Today we listened to a segment from NPR's On The Media that highlighted a debate between writer, John D’Agata, and a fact-checker, Jim Fingal. D'Agata, a man who describes himself NOT as a jouranlist, but as an "essayist", often changes minute facts for the sake of the "larger story." He argues that knowledge (a representation of the bigger picture) is more important than staying true to [I'm paraphrasing] "irrelevent" facts. Jim, on the other hand, believes that in order to sustain journalistic integrity, all facts, regardless of how important or not they are, must be true and accurate.
For this in-class assignement, I want you guys to write an opinion article arguing for either D'Agata or Fingal. This is a super complex debate; there is no right or wrong answer, so be true to your own opinion. Below are some articles written on this topic. Feel free to use these as references to further build your opinion.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/02/the-art-of-fact-checking.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/books/review/the-lifespan-of-a-fact-by-john-dagata-and-jim-fingal.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
As a fact checker myself for the SUNY New Paltz Oracle, I understand how important making sure facts are accurate. Believe me, I get angry e-mails Friday morning if I have published an article with a few errors. People want to trust publications and even one mistake can sway their trust.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the NPR debate, I agree with the fact checker. I may have come to this decision through my own biases, but I speak from experience too. Although this was a creative piece on a real boy's suicide, facts must be valid. Sure, I think the writer could have tied in facts while writing creatively. If the writer wrote a piece, labeled it fiction and based the story on this boy's death, than real facts could go out the window. This was not the case, however.
Hannah Goldfield of The New Yorker stated in her piece, "The Art of Fact-Checking," that "The conceit that one must choose facts or beauty—even if it’s beauty in the name of “Truth” or a true “idea”—is preposterous," She said. "A good writer—with the help of a fact-checker and an editor, perhaps—should be able to marry the two, and a writer who refuses to even try is, simply, a hack."
What if the writer had ignored all the rules of grammar and spelling as well? This may look creative to him, but it just wouldn't make sense. So, as he ensured grammar was perfect, he should have made sure his facts were right too in my opinion. If it were raining the day the boy died, say it's raining. If the bridge was green, say it's green, As Goldfield mentioned, you can still be creative using the facts. Writers do it all the time and good ones use it effectively. People don't like to be lied to without their consent; they just don't.
Speaking as someone who LOVES creative freedom and even imagines a future of writing feature stories full of artistic details and new ways of explaining things, I went into this debate assuming I would side with the writer, naturally. To my own astonishment, after listening to the NPR interview and hearing the facts of what creative freedom the writer allowed himself, I can officially say, I’d like to punch this guy in the face.
ReplyDeleteMy issue is the fact that even though he claims this piece was an “essay” and not an article, he actually wanted it to be an article. D’Agata argued that by altering some facts in the story he was, “making a better work of art — and thus a better and truer experience for the reader.” Bullshit! How is it a “truer” experience for the reader if the writer is taking liberties to change facts in order to make the “rhythm” of the sentence better. How can I connect with the victim or the story itself if I can’t trust that what I’m reading is even correct??
I would not have a problem with the story had it been published as fiction. If D’Agata had sent it off to be published with a little attachment saying, “I was inspired to write this based on a real life event, but the story itself is fiction and simply based on a real life event” then it would have been a fabulous story. However, he wanted it published with the idea that it was true, that all of it was true. When it is published as an article and as cold, hard, fact, then that’s where I get pissed off.
In my opinion, I would be in favor of the fact-checker, Fingal, rather than the writer, D'Agata. In the 2 articles above, D'Agata states that he doesn’t necessarily want to tell the truth, he just wants to write about something that " goes with the flow better ", rather than telling the true facts, whereas Fingal states that the readers should know anything and everything that happens and the truth of it from reading the article. The readers can either like the article or hate it, but at least the truth of what happened is exposed. When people read a story about someone committing suicide in Las Vegas, they want to hear about what happened exactly, but at the same time, they want the article to catch their attention and have them reading on and on. D’Agata does this, but he doesn’t focus on what’s true, he focuses on what’s going to keep the reader continue reading, whether the information is true or not. It’s not about what SOUNDS right, it's about what IS right. True words are a lot more valuable than beautiful words when it comes to a story that thousands and thousands of people are going to read. Personally, when I read a newspaper article, I would rather read a true story and not be interested in it rather than being interested in a huge lie.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Jim Fingal, “the job of a fact checker is to call out the most insignificant things”. Although when it comes to Journalism, nothing is insignificant. All details add to the story and therefore must be honest. All writers should have the integrity to tell the truth. When telling a story, facts should not be altered just because the words flow better in a sentence than they would if they were actually true. John D’Agata, who wrote an article based on the Las Vegas suicide of teenager in 2003, decided to follow his artistic mind-set and modify certain details regarding the event. This made the story untrue and misleading. Readers need to be able to believe what they are reading. In a world filled with deceptive advertisements and media spouts, people need real facts to be able to get a sense of what can be trusted or else we may find ourselves stuck in a closed-minded world where no one has the ability to trust.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the fact checker is right. I think the accuracy of facts is very important and so is journalistic integrity. If we took the roundabout way of everything in life then everything would be a mess. When it was really eight seconds from when the girl fell, and the writer is saying it was nine, it’s like saying; “You need to be to work at 8am and showing up at 9am.” Specific details in life are needed and with a story like this it shouldn’t be someone’s opinion it has to be facts on what really happened. It shouldn't be a creative writing segment and someone making up what really happened. Even though these facts aren’t that big of a deal whether it was 8 or 9 seconds, its more about the bigger facts, the more important things that we look at and want to know the true detail of.
ReplyDeleteWhen your writing, it’s very hard for some people to start and choose an approach. Do they just tell the readers the facts, truth and what really happened, or do they use exaggeration to make it more interesting? I believe that facts are more important. There is a way to write and use language that is creative and interesting to read, while still relaying the truth and facts to readers. I understand John D’Agata’s point of view when he is saying about making writing art, but I still believe you can make writing art, while still stating the facts. This is what makes it different from Journalism, something mentioned in the article “The Art of Fact Checking” in the New Yorker. You turn the facts into writing that can be a representation of art.
ReplyDeleteI am very much in favor of Fingal, the fact-checker. Fact checking and trust go hand in hand. Fact checkers are supposed to make sure that readers are getting 100% true facts. If the readers are getting false information, how can they trust their news source? Not only does this affect the reader’s trust, but the publication will lose readers. No one likes being lied to, and when a publication lies to their readers by providing false information, the readers will lose complete trust in the news source.
ReplyDeleteWhether you’re a journalist, an essayist, or a textbook author, writers of all kinds are seeking to tell a story. However, the methods and rules by which these stories are shared are what set these different branches of writing apart. As someone who finds everyday journalism very bland and dull, I appreciated John Dagatas exploration of ideas that surfaced beyond just the facts, or lack thereof. I understand it is the duty of the fact checker to make sure that the claims of the article are accurate, but it is the duty of the essayist to explore elements that create a bigger picture as opposed to being solely fact oriented.
ReplyDeleteA journalist’s job is to convey the greater truth through their words within their writing. Its assumed that these words are factual, but this isn’t always the case. John D’ Agata, a writer, wrote an essay about a young man committing suicide in Las Vegas. Fact checker Jim Finagal was assigned to check the essay for “factual inaccuracies”. Finagal found not just one inaccuracy, but a whole slew of exaggerations and fabrications of the truth. John D’ Agata fought the accusations, claiming his piece was not a journalistic essay but a mere work of “art’. If D’Agata was really an artist, or a nonfiction writer, his claim would be justly. But John D’Agata is a journalist. His work is based on facts, and to fabricate the suicide of an actual person is an insult to not only that boy’s life, but to everyone else who reads the essay. Why lose your credibility as a writer over a few silly lies that could of easily been avoided?
ReplyDeleteIt is one o’clock, actually it is one o’clock and five minutes here. The furious debate over fact checking and putting fluidity in journalism has been something of major controversy in modern day journalism. In the book, “Lifespan of a Fact” authors D’Agata (writer) and Fingal (fact checker) bounce back and forth between pre-established notions of writing truth and entertaining the public. Yes the poor boy died in Las Vegas with 31 strip bars on the street. And yes it took him 8 seconds to hit the water. It is in my opinion that neither of these people are in the right to criticize. The young boy died and the focus of his death will now be forever on the pointless debate. Journalism is about seeking truth and reporting it. Although D’Agata claims to be an essayist, his work is based on a real life experience and real names of a victim. Changing the small details in the story does make it a lie. And makes everything he writes thus far a definite lie. He is too focused on literary devices then what actually happened. The fact checker isn’t in the wrong because he was just doing his job. If fact checkers, In D’Agata’s mind are seen as the assaulters of art, then he is the wrong field. He should be writing novels not publishing articles off as truth in newspapers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen essayist John D’Agata walked into NPR’s recording studio one late summer evening, he had a gun and a plan. The weapon? A loaded .44 magnum revolver of Smith & Wesson design, along with ten speedloaders; sixty rounds in total, or about three pounds of lead ready to be unloaded into unwitting recording engineers. The plan? To show the world his ingenious.
ReplyDeleteHe brought along his own defeat, a disarmed nemesis that has constantly and valiantly thwarted his work since he first set out to become the world’s greatest essayist in 1976: Jim Fingal, freelance factchecker extraordinaire. Typically, the well trained, suave, and devilishly handsome (but exceedingly modest) Fingal would have simply disarmed D’Agata and turned him over to the authorities wrapped up like a Christmas ham, but this time, the mad essayist had an angle…
Jim’s wife, held at an indeterminate location with composition 4 explosive strapped around her chest and decorated with a healthy sprinkling of ball bearings, nuts, and bolts to assure lethality. One wrong move? If D’Agata doesn’t return in time to disarm the bomb? Jim’s wife will have a closed casket. And if the writer succeeds and his rigged debate goes through? The future of writing will be forever damned to a hell of inaccuracies and propagandous idealism.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Essayist John D’Agata and fact checker Jim Fingal went head to head on NPR on the program “Lifespan: What are the Limits of Literary License?”. The program aired on March 8, 2012, and ran for seven minutes and thirty seven seconds. In that time, Fingal spoke for three minutes and twelve seconds (rounded down), D’Agata spoke for two minutes and fifty nine seconds, and the remaining time, one minute and twenty six seconds, was taken up by a mix of narration and ambient music.
Fingal argued that fact checking was important, while D’Agata argued that substance was more important. The two failed to reach a consensus, but revealed that in their debate, they found solace in one another’s company.
The music in the piece was composed by Carrol McLaughlin.
The radio show was engineered in the audio engineering program “reason”, no animals were harmed in the making of the piece, and it was entirely compliant with FCC regulations, although at the time of writing, this has yet to be independently confirmed.
How do you form an opinion based on the biased opinion of others that seem to forget the essence of what they’re arguing? Hannah Goldfield of the New Yorker and Jennifer McDonald of the New York Times both have fiery opinions. Don’t we all. But what Goldfield and McDonald fail to do is let us see both sides unclouded by bias. All I got from their articles was that they were vehemently against D’Agata’s choices in writing about Levi Presley. They say,”D’Agata’s a jerk,” because he said there were 31 licensed strip clubs in Vegas instead of 34 because the rhythm was better. Well what if it was? Did they read the piece? We never once find out if they read his essay, which this ENTIRE argument is based on. Can’t one argue that D’Agata’s rhythm did sound better with 31 instead of 34? I’m just curious…where’s the essay? Who read it? I’m finding it hard to be sold on anyone’s opinion of this whole issue without reading the essay myself and seeing if D’Agata’s points are valid. Their articles are titled opinion so it makes their opinions okay. Well if D’Agata’s piece turned into an essay (not a journalistic article) doesn’t it make it okay that it’s not factual? These women are using subjective opinions to argue that a writer should have been more objective and less manipulative. It just seems silly to me. D’Agata should have based his essay on 100% fact, well maybe they should have based their articles on his ESSAY, not on his comments on his essay. In my opinion, there are just too many layers you have to crawl through to validate their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI believe the On The Media segment on The Lifespan of a Fact favored the fact checker, Jim Fengal over the writer, John D’Agata. The NPR segment consisted of an interviewer asking D’Agata questions on his work as Fingal interjected on his inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteFingal argues that D’Agata cannot just change minute details in the story of Levi Presley who jumped from the roof of the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. D’Agata defended himself in changing some facts by essentially saying that the story is fiction and small details would not change the big picture. He said that his writing does not need to be held inside the parameters of journalistic integrity because he considers himself an essayist and not a journalist.
D’Agata was inaccurate with a number of facts. He was one second off on the amount of time it took for Levi’s body to hit the ground, changed the number of licensed strip clubs in Las Vegas from 34 to 31, and changed the name of Levi’s school. These details are incredibly important and would need to be completely true so as not to warp the perception of D’Agata’s readers on the story of Levi in Las Vegas.
If the story is presented as true, then what stops people from completely believing what they read? Although the facts are slightly tweaked, they still can change the story and misinform people. D’Agata is in a dangerous position because he would have to label his story as fiction before releasing it to readers so that his integrity as a writer is not damaged in any way.
The time it took Levi Presley to fall out of his window and to his death in 2002; whether it was eight or nine seconds, does it really matter? John D’Agata and those who defend his point would say no, as long as the “greater truth” of the story remained it contact. But if such a minute fact is of such little significance, then why lie to readers about how many seconds Presley was in the air, or how many bars are in that particular neighborhood? Especially when you risk alienating and losing the trust of your readers, who expect the facts when they read something in a publication that proclaims to be non-fiction. Once you lie to your audience, can they ever read your periodical without doubting whether or not what they are reading is based in fact?
ReplyDeleteAnd for D’Agata, it wasn’t just about changing the number of bars, from the actual number to one that rhythmically sounded better. He wanted to shape the way his audience responded and felt about Presley’s death; basically, the aforementioned “greater truth” position. Not that all journalists don’t shape each and every story they write, but they do so without excluding facts. You’re only allowed to mold a story as far as the facts with allow you to. D’Agata takes too many privileges when attempting to tell the story of Levi Presley’s suicide, and in the process, he comes off as lazy.
When fact checker Fingal confronts D’Agata about writing how Presley was the only person to commit suicide that day (false), according to Harpers, he responded
“I think I remember changing this because I wanted Levi’s death to be the only one from falling that day. I wanted his death to be more unique.”
D’Agata’s agenda in pursuing the story in the manner that he did, kept him from seeing the facts how they were, and not how he wanted them to unfold for the sake of his piece. He wanted Presley to be the only person in Las Vegas that day to die from falling off a building, but that didn’t happen. He wanted to create a feeling that wasn’t naturally there, that wasn’t based in fact, but only in his illusions. When the accuracies did not align the way that he had wished, instead of redrafting the article so that it would be truthful, he took liberties.
The challenge is writing something that is both artistic and truthful. D’Agata just wasn’t feeling up to it.