Is Journalism Headed Into the Freyer?
I have been following the Jim Frey story with great interest. This is the story of an author who was touted by Oprah for having an "honest" and gripping autobiography about his days as a crack-head. Yesterday the press was aglow with the claim that his story is fake. They are creating a zeitgeist that will have the angels in heaven whispering.
What makes this story so compelling to an author and journalist like myself is that the "debunking" of Frey was not broken by any major news outlet. It was on a website, The Smoking Gun , (thesmokinggun.com).
You'll notice that the mainstream press outlets that picked up the story offered no NEW independent research. They simply restated what the website alleges. So, in essence they've replaced reputable wire services like AP, with an opinion-based, entertainment oriented website and in so doing, have ushered in a new class of journalism. They are not really doing a story about Frey, but a story about a website doing a story about Frey.
The danger of this might not be readily apparent, but think about it. If big news outlets don't have to vet sources because they are merely quoting someone else's internet posts, then as consumers of news, we are in deep trouble.
The journalistic standards as well as the slander laws are almost nonexistent for publishing articles on the web. In other words, you can pretty much say almost anything (especially about a public figure) on the web and usually get away with it. For reasons that are too complex to go into here, print has an entirely different set of laws and standards. While the web is the Wild West, print reporters have to go through the time-consuming process of "fact-checking."
But, now, thanks to a lack of consumer awareness on this distinction, the web provides an ergonomic workaround for reporters; simply quote someone else's opinion off the web and reframe it in their piece as a "fact" of the story.
Witness , America Online's headline that read; "Best-selling Book Called a Fraud. Web Site Says 'A Million Little Pieces' Is Based on Lies." Sizzling. Except that I've read the Smoking Gun article and that's not even close to what it said. The 13,000 word piece on The Smoking Gun never once uses the word "fraud." Their feature basically tells a story about an ex-druggy who "embellished" for dramatic effect. They site 14 "embellished" details out of approximately 450 pages of the book's text. (What writer needing to fill 400 pages hasn't embellished? Shit. What druggy doesn't embellish!?!)
So we have news websites doing a story about a story that another website did a story on. This is like a perverse game of telephone, except they're calling it "journalism." And maybe it is. Maybe this is the NEW journalism. Facts be dammed--opinions by high-profile blogs are much more fun.
Now to be clear. I'm not really mad at Smoking Gun. I like and use the site. And I have nothing against their viewpoints, which they are entitled to. But when a large news retailer like MSN or AOL substitutes a position from a website for a well researched (double sourced) fact, we may as well turn the First Amendment into bird cage liner.
Why is this case particularly outrageous? Because these two entities (Frey and the Smoking Gun) are clearly at war and neither side can be taken at face value.
If you read the letter The Smoking Gun sent Frey [www.bigjimindustries.com/news.html] what is apparent is that they took an acrimonious position with him. When Frey defends himself by hiring a lawyer and publishing their letter, the debunking website decided that the "off the record" conversations he had with them are now "fair game" and publishable. That's a journalistic no-no. A journalist is NEVER to print an off-the-record comment no matter how frustrated he becomes with a source. Who would trust ANY journalist if they did?
In 2005 one of the big stories was the press itself and how flawed media fact-checking had become. I thought that this would have shamed us into cleaning up our act. It seems I was wrong again. In fact, it's getting worse. In fact, "opinion" over fact is becoming the new "news-business" model.
Unless we, as consumers of news, demand higher standards for rubbernecking, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the distinction between fact and opinion in the "news" drops lower than the underbelly of a pregnant Boa. One day we will wake up to discover we are being lied to DIRECTLY by our own newspapers lazily quoting leaders who, without fear of impeachment, are now saying ANYTHING.
Just a quick thought by a journalist and author who tries to be both accurate and entertaining.
Moses Avalon
[ to top ]
