want to use ethical practices. Advertisers should also never lie and there are several laws in place to help assure that it never happens. Advertisers who misconstrue readers are only proving that their product was not good enough in the first place. Advertisements are sometimes the first place a person sees a good and therefore that representation should be as realistic and true as can be.
It's likely that Jonah Lehrer was motivated by some, if not all, of the pressures we discussed in class that journalists face regularly. From looking at how quickly he rose to such a prestigious position, I'd guess that his ambition and competitive spirit led him to cut corners. By sacrificing authenticity and fact, he was able to more easily craft articles that would seem more sensational or interesting.
I believe this is why he was allowed to put out these articles. I think that when a writer is becoming more popular, and gaining the publication a larger readership, there's likely an inclination of the editors to look the other way. While their jobs are primarily to stop this kind of action, they are also mindful of the business they are a part of, and the way that being a "whistle blower" could potentially hurt the bottom line.
While it doesn't seem to be the precedent, I do hope that Lehrer is forced out of the field. If publications were more adamant about not hiring someone with a record like Lehrer's, there would be a greater fear of the repercussions of plagiarism in the field.
I am hesitant to say whether or not it is ever OK for a journalist to lie. To say that is is NEVER OK to lie, might not be giving full credit to the imagination. For example, I think if a journalist lies about the police having no idea about the whereabouts of a wanted criminal, maybe he lets down his guard and is brought to justice. Obviously, this is a specific example, but I think what that suggests is that sometimes it may be OK to lie, but typically it should be avoided. I guess what it comes down to is intent. If the lie is intended to bring justice, safety, or some good to everyone, than it could be rationalized. Lying for self-gain, fear mongering, spreading hate, etc. is definitely morally reprehensible. In my opinion, this applies for not only journalists, advertisers and p.r. professionals, but all careers and all things in life.
In my opinion, Jonah Lehrer fabricated Bob Dylan quotes because he believed people would trust his credibility. As the article in Media Record states, the The New Yorker has a reputation for having "a famed fact-checking department." Since Lehrer's main gig was writing for this magazine, his readers would assume that if the uptight publication trusts his insight, we all should too. In a way, I think it's easier for a writer in an esteemed publication to get away with fabrication than a writer on a less significant staff. However, when it does come to light that a journalist from a prestigious publication has lied, the scandal is more prominent but of the ethical expectations we have for that publication. That is why we are unphased when we find out a writer from a tabloid has lied about a source or story.
In reference to HOW Lehrer got away with it, I think the same notions come into play. Lehrer's editors likely assumed their client adhered to ethical standards because of his prominent history. I think Lehrer's ego got ahead of him and he didn't think any of his slip-ups would be caught. However, I do not think it is ethical for anyone in any profession to lie because it always gets back to them. The person in question has their credibility shattered and all of the places and companies they're associated with look bad through affiliation.
What frustrates me is that Lehrer could commit such ethical practices and then get rewarded for his malpractice. Its irritating that this liar is now making $20,000 to speak about his "mistakes." Hell, if I got a paycheck like that, I'd lie more often. It really does not set a good example for rising journalists in this nation...or perception of American credibility in any other.
I believe Jonah Lehrer committed this act for many reasons. For starters, he probably didn’t think he would ever get caught by anyone, so he was getting away with it and obtaining great success doing so. Also, as we have discussed in class, Jonah probably had a deadline he had to meet, and wanted to make his stories sound as good as possible. I find it rather shocking that he wasn’t caught sooner by his editors. That also is doing a bad job on their part, for not catching something like this from the beginning. I believe they too are partly to blame for this mess; however, Jonah had no right taking someone else’s work to call it his own. From day one of starting my college career, plagiarism is something taken very seriously, and if violated has many penalties. I feel that his editors didn’t catch him because they weren’t really thinking that he would steal someone else’s work, because he was true and a well known writer. Well so we thought that is. His editors too I believe were probably just as shocked. I think Jonah committed a terrible crime, and displaced his name permanently as a journalist. He will never be looked at the same and that is very unfortunate for him. He should be penalized for his actions, and should pay a fine for this. Is lying in stories by journalists ever justified? I agree with what some of the other posts say. Journalists are not selling, they are telling and have a job of getting truthful facts out to people.
I think Jonah Lehrer wanted to see what he could get away with. He put his career on the line because he truly believed he wouldn't get caught. His editors obviously did not check the facts and his previous work. I think that he deserved to lose his job. His credibility is now ruined for the rest of his career. Unless a story is fiction, nothing should ever be fabricated. Whether it's journalism, public relations or advertising, the truth is the most ethical rule. Their jobs involve sending information to the public and therefore, that information has to be as real as possible. What Lehrer did was completely unethical.
I think Jonah Lehrer decided to fabricate his sources because he honestly thought he would be able to get away with it. Quoting Bob Dylan is the kind of action that is so sensational, many people don't question its credibility. He is obviously a talented writer, but may have gotten caught up in his story and didn't think about the consequences of his actions. He definitely did the right thing by resigning because he realizes that an action like this is detrimental to the publication's credibility and did not want to have to argue his case when there is little for him to argue about. I do believe that having paid him $20,000 to speak on a panel about this fabrication was a little farfetched, as this action is something that shouldn't be "rewarded," even if that monetary sum was incentive for him to talk about his actions.
This is a similar situation that your previous student emailed you about, on a larger scale. Lehrer may have begun fabricating sources to meet a deadline, but continued to do so because he realized he could get away with it. There is a certain kind of rush people get out of getting away with things, even if it's just as easy to be honest about your work. I think of it like shoplifting: people know they don't need what they take, but they take it anyway for the thrill of it. In the beginning, it may start off as something to do when resources are scarce, but after a while, it just becomes a habit because consequences haven't ever been reinforced. I don't think that Lehrer should be hired in the journalism field because I do believe that his actions represent the cardinal sin of journalism. Hiring him again could taint a publication's reputation and could be detrimental to the credibility of other writers he works with. I think PR professionals do have more leeway than journalists as far as exaggerating the truth goes because they are clearly in the business to sell a product, whereas a journalist's job is to remain neutral in a situation.
Jonah Lehrer was an author, speaker and staff writer for The New Yorker before he resigned. Working for such a prestigious paper gave him a massive amount of fame and credibility. His readers, colleagues and bosses trusted and respected him, which gave them no reason to doubt his stories and the truthfulness of them. Because of this, Lehrer felt he could simply get away with what he did, and everyone else would believe his writing no matter what. Making up quotes and using accurate ones out of context is a very unethical thing to do, especially in the journalism world. Lehrer must have felt extremely confident that he could get away with these actions to go through with this, and then even go through the lengths to get a book published with said quotes in it. His editors didn’t catch his fabrications because he was so respected in his position. He gave them no reason to doubt his accuracy and truthfulness until he started recycling his old work from The Wall Street Journal, which made his publisher’s lose patience with him. In the aftermath, I don’t think he should be able to ever be published again. He lied in a book he had published, that was sold to customer’s who read his false words. He lied to the world and should never have the privilege of being published again. I think it is absolutely disgusting that he is being paid $20,000 to be a speaker at events, because this is essentially rewarding him for his unethical and shady actions. I don’t think lying in stories by journalists is ever ethically justified. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, the first rule is to seek the truth and report it. Lying is never, ever the truth, so if a journalist lies, they are breaching the code of ethics. PR professionals and advertisers most definitely lie to have their product, company, or person they are representing look better. Although this is not always the ethical thing to do, it may be the right thing to do in a certain situation, like protecting someone’s personal business.
I honestly am not sure of the true reason as to why Jonah Lehrer did what he did. To me, it seems as though he had a great reputation and an prestigious name for himself, and therefore thought he could get away with anything. He was caught plagiarizing his own work and lost a lot because of it, but not everything. He didn’t even truly apologize for this first mistake, his editor did. Then it was revealed that he fabricated the quotes in his book.
The article states Lehrer as “…one of the most promising, visible and well paid writers in the business.” I believe he knew and was so confident that this is what people though of him, and is why he did what he did, because he thought he could.
He didn’t seem to care about what was at stake for him, because he knew he could get away with a lot. As long as he had work that was published and praised, he didn’t take into consideration the ethics of his actions.
This is the same reason why nobody caught these mistakes. His reputation probably made editors and others assume that he would not do anything like this. Even after he recycled his own work, it was still his own and not others, so this was somebody nobody in the business was expecting him to do.
I think it is extremely unethical that they would pay him thousands and of dollars to speak about his mistake. In a public relations aspect, he should have done it for free, to try to reestablish his credibility and make up in some way for his mistakes, especially if he truly cared about journalism and his profession. The fact that he is talked about it only because he was getting paid, shows that he really doesn’t regret his actions. In an industry such as journalism there is a fine line of ethics and telling the truth, I think it is unethical to pay him to speak. He was being paid to talk about his lies, and when journalists are supposed to take pride in writing about and reporting the truth, why should he be rewarded for all of the lies?
I do not think it is ever ethical for journalists, public relations or advertisements to lie. This is the news and how people learn about what is going on in the world. It is the information that the public trusts, and if they can’t rely on it, how will they ever know who to listen too? Most journalists and people involved in these fields know this. They know there is even a way to not tell the truth, but to not lie about it.
The fact that the magazine had him resign after his second mistake and also recalled some of his books to help reestablish their own name and credibility shows that they do not follow Lehrer’s beliefs. Even though he stayed around after plagiarizing himself, people do make mistakes. Once it was clear this was an ongoing issue and Lehrer had ethical judgment issues, they got rid of him. I do not believe that Lehrer should work in the journalism field again, unless he takes major steps to prove his credibility and intentions of being honest and following the ethical standards of journalism.
I think that when a professional fails in any field you should use that as an opportunity to look at the employer or the field of study to develop ways to prevent this from happening again. While every individual is responsible for his or her work in journalism, the publication needs to be held accountable for ways to demote unethical behavior. It seems as though Jonah Lehrer thought that his actions fulfilled his loyalties, principles and values but in a way that overshadowed his duty to report the truth. In a competitive field, with tough time constraints, and possibly limited resources, the ethical decision became a question of whether he was willing to sacrifice integrity for the growth of himself and his publication. We read that the American Journalism Review had a piece that said, "There's no simple set of instructions on how to build the perfect culture but merely handing out an ethics code isn't going to cut it." I want to know what strategic plan does The New Yorker have to promote ethical decision making. Is there a workshop done prior to being hired? Are journalists well equipped with the knowledge and resources to make ethical decisions? How do editors behave differently when working with a big name in the field rather than a new journalist? These questions should be evaluated by the New Yorker and other publications in the field if they want to enforce credibility and protect the image of journalism from further damage. I think it is ironic that the Knight Foundation says that it is the nations 'leading journalism funder,' but choose to fund Lehrer to speak about his fraudulent actions, too soon after he completed them. Lying should never be justified even if it would benefit others because you destroy the credibility of journalism. Other professionals like advertisers and PR agents also seem to struggle with this. It seems that lieing becomes how you lie versus whether or not you do. Our reading from Ethical Decision Making in Public Relations makes it clear that firms aren't enforcing ethical behavior enough. The PRSA code that governs conduct in the field are followed by 10 percent or fewer of active professionals in the field. If this is the case, how are individuals being steered away from making unethical decisions-flat out lying?
As I was reading the Times article, I thought to myself: why become a writer/journalist if you’re too lazy to do the actual work? Especially in the genre of journalism, where the golden rule is to deliver accurate, important facts, why waste your time on making up silly Bob Dylan quotes when you can simply find one actually attributed to the musician? Jonah Lehrer most likely did what he did for a number of “reasons”: laziness, an unconcern with truth, or a desire to spice up his writing. He clearly didn't feel like what he did was unethical; he was only sorry when he got caught. As for getting away with it, he must have had the trust of his editors, who did not thoroughly check his facts. I definitely think he should be fired and forced to stop selling his books containing fabricated material. I just don’t get it—if you’re interested in creative writing, write a novel. Journalists, PR professsionals, and advertisers all have a responsibility to tell the truth or otherwise accurately portray it as best they can. It is never justified to rob people of the truth they are entitled to.
I think that Lehrer was influenced by the competitiveness of his profession. There is a lot of pressure to be the best, most interesting writer with the most exclusive information, and sometimes this pressure can get the better of people. The fabricated quotes may not have been caught by editors both because Bob Dylan is a sort of elusive character and it would be difficult to say for sure whether or not he can be attributed with saying something, but also because Lehrer already had an esteemed position at that point, and they were more likely to believe what he had written. It was wise of him to resign, and I doubt that now he will have much luck finding jobs in similar positions, although he was paid a hefty sum for talking about his "mistake". It's certainly not ethical to blatantly lie in the way that he did, but sometimes it is necessary for PR professionals or advertisers to sort of stretch the truth through either withholding information or shaping their words so carefully so that they are not necessarily lies but that they are also not the whole truth.
Agreeing with Farris' post, I think when a professional makes this kind of mistake the only person to look to is their employer. It is completely unethical to fabricate a quote, as a journalist, because our rule is basically to seek truth and report it. Obviously making up a quote by Bob Dylan is not reporting the truth. What boggles my mind is that Bob Dylan is such a character that Jonah Lehrer could have easily looked up his quotes and found something else aplicable to the situation. Basically, Lehrer did not think he would get caught, which leads me to believe he had an in with one of the editors. We then have to take The New Yorker and question their editorial strategies. We learned about prosecutorial editing the other day in class, something the New Yorker editors should have looked into. Although it is easy to skip over a quote when editing, the fact that this article from The Tablet was published, about Lehrer fabricating quotes, informs the public on Lehrer's wrong-doings. The New Yorker's editors should have fired him right then and there for going against their Code of Ethics, which I am assuming they have. There are a set of norms in the field of journalism, even if ethics is not completely black and white, that Lehrer should have been keeping up with. It makes me think he has probably gotten away with this before. The fact that he got paid $20,000 to talk at a conference about his "mistakes" makes me sick. It almost glorifies his actions. Hopefully young journalists will not follow in his footsteps, which is why ethics should be a required subject for all journalism or PR majors.
Maggie Rose Melito
John Leher was obviously an established writer. People trust and hold the New Yorker to a high standard. It’s a staple read, something you can rely on. I think John Lehrer was obviously confident in his ability to be trusted, after reading about him and his previous work I have a feeling he felt like his boundaries were able to stretch further and further. At the end of the day, he did something that was just simply, lazy. He cut a corner, so I sort of think he acted on this feeling in a big way.
His editors hold a certain responsibility also. There is not only one finger to point here. They too, were caught being lazy in this chain of events. After talking about the Jackie situation in class, it’s clear that you have to do everything you can to make sure a situation turns out right. This was obviously not this case. It’s clear they were also trusting of him.
In the movie “ The Titanic” the man who designed the ship is seen throughout the story. At the end they give him one final shot the end of the movie, getting on a lifeboat before numerous woman and children. It was said he was never given another job because he abandoned his work and was seen as a coward. I sort of feel that way about the idea of lying in your own stories. It’s your original artwork. You have to s stand by it in every aspect. Making up quotes is the equivalent to abandoning a ship you created. It’s never okay to do this, especially when speaking in terms of self gratification.
It’s never ethically justified to lie, but it does happen all the time at larger scales. Publications are swayed by higher powers all the time. It depends, I suppose, on which lies are okay to tell. Something I’m not really sure of yet.
When speaking in terms of P.R, the job of such a professional is to craft the art of communicating in an ethical way to spread knowledge about helpful and important information. In a world where we are challenged everyday with constant streams of information it’s important to remain true to your self and those who you hope to inform. In public relations, perspectives are everything. It’s important to know what is effective and relevant to all different people. Not one person thinks the same but there are common denominators in-between all of us. There is that desire for the greatest good and a healthy well-being.
I believe Jonah Lehrer committed these infractions of the journalistic code due to a desire to fabricate a public persona that satisfied his personal need for public validation. He carved out his own, unique “niche” — the young, prolific, journalist with a neuroscience degree and a positive attitude. He proceeded to fill that niche, assuming there would be no one on his tail to check his facts where they were fabricated. It is unsettling that the first untruth he was caught in pertains to a made-up Bob Dylan quote, not a scientific statement of fact. If a professional career still exists for Lehrer in any arena, it will be difficult to prove his credibility in the wake of his public display of fraudulence. I can’t imagine that any reputable news organization will want to work with him again — certainly no book publisher will, after what he put Houghton Mifflin Harcourt through with the recalls of “Imagine.” It’s likely that Lehrer has also soured his relations with Andrew Wylie, his agent, therefore making it even less likely that he will continue a career in printed media. Lehrer proved through his correspondence with Michael C. Moynihan, that he has lied on multiple occasions, not just in the instance of the made-up Bob Dylan quotes. In journalism and especially in “self-help-y” literature, it is unacceptable to lie under any circumstances. In the realm of PR, advertising, and other disciplines related to marketing and image management, it is acceptable to withhold certain true facts that might be damage to an entity’s reputation. However, once a publicist or advertiser is confronted with allegations that might not be so flattering, it is unethical to lie about or avoid addressing these allegations.
In the NPR article, the author talks of Lehrer's arrogance and that is exactly what I think motivated him to plagiarize and fabricate those quotes. His nature allowed him to disregard ethical and legal standards to feel more or less like a badass that can do whatever he wants and be praised for it...and that is exactly what is happening. Yes, he resigned and was dropped from Wired and the New Yorker, but he is still nationally recognize and being paid for it. I think he got away with it because his editors trusted him because he's smart (neuroscience) and because they didn't think he was capable of it (cute/wonky, etc...) . This character profiling is unacceptable. I think Lehrer should have be forced to publicly apologize WITHOUT being paid for it. He should have been the one to pay. I don't know how much money he lost by recalling the books, but there should have been a lawsuit filed. Lying in journalism, PR, and advertising, in my opinion, is never ethically justified. Besides the reason that people get pissed when they find out they've been lied to, it also tarnishes the reputation of something that is supposed to be good for the world. Journalists are supposed to seek truth and report it and the integrity of this should be protected no matter what, even though it is constantly brushed aside. I think the journalism code of ethics needs to be made into law as opposed to guidelines to avoid crap like that. As for PR and advertising, because of their allegiance to a particular business, company, etc, it may be easier for them to fall into unethical behavior when the reputation of their employers are in question. Even still, there is a way to take care of that without lying. Like I said before, lying makes people angry. With the technology and knowledge that we have today, you will never be able to cover up a lie forever. You just can't. So why beat around the bush? Take the hit, fix the problem, and then move on and let the media do what it does best: make people forget.
Post a Comment