Six years ago, a digitally innocent time when most people didn't know the difference between a URL and a UFO, I was an editor at Forbes.com -- then known as Forbes Digital Tool. One morning in mid-May, my boss ordered me into his office, slid a copy of the latest New Republic across his desk, pointed to a piece on hackers and sneered, "Why didn't you have this?"
I beat a hasty retreat back to my cubicle, muttering (mostly untrue) insults about his hairstyle and heritage, but after I read the story, I, too, was amazed I'd missed it.
Written by some young, inside-the-Beltway scribe, "Hack Heaven" claimed a noxious teen hacker had penetrated the computer system of a "big-time software firm" in California. But instead of phoning the feds, which is what most companies would have done, executives chose to bribe the kid.
What's more, the story asserted it was becoming more and more common for talent agents to broker million-dollar deals between hackers and the companies they hacked, and that law enforcement officials in Nevada were so concerned they had authorized a public service announcement radio campaign: "Would you hire a shoplifter to watch the cash register? Please don't deal with hackers." The article cited laws and governmental organizations I'd never heard of. Figuring I must be a pretty crappy reporter, I decided to check into it, hoping I might learn something.
By now, many (if not most) of you have figured out that I'm talking about Stephen Glass, who, it turned out, had not only fabricated "Hack Heaven," but made up in whole or part some two dozen stories he'd published in The New Republic, Rolling Stone, Harper's and George.
If you haven't, you can always rent Shattered Glass on DVD, which offers a pretty accurate retelling (although, for the record, I never chased a Forbes editor into the bathroom to bring him up to speed on a story, and no one like Rosario Dawson ever worked at Forbes.com: Trust me, I'd remember).
When my colleagues and I broke the Glass story, most people were shocked that a journalist could have perpetrated a hoax of this magnitude. Contrast this with the reaction five years later, when The New York Times (registration required) fired Jayson "Burning Down My Master's House" Blair for similar transgressions.
Many of Blair's subjects simply shrugged off his mistakes, believing they amounted to the usual sloppy, over-hyped style of reporting America had become known for. In essence, they didn't complain because this is what they expected.
And sadly, the hits to journalistic integrity just keep on coming.
- During the invasion of Iraq, The Washington Post (registration required) published a rousing account of Pvt. Jessica Lynch's capture and release, painting her as a heroic swashbuckler who practically fought off Iraqi soldiers with her bare hands. Unfortunately it was more myth than reality, and as journalism it made for great PR for the Pentagon.
- Earlier this year, Matt Drudge, hoping to score another juicy scoop on a par with Monica Lewinsky, kicked off a media feeding frenzy by posting a rumor that presidential hopeful John Kerry had engaged in an extramarital affair with an intern. The allegations turned out to be completely bogus.
- In May, The New York Times was embarrassed into running another major mea culpa, this time questioning the accuracy of half a dozen front-page stories it published on Iraq. (Of course, if the Times really wanted to come clean on several important Page One stories, why did it bury the correction on page A-10 -- below the fold?)
- I was going to cite a poll mentioned in a May 13, 2004, story posted by UPI, the wire service, that found that Americans rated journalists as somewhat less trustworthy than auto mechanics, about even with politicians and slightly more credible than used-car salesmen. Except the Gallup Poll that UPI claimed was of recent vintage doesn't exist, even though a number of websites have posted the article. (One Gallup Poll involving broadcast news was conducted in 1996 -- far too long ago to be relevant today.)
All this brings me to the reason I've joined Wired News in publishing this weekly media column. The news business is at a critical juncture. There's been an explosion in the number of outlets selling news across all mediums, which has resulted in greater competition for a shrinking audience.
More readers than ever are getting their news on the Net, while newspaper readership continues to hemorrhage and TV news outlets struggle. While a little more than 50 percent of Americans admit to reading a newspaper each week, a growing number -- 15 percent and rising -- are turning to the Internet.
Not only that, but a recent study (PDF) by the Online Publishers Association found that television's most-prized demographic -- 18- to 34-year-olds -- is far more apt to log on to the Internet than watch TV. The study concluded: Because this group represents the first generation to have grown up with the Internet, their behavior patterns are a harbinger of future media consumption of the population at large.
But Americans' familiarity with media seems to breed contempt. As citizens continue to be bombarded from all sides, their distrust of journalists and journalism has grown. For example, between 1985 and 2002, public confidence in the accuracy of newspapers fell from 80 percent to 59 percent with a corresponding decline in readership, according to a 2004 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
But let's not think for a moment that the media, even with all the bad press it has heaped upon itself in recent years, has lost its ability to shape public opinion. Whether consumers of news want to admit it or not, they are influenced by what they read in newspapers, see on TV, hear on the radio and scan on the Net.
Even political ads, which TV viewers are predisposed to tune out, have their desired effect. A survey (PDF) conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a large percentage of people believed misleading statements made in advertisements funded by both the Bush and Kerry camps. Sixty-one percent of voters questioned in 18 swing states claimed that President Bush wanted to send jobs overseas, while 46 percent said that Kerry wanted "to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon"-- notions that poll participants could only have gleaned from the commercials.
It's a strange dichotomy: Most Americans claim they don't believe what they read in newspapers or see on TV -- only a third say news organizations generally get the facts straight -- yet their opinions continue to be influenced by the media. Multiply this curious effect by the dozens of cable TV news shows, the hundreds of newspapers and perhaps thousands of websites and millions of blogs dedicated to disseminating news, and it offers great bounty for any media columnist.
In the coming months, I'll study how traditional publishers are approaching the Internet, and analyze the ways politicians and corporations spin the news and how info consumers process this information. I'll dissect blogs, which some believe could lead to a democratization of news (although in my opinion they merely represent the democratization of punditry) and report on trends.
Whenever possible, I'll try to point out when reporters distort facts or advance personal agendas (it happens). Mostly, I'll take a good hard look at the evolving state of media in the online world, where more and more people are spending their time and money.
An editor at Forbes magazine once told me: "Don't type it if you can't hype it." This Wired News column will be my attempt to turn that suggestion on its head: "Don't hype it unless you can type it."
Adam L. Penenberg is an assistant professor at New York University and the assistant director of the Business and Economic Reporting program in the Department of Journalism.
