Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#51

Post by danso »

alecco wrote: post #41
danso wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends what the magnitude of the transgression is, and whether you are a journalist or non-journalist. If you are a journalist, the faking of a quote, even if it's something as benign as, "Sally Smith, an 8-year-old from Chicago, said, 'I really love the clowns. They mak eme smile'" is punishable by the (journalistic) death penalty. No one was harmed, especially if 'Sally Smith' was herself made up, yet such a wr…

> To a non-journalist (who, in this case, is anti-fossil-fuel) Was that necessary? BTW, I am not against use of fossil fuels. Misdirected ad-hominem.

Oops, sorry. No, it wasn't directed at you. Sorry, the hypothetical non-journalist.

My point was that the consequences of the transgressions of plagiarism and shilling are relative to whether you're a non-journalist or a journalist, and less so about the actual worldly-impact of such transgressions.

IOW, both you and tptacek are right...but it depends on from what perspective you're looking at this from. Lehrer will likely never get a writing gig as prestigious as the New Yorker, even though what he allegedly did pretty much hurts no one (but the trivial truth).

Another example: in the military, lying about a medal is hugely dishonorable -- the U.S. Navy's supreme commander committed suicide when Newsweek questioned two "valor" pins. But you could be a commander whose decisions resulted in needless destruction/deaths and still get an honorable discharge. The latter case had more actual real-life impact, but the former case resulted in more "punishment" within the group.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#52

Post by msredmond »

danso wrote: post #39
msredmond wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a journalist -- technically you can't plagiarize yourself, so while not best form, it's not really anything "wrong." And often there's certain phrases that as a writer you are going to use over and again (he took it well beyond that though). So that's why he was still around. But yes making up quotes is WAY across the line. I'm curious if he just up and resigned knowing he would be fired; if I were his boss, I'd…

Self-plagiarism is most definitely not as "wrong" as plagiarizing from someone else. But in some contexts, the amount of work you've produced for esteemed publications is essentially part of your prestige and resume. To have significant number of pieces actually just be recycled material, while bragging about how you were published in X, Y, Z magazine, is looked down upon.

Agreed Danso. Although think it could be argued technically that it's not "plagarism," but could be considered to be ripping off the people who paid you for the article. And there is copyright issues depending on who owns it. And, of course, it's sleezy at the amount he did it. So maybe several levels here.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#53

Post by firebones »

danso wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, being a "corporate shill" is not "quite more serious" than fabricating quotes.

It depends what the magnitude of the transgression is, and whether you are a journalist or non-journalist. If you are a journalist, the faking of a quote, even if it's something as benign as, "Sally Smith, an 8-year-old from Chicago, said, 'I really love the clowns. They mak eme smile'" is punishable by the (journalistic) death penalty. No one was harmed, especially if 'Sally Smith' was herself made up, yet such a wr…

Interesting. The real life example of the non-journalist who took an entry level job in a field he later covered would be Michael Lewis, author of "Liar's Poker" and "The Big Short". Even though both books condemn the excesses and stupidity of his former industry, and even though "Liar's Poker" ended up having the unintended consequence of drawing new hires because of the excesses, I still wouldn't consider him a shill for the investment banks.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#54

Post by Alex3917 »

awj wrote: post #48
Alex3917 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, being a 'corporate shill' is not 'quite more serious' than fabricating quotes." How do you figure? Do you actually think that corporate shills cause less harm to society than people fabricating a few (largely inconsequential) quotes?

> Do you actually think that corporate shills cause less harm to society than people fabricating a few (largely inconsequential) quotes? If I'm allowed to parenthetically assume that the shilling also is "largely inconsequential", then yes, it causes less harm.

If you actually look at the quotes made up by most of these journalists, they are mostly things about the weather that day and the color of the house or whatever. Look at the actual quotes from the Jason Blaire scandal, it's all completely trivial stuff.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue that cigarettes aren't actually dangerous, since they kill around 500,000 Americans per year.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#55

Post by MartinCron »

alecco wrote: post #26
dclowd9901 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring? And how did this fly completely out of my radar?

Top link from googling "gladwell corporate shill" http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-unma... Summary: * pushed ritalin for big pharma * defending tobacco corporations on settlements * advocating for financial deregulation * and defending Enron executives Allegedly rewarded $1m/yr for speaking by undisclosed corporations. Significantly more than what he makes as journalist or writer.

This case against Gladwell as a corporate shill is weak. The article cherry-picks a handful of controversial (sometimes wrong, whatever) positions that align with corporate interests. Note that not all of his positions do, the entire thesis of Outliers is offensive to many in the corporate world.

There's no evidence of a quid pro quo anywhere.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#56

Post by alayne »

vacri wrote: post #45
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fabricating quotes is doing a sloppy, lazy job of defending one's position. Selling one's position, on the other hand, is clearly more serious.

"making stuff up" is worse than "constructing a biased argument"

Making up Dylan quotes seems a lot more benign than discouraging people from suing tobacco companies and saying Ritalin is safe.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#57

Post by MartinCron »

tptacek wrote: post #20
alecco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time Gladwell (another New Yorker writer) was exposed for being a corporate shill, something quite more serious. Nothing happened.

No, being a "corporate shill" is not "quite more serious" than fabricating quotes.

"Comparing being a shill to fabricating quotes is preposterous, they are such different things that have a huge and overlapping spectrum of possible impact" -Ben Franklin

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#59

Post by rsl7 »

MartinCron wrote: post #55
alecco wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top link from googling "gladwell corporate shill" http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-unma... Summary: * pushed ritalin for big pharma * defending tobacco corporations on settlements * advocating for financial deregulation * and defending Enron executives Allegedly rewarded $1m/yr for speaking by undisclosed corporations. Significantly more than what he makes as journalist or writer.

This case against Gladwell as a corporate shill is weak. The article cherry-picks a handful of controversial (sometimes wrong, whatever) positions that align with corporate interests. Note that not all of his positions do, the entire thesis of Outliers is offensive to many in the corporate world. There's no evidence of a quid pro quo anywhere.

There may be no explicit quid pro quo, but he definitely functions as a shill would. He may be objective and contrarian in his own mind, and yet desire to please the powerful like any other human. He gets a ton of money for speaking to corporations, which he would not if he spoke against them.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#60

Post by jorahmormont »

alecco wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #5

Just in case you're skimming: this comes at the end of a bit of a saga for Lehrer, who had also been discovered "plagiarizing himself", recycling significant chunks of previously-published work in new New Yorker pieces. No doubt there's been a fine-toothed comb running through everything he's done since that first story broke.

At the same time Gladwell (another New Yorker writer) was exposed for being a corporate shill, something quite more serious. Nothing happened.

I disagree. Gladwell's long standing self-disclosure is a serious analysis on his own motivations and corporate relationships. http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html . Claiming that he is a corporate shill seems unfair. Despite his "igonvalues" issues, I haven't seen any serious corporate bias in his works. Are you sure your own remarks aren't due to some bias that you may have?
Post reply on HN