Faking Out the Voice
Several people have been asking me for my take on l'afaire de Nick Sylvester. Sylvester is (was) a neophyte young writer who wrote the March 1-8 cover story for the Voice on the ways women were thwarting sleazy pick-up artists in New York. Or not, because Sylvester apparently made up several sources, quotes and incidents. Sylvester thus joins a long-and ever-lengthening, alas-list of journalistic fabricators, going back to the most notorious, Janet Cooke, whose 1980 story for The Washington Post on a kid dealing with Inner City life won a Pulitzer Prize. Since then, we've been fascinated and repulsed by Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, both hotshot young serial liars who were able to write dozens of stories before being caught, as well as writers for USA Today, TV reporters and a phalanx of others, great and small.
So pardon me for not feeling any schaudenfraude for the folks toiling on Cooper Square. But I can't take any pleasure in the Voice's agony. The fact is, very few media outlets-and weekly newspapers perhaps least of all-have the wherewithal to hire phalanxes of fact checkers. Even if we could, Glass and Blair both proved that a good liar is able to continue the fabrication. The very tools of rigorous spot-checking-e-mails, cell-phone logs, taped conversations-can be faked and forged, thus lending "credence" to the lies these sophisticated tools were supposed to be uncovering.
A good liar can cover his tracks, yes. But he also invites susceptibility because, by his very nature as a liar, he's able to weave a tapestry of whole cloth. Remember, there's a reason why we call our writing "stories": Journalists not only report news, we take facts and render them into tales. These guys may be lousy (or just lazy) reporters. But they're great storytellers.
As someone who has freelanced for several years, I have often told editors when they've questioned me about quotes or sources, "I don't have the ability to make it up." I've always found that one of the most fascinating aspects of this business is that, coming into an interview with no preconceived notions of what the person is going to say, usually sources end up giving me something altogether different-and far more interesting-than what I thought they'd say. So, in a twisted way, I respect these lying cheats for their narrative abilities. Then again, it may be that they can only work within the framework of a "news" story; take, for example, Glass' failed attempts as a novelist.
No, Voice editors deserve little censure for being taken in by Sylvester. We editors have to take reporters at their word. When they betray us, it's their shame, not ours.