Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher: In 1969, when I was 21, I faked some quotes while working for a small newspaper in Niagara falls.
Little Green Footballs: See! That proves he can’t be trusted!!!
Oooooooooooookay.
Not that my opinion means anything. About 22 years ago, I cheated on a Latin test in high school. (Thanks, Kathy Yi, for not covering your paper.) By LGF’s logic, I guess I’m an untrustworthy sinner.
But LGF’s “logic” gets better. The next Big Scoop? When it was pointed out that Mitchell got his dates wrong (he originally wrote 1967 instead of 1969), E&P corrected the article and put a note to that effect.
Where any normal person would say, “Oh, it corrected a mistake,” in LGF’s world that’s a conspiracy and a scoop.
After the blogosphere picked up on his 2003 article revealing that he faked a news story while working at the Niagara Gazette, the editor of Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell (or someone covering for him), apparently went in and edited the 3-year old article to make him look less guilty…
1. He didn’t “fake a news story.” He made up some quotes about what people thought of the falls.
2. Nice spin, there: “Make him look less guilty.” What a crock. The guy was admitting that he made up quotes as a young reporter on a silly feature story. Correcting the date doesn’t make him look more or less anything. Unless, that is, you’re on a witch hunt.
A difference between bloggers and the mainstream media: The mainstream media has editors to say, “Oh, please.”
The Fray
JammieWearingFool says:
You sir, are a hack. But a professional hack, of course.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22470#comments
c.... says:
“1. He didn’t “fake a news story.” He made up some quotes about what people thought of the falls.”
Uh, dude, read that comment again…slowly. Do you see what’s wrong with it? Okay, you’re a bit slow, so let me explain. The STORY was about WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT OF THE FALLS, and some/all of the quotes were fabricated. THEREFORE, it was a faked news story. Get it?
Shr_Nfr says:
You are right. You should have had an editor to say to your blog: “Oh, please.”
Dora says:
Greg, you sound like a charlesophobe? He and his “lizard minions” have changed news reporting for the better. Check it out and take time to read some of the comments. Be careful though, it may inspire you to think a second time.
dee says:
You are joking, right? You don’t really think making up quotes is OK? Nah, yer pulling my leg. Or maybe you’re so damned out of touch with reality that you really believe it.
Jeeze.
stephen says:
“admitting that he made up quotes”
if all journalists went to and fro making up quotes im not sure that i would know the difference between real and fake news.
EZ says:
Stick to reviewing digital cameras and leave the reporting to the….heh, pros.
MrBill says:
It’s so insightful to see weasels like you reveal yourselves for what you truly are!
Keep it up…
Get a job! USA Today? Gimme a break!
Sandspur says:
“well-followed set of pro principles”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
LF says:
Like Mitchell’s editorial, Kantor’s diatribe resembles a strip-tease done by an old hooker. It just confirms what we all figured was under those skirts.
greenmamba says:
You are correct that bloggers are (largely) amateurs and that “real” media has editors and one should expect a professional standard from them.
The point though, is that despite the checks and balances, our heritage media has done a terrible job in many respects. “Right-wing” blogs are highlighting that and so far, the primary response has been to attack the messenger instead of admitting to and fixing the problems.
Stand by for more because the heritage media has got it coming. Arrogance now will only make your fall harder.
mrch says:
Charles Johnson:
Some points in reply:
1) I did not “dig up” the article by Mitchell, as Kantor could easily have discovered if he followed the link in my post to Confederate Yankee, who actually did “dig up” the article. Kantor’s “well-followed set of pro principles” apparently doesn’t include checking to see if his statements are, you know, accurate.
2) Kantor says that fabricating quotes from nonexistent people does not constitute faking news, and the accusation wouldn’t have “gotten by a professional editor.” Excuse me? Faking news is not faking news? Is that supposed to make sense? Kantor’s statement is interesting primarily because it reveals that he apparently doesn’t believe that faking quotes rises to the level of “faking news.”
3) To complete the disingenuous smear job, Kantor does not even mention that after the article by Greg Mitchell came to the attention of the blogosphere, Mitchell sneakily went back and rewrote sections of it to make himself appear less guilty. That must be Kantor’s “well-followed set of pro principles” in action again.
purplemamba says:
Just another snake laughing it’s arse off here.
The most “professional” journalism today is to be found almost exclusively in the blogosphere.
You know it and it’s why you in the MSM are clutching at straws like the drowning men that you are.
Even the worst article I’ve ever read on LGF is more professional than yours mate, sorry to hand it to ‘yer’.
Bob Sloggin says:
LOL…. Are yew a jonrlist? Huh? Yew must bee pretty smartie! I licks yew articil vary much. Dem LFG freeks hab ben tauch a lisson buy yew n yer big stuck. Tanks fo settinlg writes.
Bob
Harry Tuttle says:
Yo what’s up dudes!
Why not move the whole thread here huh? Be more fun that way.
dean juke says:
My journalism career did not rise to the heights of USA Today, but even my humble newsrooms would not have tolerated fake quotes. It might be a trivial story, but it indicates a mindset which should not be accepted in a reporter. I would have sacked the little liar.
Andrew says:
I have to admit I’m surprised. I really didn’t think this many folks would honestly believe that, just because a guy did a stupid, unethical thing in 1969 — made up quotes for a minor feature story — that anything he says 35 years later can’t be trusted.
A little context, guys. He’s not Jayson Blair or Adnan Hajj, and he didn’t make a habit of making up stories out of whole cloth. When he was a cub reporter he made up some tourist quotes. Wrong and unprofessional, unquestionably. But to go from that to “Everything he says is a lie today” is a bit harsh, doncha think?
Mark says:
Really sad that you attack someone without doing a bit of fact checking yourself. Now that you know, you must be a bit embarrassed that you attack someone for being an amatuer, but you failed to do even a little, simple fact checking. Maybe you’ll have the guts to apologize for attacking without researching.
Also, have to say, your Kantor’s Quotes section…the one about someone’s whole family dying on the way to their funeral…you must be very proud of your sick, mean-spirited wit. While many might say such things, few would be proud enough of them to post them on their website. You are to be congratulated for having the guts to publicly display your inhumanity. The quote reminds me of something some “kid” in high school might have said. Very mature of you.
Leo says:
LGF is just another blog I visit like many others. On the other hand, I gave up reading USA Today along with most newspapers a very long time ago.
The fact that you would attempt an article condemning a blog, without getting your facts straight beforehand, represents the poorest kind of journalism. Although it does lend considerable creedence in my belief that you are more interested in fabricating the news rather than accurate reporting of it.
I see nothing wrong in you’re believing it’s okay to fabricate news, it’s your credibility and not mine. However, why not just be direct and say so, rather than attempt a smear at people who believe that’s both biased and wreckless.
Leo
grayp says:
Mr. Kantor, I suggest you try an experiment. Write a story for USA Today in which you use made-up quotes. Then call Jack Kelly and ask him to give you the over/under on how long it will take your editor(s) to drop-kick your butt onto Wilson Blvd.
CTD says:
Mr. Kantor,
You are obviously unfamiliar with (and too lazy to determine) what exactly Mitchell did. He did NOT simply “correct the date.” He re-wrote the top graf, adding informtion that emphasized his youth and inexperience in a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism.
Here is exactly what Mitchell did: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/194075.php
gamma says:
Damn, Charles got owned today for all the nation to see.
greenmamba says:
Andrew: what is apparent from this story is that journalists do not seem to be taught the absolute necessity of being accurate and unbiased. Charles’ comment about Mitchell changing what he recently wrote indicates he still doesn’t understand this. And look who he is.
The web will force us all to be honest. The MSM will have to adapt.
RickZ says:
Yer kidding me, right? Journalism ethics and professional standards? Like the Dan Rather ‘Fake But Accurate” TANG Memo? Or the Lebanese ambulance struck my Israeli ‘missiles’? Or Green Helmet Guy? And the hits keep right on comin’. Journalism ethics is an oxymoron much in the same way as a hooker with a heart of gold is. But I give the hooker credit where credit is due: One pays a hooker to screw them; a journalist gets paid to screw us, the readers/viewers.
Kantor is another member of the lame-stream media that gets upset with having his stories fact-checked. Too bad. Welcome to the new reality. pwned!
Andrew says:
Leo,
Speaking of making up quotes, would you care to point out where I said “it’s okay to fabricate news”? I’ll wait.
Doug says:
Some friendly advice, aside from politics. You’d better get with it or get ready to be left behind. Your ass will be fact-checked so thoroughly with every report you file by deadline that your ulcer will eat through your soul. In other words, quit your job as a media whore and get a real job. Leave the Old Media work to those with absolutely no conscience. Your defensiveness reveals that you know you are wrong (you have a conscience).
Michigan Dawg says:
You’re right. Mitchell made up some quotes a long time ago. His recent revelation of that fact and principally the tone he took when telling us all about it says that years later he’s still not particularly troubled by it. When someone cops to wrongdoing and then poses with an in your face attitude while in essence sneering “so what about it” I guess I do have a problem with it. For such a “pro” as yourself it would be nice if you were offended by that as well but apparently real journalists outgrow that kind of sensibility. I wonder when you stopped caring about the truth.
MoonbatBane says:
Andrew says:
I have to admit I’m surprised. I really didn’t think this many folks would honestly believe that, just because a guy did a stupid, unethical thing in 1969 — made up quotes for a minor feature story — that anything he says 35 years later can’t be trusted.
Could you please quote where Charles Johnson says that “anything he says 35 years later can’t be trusted”? Or is that just a strawman, which is a logical fallacy that should not appear in a professional or even an amateur journalist’s writing?
The focus was as much on his current attitude (“Of course, I got away with it.”) and on E&P’s editting of the story to try to mitigate the damage as it was on the 35 year old fabrication.
j-damn says:
*Damn, Charles got owned today for all the nation to see. *
Yeah, he sure got “pwned”, didn’t he? That is, he would have if USA Today’s average reader had more than 5th grade reading skills.
*Also, have to say, your Kantor’s Quotes section…the one about someone’s whole family dying on the way to their funeral…you must be very proud of your sick, mean-spirited wit. *
It’s nice that Andy’s gifted in mean-spirited wit, since he wasn’t blessed with good looks or an attractive family.
THS says:
“Even the worst article I’ve ever read on LGF is more professional than yours mate, sorry to hand it to ‘yer’.”
Charles Johnson does not write articles. He’s never done a day’s reporting in his life. He excerpts articles from various publications (or links to various broadcast outlets), sometimes dishonestly by leaving out some segments. Then he distorts their meaning and the intent of the writers/broadcasters. His endless rants about the MSM are also dishonest in that whenever the Washington Post or the New York Times or some other real news source publishes something that supports his mean-spirited view of the world outside his mind, that source is treated as presenting an important truth. When the same news source publishes something that doesn’t support that view of the world, it is regarded as biased, dishonest, traitorous, and any number of other heinous qualities.
In addition to never having done any real reporting, Johnson has never done anything to influence any aspect of the political process. He’s contributed to two important takedowns of the MSM, but, given his view that Western civilization, itself, is at risk from the onslaught of Muslim hordes, one would think he might, for instance, run for office, support a particular candidate on his blog, or try to become closely involved in campaigns. Lots of nutty stuff goes on at DailyKos, but it has mobilized many people to participate in civic affairs, an activity that must clearly be at the center of our efforts to “save Western civilization”.
Geepers says:
Here’s a quote you didn’t make up. It’s printed in your “quotes” section you’re so proud of it:
I hope you die a slow, horrible, lonely death, and that your entire family is killed on the way to your funeral.
©Andrew C. Kantor
Andrew says:
Some points in reply:
Charles Johnson: 1) I did not “dig up” the article by Mitchell, as Kantor could easily have discovered if he followed the link in my post to Confederate Yankee, who actually did “dig up” the article.
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer. Not that it affects my point any, but Mr. Johson is right.
Charles Johnson: 2) Kantor says that fabricating quotes from nonexistent people does not constitute faking news, and the accusation wouldn’t have “gotten by a professional editor.” Excuse me? Faking news is not faking news?
Fabricating quotes is not the same as faking news. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or professional, or acceptable — but it’s not “faking news.” And it’s certainly not “staging news.” So yes, Mr. Johnson, not faking news is not faking news.
Charles Johnson: 3) To complete the disingenuous smear job, Kantor does not even mention that after the article by Greg Mitchell came to the attention of the blogosphere, Mitchell sneakily went back and rewrote sections of it to make himself appear less guilty.
“Sneakily,” huh? Interesting you should say that. How do you know? Was that change handled any differently than other changes to the site? That’s a perfect example of the difference between an amateur and a professional. No professional editor would allow a word like that to appear in a news story without some kind of backup — a source at the E&P editorial meeting, or proof that other changes on the site were handled differently.
Not knowing what the process was for E&P to change the story, I can’t comment on it. I don’t know if it was sneaky or standard; if it was “an attempt to make him look less guilty” or an honest correction to an honest mistake.
Believing something doesn’t make it true — not in professional journalism.
j-damn says:
*Lots of nutty stuff goes on at DailyKos,*
Have they posted the daily Jew-hate today yet?
* but it has mobilized many people to participate in civic affairs,*
HA! Yes, and ruin their candicacies for office.
*an activity that must clearly be at the center of our efforts to “save Western civilization”. *
Yep, we all need more kooks running for the House of Reps who promise to surrender the West as soon as they are sworn in and can find a pen.
LF says:
Speaking of making up quotes, would you care to point out where I said “it’s okay to fabricate news”? I’ll wait.
You’re right, Kantor. You never said “it’s okay to fabricate news”.
What you said, was:
“He didn’t “fake a news story.” He made up some quotes about what people thought of the falls.”
So in your book, fabricating *quotes* is OK, even when they’re the story itself.
Do I have that right?
Is that USA Today’s policy?
RickZ says:
THS: “Johnson has never done anything to influence any aspect of the political process.” And Kos is, what, ohfer 18 in assisting political campaigns?
Also, bringing down Dan Rather, a typical liberal Democrat journalist (in 1996, when declaring Clinton the winner on air, excitedly exclaimed, “We won!”) has had a great influence on the political process, even if just by Rather’s subtraction from the equation.
voice says:
Now the LGF “intellectuals” have resorted to calling Andrew ugly. Oh, and his family too. Priceless, and so very typical.
j-damn says:
*Johnson has never done anything to influence any aspect of the political process*
Shining a blinding light on insanity doesn’t count?
Andrew says:
“It’s nice that Andy’s gifted in mean-spirited wit, since he wasn’t blessed with good looks or an attractive family.”
Ooh, that’s real class. I think I’d rather have readers with a fifth-grade reading level than ones who come out with high-minded stuff like that.
Andrew says:
LF: “So in your book, fabricating *quotes* is OK, even when they’re the story itself.”
Once again, would you care to point out where I said fabricating quotes was OK? Did you miss this:
Fabricating quotes is not the same as faking news. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or professional, or acceptable — but it’s not “faking news.”
Geepers says:
Fabricating quotes is no big deal.
In fact I bet we all know any number of fictitious people that have any number of things to say about Mr. Kantor.
Who cares we just make them up eh Andrew?
LF says:
Still waiting for confirmation, Kantor. Just in case you missed it, I’ll reiterate:
Do you believe that it is ethical for a journalist to fabricate quotes?
Is your position the same as that of your employer?
j-damn says:
*Now the LGF “intellectuals” have resorted to calling Andrew ugly. Oh, and his family too. Priceless, and so very typical. *
You’re right, how unintellectual of me to point out someone’s obvious aesthetic shortcomings. I should instead wish that they should die a painful death and that their family suffer numerous cascading fatalities shortly thereafter–then frame, proudly, that quote for all the world to see– right next to the picture of my troglodyte family.
RickZ says:
Andrew: “Fabricating quotes is not the same as faking news. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or professional, or acceptable — but it’s not “faking news.” And it’s certainly not “staging news.” So yes, Mr. Johnson, not faking news is not faking news.”
I just can’t believe you’re sticking with this position. Well, actually I can, seeing’s how fake quotes to you does not mean fake news. This must be a hidden reference to ‘the greater truth’ concept. Now my head hurts.
j-damn says:
*Andrew says:
“It’s nice that Andy’s gifted in mean-spirited wit, since he wasn’t blessed with good looks or an attractive family.”
Ooh, that’s real class. I think I’d rather have readers with a fifth-grade reading level than ones who come out with high-minded stuff like that.
*
[Translation]: “Waaah, the truth hurts…make it stop! Return me to the world of grade-school level sheep who believe everything they see in print!”
voice says:
j-damn: It was immature, unproductive, and downright inflammatory to call him and his family ugly. That being said, his quote about the painful death was equally immature and inflammatory. But that doesn’t make your “contribution” any more justified.
Anonymous says:
“…that anything he says 35 years later can’t be trusted.”
“…to “Everything he says is a lie today” is a bit harsh, doncha think?”
Andrew, a person doesn’t have to lie every time to lose trust. Once is plenty, when your job is editor of Editor and Publisher. By making several undocumented revisions to his three-year-old article, all of them displaying obvious intent to minimalize his accountability in this prideful deceit, he reveals how well he understands professional malfeasance, and as well an absence of character that persists to this day.
Your choice to side with him is telling.
Geepers says:
Anybody get a screen shot of the “I hope your family is killed” page before Andrew deletes it?
Then instigates a forced WayBack recapture with falsified time stamp data.
And then denies that it is “sneaky” to do that?
LF says:
“Fabricating quotes is not the same as faking news.”
So glad we got that straightened out. I’m sure USA Today’s readership appreciates the clarification.
j-damn says:
*j-damn: It was immature, unproductive, and downright inflammatory to call him and his family ugly. That being said, his quote about the painful death was equally immature and inflammatory. But that doesn’t make your “contribution” any more justified. *
I’m not the one who put the picture there. I’m just a PRO at telling the truth.
voice says:
j-damn: “I’m just a PRO at telling the truth”
While you’re acting so very proud about telling the truth, can you say whether you “truthfully” believed that calling his family ugly would elevate the level of discourse here, or did you realize it would just steer it into the ground and then said it anyway?
Geepers says:
LF,
I think what you have here is simply denial of responsibility.
See it isn’t Andrew’s fault that he cheated, its Kathy Yi’s for not covering her paper and “letting” him do it. That or his teacher’s for not catching him. Not like you’re there to learn Latin or anything. And so long as you have a sheet of paper that says you speak Latin really good it really doesn’t matter whether you speak any Latin at all.
Just like Michell at Editor & Publisher who said “of course I got away with it.” See, he wasn’t at fault for lying, his editor was a fault for not (I guess expecting he would lie) and checking up on him.
Of course this is all somehow a brilliant explanation as to why we should just trust journalists because of their “professionalism.”
Andrew says:
I also have to wonder if the folks at the Department of Veterans Affairs — where “j-damn” appears to work — would appreciate his spending time writing nasty comments about someone’s wife and three-year-old.
Andrew says:
Yahoo! I knew someone would use that cheating-on-the-Latin-test against me! It’s so cool when people live up to expectations.
I also stole a Hershey Bar from the corner drug store when I was seven or eight. (I don’t remember the name, but it was at Kissena Blvd. and 59th Ave. in Queens.)
Best lock your doors when I’m in town.
Dustoff-507 says:
Dude… Johnson didn’t lie, the other fool did.
Please try to get it right. Come on, it’s not that hard.
voice says:
Maybe Andrew should follow Charles’ example and put a counter up on the page, tracking the number of hits from the Dept of Veterans Affairs.
H2U says:
Andrew,
I’ve sent a letter to USA Today regarding your piece on Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. Your half-hearted attempt at research, your relativistic definition of fake news, and your lack of commentary on the re-write Mitchell tried to stage simply speak towards your own lack of professionalism. You should not only be embaressed by your piece but also ashamed. You’ve disgraced yourself, USA Today and anyone who previously considered you a reliable source of insight.
If Charles Johnson is an amateur then you must be a n00b.
Good day.
clazy says:
Andrew,
If you had read all LGF’s posts on the Greg Mitchell thing (which is somewhat overblown, considering E&P’s insignificance), you’d know why why Johnson used the word “sneakily”. Don’t expect him to recapitulate the whole sequence for your benefit–if you want to know, you will find what you are looking for.
As for those professional editors, in whom you have so much faith, maybe you should ask for another one, because this sentence is abominable: “But he mistook having a well-worn set of professional tools with being equivalent to a well-followed set of pro principles.” Too bad that was your punchline.
The verb “mistake” does not take the preposition “with”, it takes “for”. You mistake x FOR y.
Worse, even had you used the appropriate preposition, the sentence would still make no sense. “But he mistook having a well-worn set of professional tools for being equivalent to a well-followed set of pro principles.”
What does that mean? How can a person (he) be “equivalent to a well-followed set of pro principles”? Let’s throw out “equivalent to”. “But he mistook having a well-worn set of professional tools for being a well-followed set of pro principles.” No better: what are those verbs doing there? Is he mistaking “having” for “being”, or “tools” for “principles”? Do you know? Did your editor care?
Ask your professional editor why he didn’t change the sentence to this: “But he mistook a well-worn set of professional tools for a well-followed set of pro principles.” Not that making sense would make you right, but at least I would have understood what you were getting at.
Geepers says:
Tattling on where people are posting from Andrew?
“It’s so cool when people live up to expectations.”
voice says:
clazy, you really do get to the heart of the matter, don’t you?
Andrew says:
Just the jerk who attacked my family, Geepers. :)
Hey, all — I actually do enjoy the whole “You’re a jerk!” “No, YOU are!” thing (as long as it remains civil). You don’t like what I said, and that’s cool. I’ve certainly been called worse than the things said here; being called names goes with the territory.
I would appreciate it, though, if you’d leave my family out of it. I mean, come on, calling a three year old ugly? I mean, really.
Also, we’re soon going to reach the point where everyone’s views are clear and we’re just rehashing them. At that point I’ll probably stop reading and replying (after which people will say things like, “See! He has no response!”).
So carry on telling me what a horrible journalist/columnist/person I am, giving me opinions I don’t have, questioning my manhood, etc. But please don’t be offended if I don’t reply.
Thanks — now have at it!
Leo says:
Andrew said…
Speaking of making up quotes, would you care to point out where I said “it’s okay to fabricate news”? I’ll wait.
Well, your article attributes Johnson to digging up the old Mitchell article, maininly when you wrote
“So Johnson went from using his technology toolbox like a pro to using it like an amateur. He dug up an article Mitchell wrote in 2003 in which Mitchell admitted that ….”
Following the link you provided, Johnson did not dig up that article, his blog post points to another blog. Stating that “confederate yankee” had dug up an old news article would have been accurate reporting, but that isn’t what you did. Attributing it to Johnson was not entirely honest although it did support your thesis of attacking Little Green Footballs.
You also imply that creating quotes from non-existent people to use in a news story is somehow acceptable practice. Particularly when you said that
“Calling it “staging news” or saying Mitchell “faked a news story” was a bit off the deep end.”
I might ask you why that is “off the deep end”? Mitchell wrote a story. He used quotes which were never made. It was a fabrication even if 99% of his story may have been accurate.
Actions always speak louder than words. You can claim that your not biased, but I don’t recall any articles questioning the journalistic ethics of one of your peers. Instead you’ve tendered inaccurate information about an obscure blog. Yes, actions speak louder than words, and I’ll maintain that your article was clearly biased.
Leo
Hoystory says:
Andrew, it’s “journalists” like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I’ve worked as a reporter, editor, page designer, copy editor and photographer for more than a dozen years and I’ve never, NEVER, made up quotes even for a silly feature story. (Except for the time I “interviewed” racing pigs at the Santa Barbara County Fair. However, unlike Mitchell’s fictional tourists, the pigs were at least real. I also suspect that most of my readers figured out that I really don’t speak pig.)
In your USA Today piece you said: “Calling it “staging news” or saying Mitchell “faked a news story” was a bit off the deep end, and neither accusation would have gotten by a professional editor.”
I call Bolshevik Storytelling. And, as a previous commentor pointed, in the wake of the Jack Kelley scandal at USA Today, your claim doesn’t hold water. Let’s look at what Mitchell’s assignment was all those years ago: Niagra Falls are being shut off, go down there and ask tourists what they think about it, having travelled whatever distance they did to see the falls. So Mitchell hops in his car and goes down there, sits on a bench and MAKES UP PEOPLE AND QUOTES FROM WHOLE CLOTH.
Now tell me, if Mitchell didn’t “fake a news story,” then exactly how would you describe what he did? You seem to be saying that he was merely “fabricating quotes,” but in this case, THE QUOTES ARE THE STORY.
Seriously Andrew, take a walk around the Roanoake Times there and ask editors if they think that fabricating quotes is no big deal as long as it isn’t “staging news” or “faking a news story” — if you can even get them to discern a difference between the three things.
Journalism. Wound. Self-inflicted.
RickZ says:
Well then, Andrew, can you provide a detailed explanation of why you think/feel fake quotes are not fake news? What’s the point of fake quotes in the first place, if not to paint some preconceived picture?
Geepers says:
It’s your blog Andrew, at anytime you want to (re)state or clarify your opinion you can.
Because posting where someone is posting from doesn’t really rebut your position or refute his.
“I would appreciate it, though, if you’d leave my family out of it.”
Most likely what the person you responded to with “I hope … that your entire family is killed on the way to your funeral” thought as well.
Uncle Bobo says:
Hey, Andrew:
Before you lecture the blogosphere on how to be ‘taken seriously’, perhaps — as the other postings here have pointed out — you should get your own facts straight first (and ‘should have been clearer’ doesn’t cut it…you sound like a tap-dancing politician who has just been caught with his foot in his mouth)
Additionally, perhaps you’d like to cite the ‘professional editors’ who agree with you that faking quotes is not in fact ‘faking/staging news’ and/or would never call it as such. Because this summer I’ve seen countless articles in the MSM as well as numerous talking heads on CNN/FOX etc. — professional journalists all — who have used those exact words when lamenting the slipping ethics of their profession. And who prompeted that soul-seaching? The blogosphere and people like Charles Johnson.
Lastly, I’m sure most people can be forgiving of youthful indiscretions (perhaps even a serious professional breach of faking quotes like Mr. Mitchell did) and not turn it into an issue of eternal untrustworthiness. The point here is that Mr. Mitchell is the last person to lecture Charles Johnson or anyone else about “baseless attacks on war photographers”. Thanks rank hypocricy…and everything in Mr. Mitchell’s journalistic past most certainly is fair game.
And now, ironically, you have done the same as Mr. Mitchell — attack the blogosphere with words and accusations which did nothing more than expose your own glass house. Bravo!
Guider says:
Quotes are news when someone newsworthy is being quoted, or if something newsworthy is being said. Otherwise, they’re just filler.
Leland says:
I think you were better off pissing off the Apple users. Hang in there.
Hey Andrew, pass me a rib while you’re rotating on the spit.
LF says:
“Quotes are news when someone newsworthy is being quoted, or if something newsworthy is being said. Otherwise, they’re just filler.”
Why would a newspaper waste space on “just filler”? Isn’t the average newshole small enough as it is?
JammieWearingFool says:
I guess he figured it was time to cut his losses and scurry away like a coward. I imagine this thread will disappear into the ether before long.
Hoystory » Blog Archive » Defending the indefensible says:
[...] A little miffed that someone would try to minimize and whitewash the journalistic sin of making up quotes, I went to Kantor’s site and posted the following statement: Andrew, it’s “journalists” like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I’ve worked as a reporter, editor, page designer, copy editor and photographer for more than a dozen years and I’ve never, NEVER, made up quotes even for a silly feature story. (Except for the time I “interviewed” racing pigs at the Santa Barbara County Fair. However, unlike Mitchell’s fictional tourists, the pigs were at least real. I also suspect that most of my readers figured out that I really don’t speak pig.) [...]
Watergate says:
Mr. Kantor: Your other examples of professionals knowing more than amateurs all require some sort of training and government certification/licensing, as well as following established sets of rules (building codes, etc.). But, there are no licenses required for opening a newspaper, no certifications for journalists, and no required training. So, the entire distinction of “professional” versus “amateur” is bogus with respect to the media. You are a “professional” because you call yourself that, not because any outside source has verified it, nor because you are held to a certain set of rules. In other words, no matter what you print, you can’t lose your right to print it.
The true test is the market. I did a Google search for “Andrew Kantor” and got 123,000 or so hits. Not bad, but how many are other Andrew Kantors? A search for “little green footballs” got 5,670,000 hits. I doubt that there are other “little green footballs” out there. So, based on the market, I would submit that Mr. Johnson is about 46 times more professional than you.
voice says:
Watergate: Search for “daily kos”, and you’ll find that Kos is (11.5-5.67)/5.67 = 102% more professional than Charles. Are you ready to abandon your logic yet?
Charlie Tips, Flower Mound, Texas says:
You, sir, are a true journalism professional, and you are one in the only real sense in which any reporter or columnist is one. A periodical was willing to cut you a check for sitting down for fifteen minutes and pecking out a bunch of top-of-the-head blather. This is precisely why I, who got my start as an editorial page editor, no longer subscribe to any newspapers or newsweeklies.
The blogs at least respect my time (I don’t have to wade through six column inches of hypothetical crap about forgetting someone’s name), and they respect my intelligence (they don’t, for instance, extol some fake standard of “professionalism” and then turn around and mock an equally arbitrary straw-man notion of “expert”).
Bottom line, in this country, freedom of the press is a right shared equally by all individuals. There is no professional class of journalists, and the bag of tricks and “ethics” you learn in J school do not prevent the kind of sorry rant you put out from being pervasive.
LF says:
“But there are no licenses required for opening a newspaper…”
Well, there is “journalistic license”. Maybe Kantor et al. just misunderstand what that means.
LF says:
“Search for “daily kos”, and you’ll find that Kos is (11.5-5.67)/5.67 = 102% more professional than Charles. Are you ready to abandon your logic yet?”
Doesn’t say much for Kantor either way, does it? LOL
voice says:
Unless you’re willing to do the natural thing and include the USA Today subscription numbers. But I know you will conveniently overlook that LOL.
John Galt says:
Time to step back and put this tempest into perspective.
Does this make me less likely to read USA Today? Yes but it’s been over 5 years since I’ve seen one anyway.
Does this reduce my opinion of the MSM and their political hacks who call themselves journalists? Yes but negative infinity minus one is still negative infinity.
Does this in any way contribute to the one thing that really matters which is to dispell the myth of global warming? No it doesn’t.
Time to take the teapot off the stove…..
voice says:
Does Andrew’s article lower the opinion held by the MSM readers about the ability of blogs to compete with the MSM? Yes.
Wm T Sherman says:
“voice says:
Does Andrew’s article lower the opinion held by the MSM readers about the ability of blogs to compete with the MSM? Yes.”
How do you know?
LF says:
“Does Andrew’s article lower the opinion held by the MSM readers about the ability of blogs to compete with the MSM? Yes.”
Only if you define “the MSM readers” as “readers of Kantor’s blog who trust his judgment.” (Or does his blog somehow appear in print form too?)
Wm T Sherman says:
Mr. Kantor-
What are these Pro Principles to which you refer?
CTD says:
Mr. Kantor,
You state:
“Sneakily,” huh? Interesting you should say that. How do you know?…
Not knowing what the process was for E&P to change the story, I can’t comment on it. I don’t know if it was sneaky or standard; if it was “an attempt to make him look less guilty” or an honest correction to an honest mistake.
OK. Let me spell it out for you,using small words, since you appear to be too thick-skulled to understand. We have an example of how E & P handles corrections. It’s appended right at the top of Mitchell’s old story:
CORRECTION, August 27, 2006: Several readers of the 2003 story below have informed us that the water flowing over Niagara Falls was turned off in June 1969, not in 1967, as the article below stated. We have corrected or deleted that date and Mitchell’s age where they appeared in this column. Mitchell worked at the Gazette in the summers of 1968 and 1969 before graduating from college in 1970. The incident recounted below occurred in his second summer at the paper, not in the first, as the original had it.
Nice. That’s an honest, transparent way of communicating to readers that Mitchell got the dates wrong. Fair enough. However, as I tried to point out before, this is not the only change made to the article. I said:
He did NOT simply “correct the date.” He re-wrote the top graf, adding informtion that emphasized his youth and inexperience in a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism.
Here is exactly what Mitchell did: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/194075.php
There has yet to be ANY ackknowledgement that the first graf was re-written three years after the fact. Nothing that was added to correct the story. It was simply puffery placed there to paint Mitchell in a more sympathetic light. In other words, sneaky.
Now do you understand?
Vitamin Tom says:
Speaking of made up quotes, both your USA Today article and this blog entry contain the phrase “fake a news story” in quotes. To whom is that quote atributed? Neither in the original article nor in Charles’ follow up entry are these words found. Do they actually teach quote-faking in journalism school, or do you learn that at the Dan Rather Institute of Advanced Ethics?
Reading the Mitchell article, it seems HE actually calls what he created a “fake story.”
Watergate says:
In terms of standards … let’s try THE TRUTH. Let’s hold journalists, “professional” or not, to … the TRUTH. I think that truth should be the first of the “well-followed set of pro principles.” The truth is that: (a) Greg Mitchell admittedly created fake quotes from thin air; and, (b) Greg Mitchell, or someone likely acting at his direction, secretly edited archived stories of his admission to emphasize his alleged rookie status when he created the fake quotes. Mr. Johnson got those facts absolutely correct.
What is, frankly, disgusting is that Messrs. Kantor and Mitchell both believe that fact (a) is no big deal. Not particularly professional, but no big deal.
What the MSM have forgotten is that the first and highest obligation of a journalist is to the truth. The fact that they are both cavalier about an intentional falsehood means that they do not believe that truth is the highest obligation of journalism. They must think there is some other and higher obligation. For Mr. Mitchell, it is likely service of a particular political agenda (like Dan Rather and the ‘fake but accurate’ documents).
Let’s ask Mr. Kantor: Do you have a higher agenda in journalism than the truth? If so, would you mind letting us know what that is? That way, anyone who reads your work will know that if it isn’t true, it is serving a higher purpose, which is …..
Thank you.
Cato the Elder says:
So much fun to watch the ethical self-destruction of another “pro” journalist. As a famous Roman once said, “What is truth?”
Watergate says:
Here is what Greg Mitchell said in the first secret edit: “Still, I felt bad about it for years and (obviously) have never forgotten it. On the other hand, I was, at the time, just 19, it was a summer internship, and I’d only been on the job about a month.”
Here is how it reads now: “Still, I felt bad about it for years and (obviously) have never forgotten it. On the other hand, I was, at the time, just 21.”
He just made up the part about “been on the job about a month” and “summer internship” to make himself look better. When caught, that part just disappears into the Memory Hole.
The key lesson is this: Greg Mitchell makes up stuff. He did when he was 21, and he does now. He defends other MSM who make up stuff. Now, Mr. Kantor, you defend him based on a really sloppy, superficial reading of Little Green Footballs.
I guess the only “pro-principle” that counts in the MSM is covering for each other. Maybe I already answered my question to you: the higher principle is loyalty to your industry, which is more important than telling the truth.
Marcos says:
Mr. Kantor -
One point that has not been exploited at all in either this posting or your article on USA Today is the true reason behind the fact that Charles from LGF might have had “an axe to grind” with Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher. The Niagara Falls story is only a red herring. The problem that Charles (and others, myself included) has with Mr. Mitchell is not that he made up some quotes when he was starting his journalistic career, or later tried to change the context, dates, etc. he wrote. While those actions are, as you yourself acknowledged above “right, or professional, or acceptable”, they are not the main reason why Charles, LGF readers, and pro-Israel folks, among others, took offense to Mr. Mitchell.
It is rather because of Greg’s stance on many issues, including recently the Reutersgate scandal. Ironically, David Perlmutter (a professor and authority on photo-journalism) pointed out also in E&P that “bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students”. After the Perlmutter article, Mr. Mitchell went on to ferociously attack those of us who started asking the probing questions (that Columbo, the detective played by Peter Falk in the TV series used to ask). In his piece, Mitchell wrote that photojournalists “are risking their lives while bloggers risk nothing but carpal tunnel syndrome.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003020746
Now that is a very serious attack – the truth is he is 100% wrong. It is perfectly OK to ask questions, to find out the context of certain photos, to check for facts, particularly AFTER you’ve uncovered quite a few gems (such as Charles Johnson, Zombie, Confederate Yankee, Hot Air, and many other blogs in the blogsphere) have uncovered in the recent conflict in Lebanon, which pitted Israel against Hezbollah. Hezbollah, and most of Israel’s enemies, have fabricated lies for the longest time, which unfortunately have not been disputed or have not passed through some “bullshit filters” which SHOULD BE in the press. Unfortunately, many members of the mainstream media are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, and do not ask those questions. That allows things such as Reutersgate to happen, and folks such as Adnan Hajj to be employed by Reuters.
And Mitchell is, in my humble opinion, absolutely 110% WRONG to shoot the messengers. He should instead take a critical look at the press and probe deeper why so much propaganda that hurts the cause of Israel (and the rest of the free world, shall I add) is allowed to go through without being further inspected. Or why something like “Rathergate” is allowed to happen, even after Dan Rather himself said the story was “false but accurate”. For crying out loud, we, the readers of this mainstream media, would like to see some REAL journalism once and for all – without biases, with some ethical standards, showing a plurality of views, etc. Unfortunately, we are seeing less and less of that everyday.
So I ask you to put things in context and not to call people like Mr. Johnson “amateurs”. They are among the very best that we have right now to defend the integrity and to hold organizations such as Reuters ACCOUNTABLE for any photos / stories they publish. And please, do keep things in context. All Charles was doing was republishing something that appeared in sites such as Confederate Yankee and Hot Air. I will leave you with an interesting note from Hot Air re. Mitchell’s piece to “defend” the mainstream media:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/23/ep-editor-attacks-bloggers-over-reutersgate/
May I also suggest that you scan the LGF “Fauxtography” Archive to see the level of media manipulation in the recent conflict and to draw your own conclusions:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only
The Albatross says:
Whatever “point” you claim to have had has been lost because it has become far easier for “journalists” (loosely) to shoot off their opinions than it is to investigate and actually BASE an opinion on some facts.
I am really disappointed by the mitigation of the “facts” (rather absence of them) and troubled by the creedence by a few here that the OPINION or “point of the author” has more import than the line of thinking that one used to arrive there.
In this case, the author of this piece of trash is a pompous, knee jerk, hack who can’t even be bothered to get the story straight before forming an opinion. Am I supposed to care about that? I don’t think so.
The Albatross says:
Come come now… be honest.
This was an elaborate plot to boost the hits on your blog so you might get moved up from amoeba on the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem eh? *wink wink, nudge nudge*
Sue says:
Personally I’d say that Charles took another step forward and you took a big one backwards.
TotallySirius says:
Andrew you really are an idiot for not doing any research on anything you say,first you attack Mr. Johnson without getting you facts straight then you think because j-damn has a veterans affairs IP addy(according to you),he’s automatically a government employee,there are many other possibilities oh…something like he’s a wounded vet in a VA hospital.
I’m not saying that is the case but you never even took that possibility into account,did you Mr. Pro Standards?
You’ve hit bottom and still you keep digging.
By the way,faking quotes in a news story IS the same as faking news.
Jon says:
Andrew, you have repeatedly said that making up quotes is not the same as making up news, but you have never defended that statement logicly. Merely making the assertion is not that same thing as explaining it. I honestly believe that making up quotes to put into a news story, however trivial, is the same thing as making up news. Please EXPLAIN to me what the difference is. Do not merely tell me there is a difference.
Thom says:
RE: Fabricating quotes is not the same as faking news. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or professional, or acceptable — but it’s not “faking news.”
I don’t believe I can agree. Sometimes quotes are the news story so such a blanket statement would worry me and I would wonder if a writer felt it was no problem was trustworthy. If I read a news story on USA Today or other paper today and it said Bush said certan things and I found out tomorrow the quotes were faked then I would definitely not believe that writer wasn’t guilty of faking a news story because I am sure the faked quotes of the President was important to the story whatever it might be or why fake the quotes at all. To address a faked quote years ago would, granted, diminish my distrust of a writer if he learned and was never known to have done it again in a long career but to say faking quotes isn’t faking news period, today, well, that would make me wonder today what that writer’s reasoning or aim was. I, on the other hand, am no writer so found this response convolution but hopefully understandable.
Bob Owens says:
Mr. Kantor,
I’d like to restate what CTD said previously, because I have the feeling that you don’t fully grasp Greg Mitchell’s transgression. An editor at a Washington D.C. newspaper assures me that in at least his national news organization, this stealth revision would be considered a firing offense.
Mitchell wrote the original editorial in 2003 and left it unaltered until one week ago today. The lede of that article was re-written within hours of my having written a post about his editorial. The lede was written in such a way as to emphasis his youth and relative inexperience. Mr. Mitchell—or whoever re-wrote it for him—did not issue any indication that he had updated his article. When pressured, E&P published an update to explain that the dates were incorrect, but they never acknowledged the elephant in the room that was by then, the primary focus of blogospheric interest, the unacknowledged re-write intended to mitigate criticism.
Repeated and subsequent attempts to contact Mitchell, his publisher Charles McKeown, company spokesman Will Thoretz of E&P’s parent organization VNU Media and it’s officers by various bloggers to explain the situation have gone unanswered. None of these individuals have had enough courtesy, professionalism, respect, or even concern about the reputation about the craft they are supposed to represent to respond to those asking very serious questions about a very real breach in ethics apparently committed by one of their senior staff members.
This Mr. Kantor, is stonewalling.
If the re-write of Mitchell’s lede was within E&P guidelines, they would merely have to say so and diffuse the situation. But I think we all know that professionals, at least ethical ones, make it a point to put a time and or date stamp on an article to denote when it was last written or updated. Others post updates at the top of the original article so that readers are immediate aware of revisions when they next visit the web page. Others post updates in-line at the point the revision was made, and still others post addendums to let readers know what has been updated. The point is, Mr. Kantor, that every professional news organization has a specific policy for posting story updates and revisions, and the underhanded way in which Mitchell’s editorial was rewritten in an apparent attempt to slip it past both his critics and their readers was blatantly dishonest. The final revision to the editorial, by the way, indicates that E&P’s standard policy is to post updates to the top of the article.
Whoever re-wrote Mitchell’s lede did not conform to E&P’s own standards. What happened here was and is a very serious breach of ethics at any news organization warranting termination in many if not most, not a fine point of an individual news organization’s personal philosophy.
Finally, I am now formally asking you for a correction to your article to be published at USA Today where it originated, citing the factual errors you made. As you are a professional journalist, I’m sure I can expect you to follow that minimal standard.
I would also be delighted, as I think everything else here would as well, if you took the time to contact Mitchell or McKeown and get their side of this larger story for publication. I know that investigative journalism is not your forte, but you might be surprised at just how easy it can be.
Thank you for your time.
Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
John says:
“Not that my opinion means anything. About 22 years ago, I cheated on a Latin test in high school. (Thanks, Kathy Yi, for not covering your paper.) By LGF’s logic, I guess I’m an untrustworthy sinner.”
Well, not ONLY are untrustworthy, but it means you’re too fucking stupid to pass the test with knowledge alone. Typical journalist (a bit on the dim side).
Andrew says:
And with that classy statement, comments are now closed.
Paul says:
You might want to have a look at LGF, Andy. They’ve responded to your account. And tell me, why did Reuters fire Adnan Hajj? And why is Editor and Publisher editing 3 year old articles with no notice? Is that kosher, journalistically speaking?