I was sorry to read of the death of Vivian Aplin-Brownlee, who stands out as one of the few to challenge the authenticity of a story that marked one of the lowest points in American journalism.
In 1981, Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for a story called "Jimmy's World," reporting on an 8-year-old heroin addict in DC. The problem: he didn't exist. The piece was a complete fabrication.
I've often stumbled on the case because when I read the piece, I found it strained the bounds of reason. But then I suspected it was just the clarity of hindsight leading me to that conclusion. You can read it and judge for yourself.
Aplin-Brownlee doubted the story from the beginning and came to be well-regarded for being a lone voice of dissent.
What is a newspaper's responsibility to check the veracity of its reporters' work? How could a false story slip through? What did this do to the Post's credibility? What forces prompt reporters and editors to behave unethically? What effect may race have had in this saga?
Monday, October 29, 2007
A Skeptical Editor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Newspapers are supposed to check facts. In this case, everyone involved screwed up. I'm surprised editors didn't lose their jobs. Crap like this damages credibility across the board.
She was apparently very ambitious, and likely felt pressure to prove herself as a young, female, black reporter. Oops.
I'm sure the higher-ups wanted this incredible story, which may have been partly why they didn't check its veracity. They probably wanted to support this reporter, too. Or just avoid looking like they're picking on the young, female, black reporter. Oops.
Post a Comment