Sunday, December 03, 2006
It seems that one or more students at the Columbia University School of Journalism cheated on the final exam of a course in ethics. Glenn Reynolds wrote that "you can't make this stuff up... Sadly, you don't have to."
Columbia has responded as any post-modern university would. Having detected cheaters in its midst, Columbia has decided that the scandal presents a teachable moment.
As Columbia University continues to grapple with allegations of cheating on a final exam in a journalism ethics course, students have been assigned to write an essay on an issue that parallels the one faced by their own professors.
The topic: What should a newspaper’s executive editor do after receiving “a tip from a credible source that one or more unspecified articles in recent editions of the newspaper contain fabricated material”?
The essay, which may be up to 500 words, is due Tuesday. No problem. I'll get it done before Desperate Housewives. Since it is the season of goodwill on Earth, I hereby authorize any enrolled Columbia journalism student to copy from this post, in whole or in part, with or without attribution, for incorporation into or substitution for the aforementioned assignment due Tuesday.
If the executive editor of a newspaper receives a "tip from a credible source that one or more unspecified articles in recent editions of the newspaper contain frabricated material," what should she [NOTE to Columbia J-School students: Be sure to sprinkle in feminine gender pronouns, even for generic nouns. Professors eat that shit up. - ed.] do?
As tempting as it may be for your exhausted executive editor to blow off such a generic allegation, which by its terms might apply to dozens of stories and every reporter on
One of two things will happen. Either the investigation will uncover the "fabricated material" and the fabricator thereof, or it won't. If it fails, then there is no reason to believe that the tip -- which related only to "unspecified" articles -- is in fact credible. End of problem and end of essay, but for the small question of disclosure to the public. No, the investigation should not be disclosed, because there is nothing to say other than "we received an anonymous allegation that one or more of our stories contained an innacurate fact, but upon complete investigation were able neither to prove nor disprove the allegation." That sounds as idiotic as it is, and no business -- not even a newspaper -- should have to admit that there was a rumor it produced a defective product.
If, however, the investigators demonstrate that one of the paper's reporters has fabricated "material" in a published article, there is the question of discipline. Companies that take their products or services seriously -- say, medical device manufacturers, consumer products companies, or banks -- would immediately terminate any employee who did what this reporter has done, which is to adulterate or corrupt a product intentionally. Any employee who does that has not merely violated a company policy; he has attacked the foundation of the public's trust in that company's brand. For companies that take their products seriously, there is no remedy for this problem short of prompt termination. Does our executive editor take her product seriously? If so, she has no choice. If not, she will reveal that attitude when she fails to terminate the guilty reporter.
The final question, then, is the extent of public disclosure following the investigation. The newspaper must of course prominently correct the known factual inaccuracies. Whether it should report that the inaccuracies were the intentional act of the reporter rather than a failure of the organization depends on whether the newspaper genuinely takes responsibility for the work of its reporters. If it does, it should not publicly blame the inaccuracies on the terminated reporter. After all, if it takes responsibility for the work of its reporters, then the adulterated stories were a managerial failure as much as the work of the rogue. However, if the newspaper regards itself as a mere vehicle for the expression of its reporters -- and if it says as much -- then perhaps it has exalted the status of the reporter to such a degree that it is appropriate to blame the reporter publicly for the fraud.
In all cases, we ultimately know this much to be true: the executive editor's internal and external responses to the tip and the investigation will reveal a great deal about the newspaper's regard for the quality of its product.
WARNING to all Columbia journalism students who want to copy this post and hand it in on Tuesday: it is more than 500 words. But, presumably, you know how to edit.
MORE: Spelling error corrected per the Grouchy Old Man. All part and parcel of the distributed, open source editing that keeps the blogosphere sharp!
Obviously you are not up on the latest practices in the media with regard to dealing with fabricated material. Something along the lines of "As is standard practice at CBS News, every exam was closely examined by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity."
You don't give enough info for any person currently working in the media establishment to properly answer the question.
Does the fabricated material has the desired political repercussions? If it does, then the answer is to ignore the correction. If it does not, and especially if the fabrication is by or benefits a non-liberal, then the answer is to create a media firestorm demonizing the non-liberal who benefits from the fabrication (even if they have nothing to do with the fabrication itself).
Does the fabricated material make it possible to publish a story a reporter already 'knows' is true, like the Nat'l Guard memos? In that case merely not investigating is clearly insufficient - you must also turn the volume of your original story up to 11 to drown out any criticism, and grab every partisan, crank, and in-house paid-for 'expert' you can find to make meaningless and/or outright fraudlulent criticisms of your critics, their motives, their past associates, their families and their choice in beer.
If this fails after months of you being the only person on earth to believe your own story, then all you need to do is fire a token person and/or hire another person in charge of 'ethics' (Hint: like the ones you already had but who didn't do anything). Then put that person in charge of covering up any future scandals.
Finish by accusing any future critic of hating free speech, America, and puppies.
If 1,000 bloggers each wrote their own 500-word essays on this topic, how would Columbia's faculty know whether or not their students were plagiarizing?
TW: exoixsr (I don't know what it is, but I want one)
There's also the matter of "frabricated[sic]" material. *grin*
Open source editing, huzzah! (Side note: consider switching to Firefox 2.0 for your browsing/posting - it uses an integrated spell-checker on every single text area, which means that I get nice MS Office-like red underlines every time I misspell something rather egregiously.)
For crying out loud...dispense with all the pompous BS and call what it is...cheating and lying.
This makes me sick, with all of the 1st Amendement rah rah crap we hear from these reporting morons the public still is not entitled to any journalistic integrity because they learned to cheat in their ethics classes in college.
Release the names of the cheaters so that we will know the liars when they graduate and try to sell a story or get a job or have a blog.
If Columbia has proof these students cheated - they should be expelled.
College students who get caught cheating should be expelled - period.
no second, third, fourth chances - they should be expelled.
Yes, it is true...students cheat. Even at Brigham Young University two students plagerized the final paper in the journalism ethics course in their last semester of a four-year program! And yes...they got expelled...and no they didn't graduate. Ethics isn't something you can teach in a classroom. All an ethics class is is an opportunity to make future journalists aware of the ethical dilemmas that they might face and sensitize them to them.