Fictional Journalism for Dummies
Fictional Journalism for Dummies
CNN and Time have
both commissioned investigations into the question of whether they may have
jointly put out a false story three weeks ago. It's hard to know what there is
to investigate. The story (reported and broadcast by CNN, with a version
published in Time ) contained two hot allegations: that the United States
used fatal nerve gas (sarin) on a village in Laos during the Vietnam War and
that the purpose was to kill a large number of American defectors. Both were
almost instantly and pretty spectacularly discredited.
As Cyrus Krohn of
Slate
reported the day after Time 's story appeared, the story's
main cited source published a memoir 15 years ago that describes the Laos raid
in detail--but mentions nothing about nerve gas or American defectors. This
former soldier subsequently explained that he had blocked the memory until it
suddenly resurfaced during his interview with the reporter from CNN (a little
detail both Time and CNN failed to note in their respective reports).
Other alleged sources now claim to have specifically denied the allegations.
Many other sources have come forward to say the story is false. Various
implausible elements of the story have been noted. (For example, if American
soldiers were exposed to fatal nerve gas, why did none die?)
But you
almost don't have to go beyond the story itself to strongly suspect it's false.
The signs of comic overreaching, at the very least, are right there. In these
days when making up stories is so fashionable among journalists, many younger
readers of
Slate
may wish to try it themselves.
Slate
's Krohn, of course, is a trained professional, equipped
with the advanced journalistic tools of cynicism, suspicion, and heartlessness.
He is equally adept (as we all are in this profession, though we don't like to
brag about it) at making up stories and spotting those made up by others. Even
amateurs, though, can learn how to make up a pretty convincing story in the
comfort of their own homes, using nothing more than a mild sense of mischief
and a decent word processor. (We recommend Word 97 for Windows.)
Pending the results of all these investigations, we're not
saying the CNN report was fabricated. But it is nevertheless a useful
illustration of a few techniques that need to be mastered by anyone wishing to
fabricate a news story:
Bootstrap sourcing. Near the top of the Time version, the story
says that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, Adm. Thomas Moorer,
"confirmed the use of sarin in the Laotian operation." Further down:
"Confirming the use of sarin, Moorer says the gas was 'by and large available.'
" And finally: "Concludes Moorer: 'This is a much bigger operation than you
realize.' " Thus "available" is bootstrapped into "used" and "used" into "used
in Laos," while "used in Laos in this particular operation" sneaks through by
implication, all buttressed by the empty assertion that "this"--what?--is
bigger than you realize. Moorer's subsequent denial that he meant to endorse
the sarin/defectors charge is not surprising (though the fact--which
CNN/ Time also failed to mention--that he is 87 and not in top mental
condition is suggestive).
Double
bootstrap sourcing; sources of nothing. The secretary of defense at the
time, Melvin Laird, is quoted as having "no specific recollection" of sarin
being used, but "I do not dispute what Adm. Moorer has to say on this matter."
If he has no recollection of the matter, he obviously is in no position to
dispute what anyone has to say about it. His statement to that effect has no
evidentiary value, but it is cited as implicit confirmation. (Elsewhere an "Air
Force 'ratpack' commando"--an impressive but unexplained label--is quoted as
saying, "I believed that these were American defectors." No surprise that he
turns out to have been far away and says he was only "speculating.")
Heavy-handed seasoning with overheated quotes. This is a useful way to
distract the reader's attention from gaps in logic and evidence, just as curry
and spices were once used to make bad meat palatable. "I just went 'oh, man'
and knew we were in for some really deep s___." Or, "It was a hairy situation
from the time we got there." As a bonus, those quoted seem to be endorsing the
thesis, though that doesn't logically follow (and several of those quoted have
subsequently denied it).
Pointless detail. " 'There were more defectors than people realize,'
says an SOG veteran at Fort Bragg.' " SOG is the acronym for the group that
conducted the raid in question. But how does an unnamed person, whose
qualifications to opine on the subject are not offered, gain added credibility
by being "at Fort Bragg" three decades after the event in question?
Self-contradiction; fuzzy verb forms; anonymous quotes. "No definitive
number of Americans who went over to the enemy is available, but Moorer
indicated there were scores. Another SOG veteran put the number at close to
300. The Pentagon told Newsstand: CNN & Time that there were only
two known military defectors during the Vietnam war."
1) In other words,
there is a definitive number, according to the Pentagon. That number is
two. Or two "known" defectors. Does the Pentagon believe there are unknown
defectors? We are not told. But apparently "no definitive number ... is
available" only in the sense that the article doesn't accept the number that is
available--thus using its own doubts to lend validity to themselves.
2) Moore
"indicated." How? By sign language? Charades? Semaphore? "Indicated" is a way
of implying he said it while indicating he must not have actually said it. (As,
it seems, he didn't.)
3) "Another SOG
veteran" makes the highest bid of "close to 300." Why would a veteran of this
one unit have any basis for knowing the total number of defectors in the entire
Vietnam war? Who is he, and why does he need to be anonymous? Never mind. He's
a veteran, isn't he?
Using
these eight simple techniques, you can fabricate a news story in the comfort of
your own home. No longer is there any need to spend 50 cents on a newspaper or
$3.95 on a magazine--or even to turn on the television! Start with something
plausible--say, a new woman claiming to have had an adventure with the
president--and work your way up to the outbreaks of major wars, visits by
extraterrestrials, people who actually believe a browser shouldn't be
integrated into the operating system, and similar hard-to-believe phenomena.
You'll be a pro.
Search
for Tomorrow
Some
Slate
readers have complained, with justification, that our
search function did not successfully retrieve items from a few recently added
departments such as "Chatterbox" and "The Breakfast Table." This is now fixed. Please try
again.
Weekend
Papers
The
Saturday and Sunday editions of "Today's Papers"
will begin July 11. All subscribers to the Today's Papers e-mail will get the
two extra days automatically. Of course, they will also be available at
slate.com. If you're not signed up for e-mail delivery and would like to be,
click here.
Independence Day
By the magic of overworking
the production staff, a week's worth of
Slate
will be crammed
into next Monday through Thursday, so that we can all enjoy the traditional
patriotic holiday Friday. A happy July 3 to all our readers.
--Michael Kinsley
