More on Bragg and the Times

Reading the reaction to the Rick Bragg story, it appears that we have a corollary for Jane's Law

A. Powerful established media are smug and arrogant.

B. Journalists at lesser outlets go completely crazy when they have the chance to score points against a powerful established media organ.

Here is what Andrew Sullivan has had to say:

"Bragg has a long history of faking by-lines, and ripping off unpaid stringers."

"More evidence of Raines favoritism."

"Bragg is "a Raines crony" and a "Raines suck-up" who was "pampered and protected by the big guy"

Bragg had a history of " cutting corners, passing off others' work as his own, and getting special treatment."

"Bragg regularly ripped off stringers for his pieces (with no credit)"

And Mickey Kaus tells us that:

"I suspect that what Bragg did was a worse case of stringer abuse than is typical"

"what you are reading is really the work of random, unknown 'legs' and stringers."

He also mocks Bragg's health problems: "Why not let poor, diabetic Bragg stay at home, conserve his energy, and work his 'magic' in comfort."

An emailer to Instapundit compares Bragg to Milli Vanilli for "passing off the work of someone else as your own."

Even Lileks (LILEKS!) takes a shot

"Yes, you can take some stringer’s notes and compose a story, but the difference between that an a piece you wrote from your own research is the difference between a Penthouse Forum letter and your recollection of your wedding night."

Interestingly enough, these claims are not based on original reporting but are commentary on long stories that appear in other powerful media outlets. The latter, however, paint a more complex and nuanced picture of the Bragg situation. In some cases, they contradict the charges leveled by our champions of journalistic integrity.

A. On the question of ripping off or abusing stringers:

According to this Wall Street Journal report Wes Yoder, the intern at the center of the controversy, did not feel ripped off or abused. He volunteered to help Bragg for free in order to learn from him. Of his work with Bragg he says "it was an honor to do it for Rick." Another Bragg intern (Childs Walker) says "I never felt cheated for my efforts."

B. On the "work"

Research is not reporting. The writing is more than half of the value. Research is just a pile of notes-- the organization and writing is not just a matter of style, it involves thought, judgement and talent. That is why a Ph D. with a published book is viewed as a more accomplished scholar than an ABD. Yet the critics seem to ignore this in general and as it relates to Bragg.

Even the intern who was critical of Bragg in the Journal story admitted that "he was able to capture the feeling, the essence, the aura of stories." Lileks should know this-- he is a blog-legend not because he discovers stuff none of the rest of us know, but because he can write about the common fodder and add insight, clarity, and a memorable phrase. Anyone who has read Bragg can see that he possesses similar talents.

Hundreds of reporters filed stories about Timothy McVeigh's trial and conviction. Many of them spent more hours observing the trial. But Bragg's opening sentences pack a wallop that most of their's did not:

After the explosion, people learned to write left-handed, to tie just one shoe. They learned to endure the pieces of metal and glass embedded in their flesh.


And also note that the actual interns stated that Bragg did more than take their notes and write. Yoder was on the phone with him receiving guidance while doing the intervierws. Childs Walker stated that Bragg usually conducted his own interviews after Walker had done the preliminary interview.

C. On Bragg as evidence of cronyism

This is the most laughable charge. Bragg may have been a Raines favorite, but that is hardly evidence of cronyism. He does, after all, have a Pulitzer Prize and two best selling books to his credit. Raines may have liked him simply because he was a star who added luster to the Times.

But while the charge is laughable, it is also revealing. It suggests that many of those condemning Bragg are unfamiliar with his work and are simply using it to bash Raines and the Times. Isn't that a lazy form of journalism more suitable for the posters on Lucianne.com than a sophisticated, ethical journalist?

D. On Truth and Process

The facts are all inside baseball-- datelines, bylines, etc. The critics infer that Bragg's violation of "standard practices" was dishonest and resulted in dishonest stories (hence the comparisons to Jayson Blair). But that is a big leap. To date, no one has produced anything from Bragg's Florida story which was inaccurate. In contrast, some Blair's stories were checked and easily shown to be false (e.g. the view from Jessica Lynch's house). Similarly, Robert Fisk can have a completely honest dateline and yet produce a story that is disingenuous or factually wrong.

If our concern is only honest, truthful journalism (or journalistic processes) why the hyperfocus on Bragg and the Times. As BuzzMachine, and the the junkyard blog pointed out, Bragg's practice is standard practice on television. Since more people see 60 Minutes than read one of Bragg's feature pieces, that is a much more important matter. CNN's reporting on gun control and assault weapons was misleading and factualy inaccurate. But Sullivan and Kaus devoted almost no space to that.

See more here