Like the bright-young-things hypothesis, there’s a lot of the truth to that statement, but a limit to what it can explain. The modern media system can be blamed for all kinds of terrible journalism, from repackaged press releases to error-ridden copy. But reporters who commit the highest offense, boldfaced fabrication, are few and far between. Again, some useful perspective from Blair:
And to me, every time one of these scandals comes back up—and, you know, we’re probably less than .001 percent of the journalists out there—but it reinforces the myth that people have about this going on all the time in journalism, or the bias.
Indeed, the most egregious charlatans are outliers—not products of the system, but random aberrations. Most journalists, even the fame seekers, play by the rules or commit relatively minor (albeit punishable) offenses despite the pressures of their job and the general expectations of society.
Moreover, this is not a culture that forgives and forgets as easily as adherents of the bright-young-things hypothesis suggest. In her piece for Salon, Gay argued that the “same system” that made Lehrer will remake him, too:
At some point in the future, not too long from now, there will be a book deal. Jonah Lehrer will flagellate himself publicly to our satisfaction, explaining the how and why of his deceptions and fabrications. His phone will start ringing again because he’ll still be an intelligent young man who fits the genius narrative so well. Slowly but surely, Lehrer is going to start climbing back toward grace and he’ll reach it because he’s part of a system that is too big to fail, that very much wants men like him to get back to grace.
If history is any guide, however, Lehrer will never regain the heights he once occupied. The book deal will probably come through, as it did for Blair and Glass, but neither of them returned to journalism.
Blair is a life coach for people with mental health issues and as recently as December, Glass, though in possession of a Georgetown law degree, was having a hard time convincing the California Bar Association to trust him.
As Blair told NPR, “It’s not as easy to paint that perfect narrative to describe why people in our situations do what we’ve done.” One thing is certain, however: Their mistakes are their own, not ours.
Correction: Roxane Gay’s name was misspelled in the original version of this story. We regret the error.
- 1
- 2
The writer of the Salon piece is "Roxane Gay," not "Roxanne Gray."
#1 Posted by Anna Clark, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 05:48 PM
Thanks, Anna, caught that and corrected.
#2 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 05:54 PM
This is a powerful story because every time I do a Google advanced search, 24 hours, there is thoughtful new material.
Some aspects of the story remain undeveloped. Eric R. Kandel obviously had a special relationship with Lehrer. What does he have to say now that the former resident at his lab at Columbia has failed?
As I have said at Washington Post comments, "Imagine" remains on sale in Vancouver (Penguin Canada, Allen Lane).
What struck me in reading chapter 3, "The Unconcealing," on working memory, is just how dull it is. It ends strangely: "It's ruminating in the backs of taxis and popping pills until the poem is finished" (page 83).
The last thing a young writer wants to be doing is popping pills.
What I also mentioned at the Wash Post is that reporters should work the sections in bookstores, Science, Psychology, Philosophy, and Community & Culture (Sociology), so as to assess the value of cognitive science.
In comparison with physics (see the excellent book "The Strangest Man," on Paul Dirac), cognitive science is in sad shape. Scientific American Mind, as weak as it is, is a good symptom.
Mark Ashcraft's "Cognition" is a good focusing text.
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 06:45 PM
Jonah Lehrer is TBTF! Too Bright To Fail! Bail him out! Rescue him! Save journalism!
Oh, wait. Never mind. He's not a multi-billion dollar, govt-infected firm.
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 09:49 PM
I'm sorry but "self-plagiarism" is an oxymoron. All writers reuse their stuff. They have to since the pay rate is so dismal.
#5 Posted by Steve Glines, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 09:17 AM
Fame-seeking.
That's the behavior at the bottom of it. Get the fame, get the bux. People will pay you $10k, $20k a night for an hour lecture. And get the love.
Miss the fame, used to be, you'd end up middle class with a guild job and a fair pension.
But now?
There should be no wonder that desperate ambition is on constant display. The wonder is that so many abstain.
As for "talent" and "genius," look around. For every Lehrer there are dozens of equally bright, good-sentence-writing men and women who, despite the realities of our business, lack that go-get-it-all-now drive. Or who lack the requisite schmooze reflex. Or who lack the self-overconfidence required to accept the opportunities presented.
Most of these people move on eventually to something that pays, feeling perhaps like failures, depriving the world of insights and clear thinking while the web, tube and bookstores overflow with raw narcissism.
#6 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 11:05 AM
I agree with Mr. Ericson, #6 commenter. I can attest to the fact that there are LOTS of good solid writers who are either working in conventional publishing but are underappreciated, or who can't get a break in at all because they aren't flashy. I was a freelance writer in NYC in the 90's, and got out of it in the early 00's partly because it's so much harder now across the board to make a living doing that and partly because I was tired of trying to impress people who wanted dumbed down fluff instead of steady, well-researched reporting. I am glad I got out, because I've written two books I am about to self-publish, and I would not have had the time to complete them if I'd stayed in the magazine game.
#7 Posted by Flower, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 12:54 PM
The last part of my above comment seems to have been eaten, so here it is:
It’s also a sad fact that a young writer now has to try to grab the golden ring as quickly and firmly as possible, because if you miss, there really aren’t the pensioned or tenured jobs to fall back on like there used to be. There are stars and nobodies, and nothing in between, and if you fail to become a star writer, you’ll be very lucky to end up teaching adjunct writing classes at the local community college wth no benefits or job security. That reality provides motivation to pull all kinds of hijinks to try to get to the rewards of stardom.
#8 Posted by Flower, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 01:09 PM
Maybe it's just me, but something really bothers me about this and other reports/analysis on Jonah Lehrer: Jayson Blair is brought in as a comparison.
The fact is, Jayson Blair made a living from STEALING other people's stuff. As a journalist, I take this personally; I think it is not forgivable. Jonah Lehrer made stuff up. Yes, a sin, but he was not claiming the work of others as his own. I think the gulf is large.
#9 Posted by Michael, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 03:39 PM
As a nascent, young stringer journalist, I have too much of a conscious to commit something like this.
I recall watching Shattered Glass in a "Movies look at Media Professions" class in college, and it does a good job at unpackaging this society-expectations notion for up-and-coming journalists.
A quote from from Shattered Glass that I grabbed off IMDB:
Amy Brand: Have you noticed the way Steve's phone has been ringing lately? Did you see all those editors at the correspondence dinner? The way they were circling him?
Caitlin Avey: Is that what you want, Amy? To get a bunch of smoke blown up your ass by a pack of editors?
Amy Brand: Yes. Yes it is.
I think the movie sympathized Glass' situation way to much, but it sheds light on the measures Glass was willing to go when he was asked to produce copy. To me, the world and people are far too interesting to fabricate stories, even the mundane ones.
Also -
It would be interesting to know what the repercussions, if any are in place, for committing such a "crime," if that's even what you would call it. Are there policies in place at the New Yorker, The New York times, etc., as a deterrent, to stop such acts from being committed - aside from the inherent ones: A tarnished reputation, a loss of integrity and a distrust with the public - which, to me, are the ultimate deterrents?
#10 Posted by Will Dowd , CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 08:56 PM
The coverage of this story has been extensive and emotional, as if Lehrer touched a chord of betrayal.
However, the coverage has been shallow.
How do you account for the contradiction of Lehrer's relationship with Eric R. Kandel? How do you account for Antonio Damasio's recommendation of "How We Decide"?
Why don't reporters consider at least "The Age of Insight," by Eric R. Kandel, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," by Daniel Kahneman, and "Self Comes to Mind," by Antonio Damasio in their analysis of Jonah Lehrer?
Why don't they choose a chapter from "Imagine" and focus on the content? I suggest that chapter 3, "The Unconcealing," on working memory, would be an excellent choice.
A good follow up would be to study Mark Ashcraft's "Cognition," especially on working memory. Reporters should be able to determine that experiments in working memory, and in language and in long term memory, are unimaginative.
If there were any serious education reporters in America, they would already have done this work. All of it.
It is valuable to assess Scientific American Mind.
What is going on in Mind Science is that you have many skilled practitioners, but a remarkably poor sense of the commons.
The wild eruptions such as of the Colorado neuroscience assassin and of the cognition "assassin" Jonah Lehrer are not being read for the system symptoms they are. It all remains out of focus. The indoctrinated inattention of the academy has infected the media.
At least, can CJR start by tracking the Kandel-Lehrer connection and by interviewing Kandel?
#11 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 12:57 PM