Another day, another MSM hoax
Well, at least Jessica Pressler and New York Magazine appear to have done a bit more fact-checking on this story than Erdely and Rolling Stone did on theirs.
And yet, duped again:
In the most recent edition of New York, its annual Reasons to Love New York issue, the magazine published this story about a Stuyvesant High School senior named Mohammed Islam, who was rumored to have made $72 million trading stocks. Islam said his net worth was in the “high eight figures.” As part of the research process, the magazine sent a fact-checker to Stuyvesant, where Islam produced a document that appeared to be a Chase bank statement attesting to an eight-figure bank account. After the story’s publication, people questioned the $72 million figure in the headline, which was written by editors based on the rumored figure. The headline was amended. But in an interview with the New York Observer last night, Islam now says his entire story was made up.
Here’s the New York Observer article in which Islam acknowledged the deception.
Note a couple of things about all of this.
These recent hoax stories have appeared predominantly in the liberal media. That’s not to say that media on the right doesn’t make errors and can’t be fooled. But so far the episodes have clustered on the other side. Of course, let’s not forget that there are more media outlets on the left, so the law of averages would dictate it. But still, it makes sense to conclude on the basis of recent evidence that the right is more concerned than the left with getting the story right in terms of research and/or less inclined than the left to decide a story is just too good to fact-check rigorously.
This fits in quite nicely with the observation that the left is more dedicated to ends justifying means than the right is, and more contemptuous of its readers’ ability to discern truth from falsehood. Thus, these articles.
The New York Magazine article about Mohammed Islam, the Stuyvesant High student with the multi-million stock market win, does not appear to have been driven by a leftist ideological or political agenda, unlike Erdely’s UVA rape article. It seems to have been more of a fun human interest story, although I suppose the Muslim angle might have been a small part of the draw.
[NOTE: Speaking of the Muslim angle, Mohammed Islam is not an Arab, he’s a Kazakh.]
Neo, I’d like to accept your thesis at face value, but I’m not convinced. It doesn’t seem to me, at least based on the data you provide (and my own preconceptions), that American conservative media is less likely to run with a story that confirms its own prejudices.
You may well be right. (For example, given the way conservative media tends to get pilloried when it gets something wrong, while liberal media often gets a pass, conservative media may well do better fact-checking. But I’d like to see more data on that.)
Common Core comes to professional journalism
where every internet rumor is the next headline!
If I recall corrrectly, James Taranto (WSJ) suggested that recent NYT errors could be a result of them being unable to continue paying editors. Maybe the same thing is happening at other lefty places.
Multi-culti angle gets them every time. And “the narrative”.
It’s not that the liberal media are easy and will bend over forward at the drop of a confederate dollar — they are not stupid. What they are is desperate to substantiate the narrative. Any story to the tune of racist, sexist, (pick-a)phobic gets air time. Any ditty, no matter how outlandish, that beats the drum of multi-culty diversity, vibrancy, and that shines, sparkles, will get type space. They would buy the Brooklyn bridge if it were put to them that it was built by undocumented 3rd world PoCs and condemn it to scrap iron if it were put to them Roebling was a slave holder. How the hell they (liberal media) continue to exist is beyond me. George Soros must have really deep pockets.
Daniel in Brookline:
I’d like to see more data, too, but when I look back on the last decade or two, all the major hoaxes I can think of were on the left. Stephen Glass, Jason Blair, Pat Smith (you may not remember her, but I do because she wrote for the Globe and I had always liked her writing), and now these two.
I’m not talking about a minor fact gotten wrong here and there.
In the Rolling Stone piece we are treated to a phenomenon you see sometimes: a word or phrase written with such a sneer that you can feel the sneer while reading the text. In the case of the Rolling Stone article the word was blonde.
The writer wanted these frat brats’ guts and she wanted their heads on her wall above the fireplace in the spot Sarah Palin saves for Bambi’s mom. You could feel it.
A lot of vitriol contained in that one word.
Were I an editor I might get the same sort of nudgings from a story, any story, about a guy named Mohammed Islam. Or if the 72 million dollar kid were named Single Mother.
Or Oliver Klosoff.
Nolanimrod:
I haven’t read the Rolling Stone article (and would frankly rather not). I would think, though, that the sort of palpable sneer you describe would be a giant red flag to ANY editor worthy of the name — this writer is too heavily invested in the story for responsible journalism!
Then again, there were multiple giant red flags here, weren’t there, starting with the sole witness who insisted that no other witnesses be contacted… and the “journalist” who went along with it! Unbelievable.
Daniel in Brookline
I would think, though, that the sort of palpable sneer you describe would be a giant red flag to ANY editor worthy of the name …
Sneering is a default liberal mechanism. When in the ’80s my political stance changed from generic liberal to a “a plague on both your houses” neutrality, I started to notice all the sneering. In media, I noticed the sneering underlying NPR’s reporting on a Reagan victory. In bumperstickers: “Vote Republican. It’s easier than thinking.”
Great comment George Pal. Anything that promotes the agenda is fit to print.
The Bernie Madoff school of investment.
They are greedy, so it is easy to con them.
there is no pravda in itsvetsia, no itsvetsia in pravda
72 Million More Reasons To Doubt The Mainstream Press
New York magazine occupies one of the top rungs on the media elite ladder. Surely it would never publish a piece that hadn’t been thoroughly fact-checked and edited.
Turns out the $72 million-kid story had gone through those steps. The magazine even sent a fact-checker to the 17-year-old’s home to view a bank statement.
Plus, Pressler’s tale fit comfortably with how liberals view Wall Street – as little more than a lottery where someone can “score” millions by “playing” the market. So why bother being skeptical of the kid’s tale?
But the story was, in fact, a complete hoax. The teen in question, Mohammed Islam, apparently was a member of an investing club at his high school, but he had never put a dime of actual money into the market.
Not everyone was fooled by this easily debunkable story. Twitchy, a conservative site that tracks Twitter feeds, almost immediately cast doubt on it after noticing a stream of tweets saying it couldn’t possibly be true.
And when the New York Observer did some actual reporting, it quickly uncovered the deception.
Meanwhile, the University of Virginia gang rape story continues to unravel, exposing new depths of laziness, recklessness and bias at Rolling Stone.
–Investor’s Business Daily–
Perhaps lib journos are so used to lying because they’ve had to do it for so long, in matters large and small, to support the narrative. If you ignore, spike, or cover up something that contradicts the narrative, what’s the problem with just making stuff up.
Erdely did this twice before, once with “billy” and some Catholic priests, and once wrt the Navy. In both cases, as with this, the point was to make the powers that be seem callous and indifferent. All were built on lies. All got great reception among the usual suspects.