The Jungle - book critique

Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle is an early piece of muckraking journalism. Like many muckrakers of the time, Sinclair sought to expose the awful underbelly of early American capitalism. Most saw this time in American history as great. Industry efficiency was at its highest as were profits. These were not signs of absolute prosperity, however. They were more like red flags being waved by the weak and powerless workers who created these prosperous conditions while literally killing themselves to do so.

The Jungle follows a “party” Lithuanian immigrants, led by Jurgis Rudkus, as they travel from their poor, desperate village to seek fortune in America. They have heard of others from Lithuania who came to America and lived like kings. This illusion begins to fade fast. From the beginning, the group begins to feel trapped by potential of success. They have little money to make the trip and they are swindled by almost everyone they encounter.

They befriend a delicatessen owner from Lithuania and he shows them around Packingtown, the section of Chicago dominated by meat-packing plants. He shows them the insides of the plants where they see the slaughtering first-hand. Jurgis is not repulsed at the gruesome scene of killing and cleaning thousands of animals a day, but is instead mesmerized and infatuated with the efficiency. Sinclair uses these scenes to show how easily an outsider could respect the “American” way without noticing the horrors, even when looking right at them.

Sinclair’s narrative structure follows the party members as they seek employment and housing. Once they have enough money to buy a house, they sign a contract and move in, only to find they have again been swindled. The agent who sold them the house did not tell them about interest, insurance, taxes and other fees. The sum of these other costs triples the original expectation and blows the family’s budget to pieces. Everyone in the town that isn’t a worker is a part of the scheme. The family met with two different lawyers about the housing contract and all deceived them in conjunction with the agent without a care.

Sinclair uses the experiences of the group to show how capitalism breaks both the individual and the family, both literally and figuratively. Injuries keep workers from the factories and their wages leading to their eviction and the eviction of their entire families. The corporations spend nothing on infrastructure so when the roads flood, people actually drown on their way to work. Jurgis loses his only son to drowning driving him out of Packingtown. He wonders around doing odd jobs until he begins a life of crime, netting him hundreds of dollars. Sinclair is arguing here that capitalism actually fuels crime, as it is easy to increase one’s personal wages 20 fold if he is willing to forget his morals, taking advantage of innocent people just like the housing agent did to his family. He paints a picture of a vicious cycle that always feeds the pockets of the rich.

Sinclair’s Jungle is a place where humans are slaughtered as much as the animals. They are an extendible resource mercilessly broken at the hands of modern slave drivers. Capitalism according to Sinclair is nothing more than cleverly disguised slavery where wages are paid just enough to satisfy the most desperate of workers keeping all workers under control.

Sinclair gathered this information working undercover in a meat-packing plant. While he deceived his employers and possibly his co-workers, the benefits to all of society heavily outweighed any moral argument about deception. The Jungle exposed rancid working conditions caused by unchecked greed. In addition to influencing the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act 1906, this novel answered the cries of the oppressed factory worker in America and shed truth on a lie that can still be seen today.

Conclusion of research paper

My paper is still quite unfinished but this conclusion section was helpful in trying to tie my thoughts together and perhaps inspire coherence as I go back through my topic.

This research indicates that deception is a practice readily used in the field of journalism today. This use is widespread across many of the different forms of media and generally accepted by members of the field. There are varying levels of both the use of deception and the recognition of use by practicing journalists. In many cases though, deception is used on a microscopic scale to expose truth on a macroscopic scale. Reporters may disguise themselves or their motives in order to obtain access that allows them to expose bigger threats to readers.

Joe McGinnis used deception to obtain better access to his subject, convicted murderer Jeffery MacDonald. McGinnis convinced MacDonald to continue their exchange of information because McGinnis convinced MacDonald that McGinnis believed MacDonald was innocent, when McGinnis actually felt the opposite. McGinnis believed he was doing his readers a service by trying to expose the brutal details of the story, as the further he investigated MacDonald, the more he became convinced of MacDonald’s guilt.

Earlier than McGinnis’ work, Upton Sinclair led a movement to clean the American meat packing industry in the early 1900s. In The Jungle, Sinclair used deception to infiltrate the meat industry and expose its rancid working conditions and practices. Shortly after the release of the book, the American government passed its first legislation on regulated food and drugs. This is an example of deception being used for greater good.

Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used deception and vagaries throughout their investigation of the Watergate scandal. The reporters never revealed their most central and primary source. They lied to sources about what information they already had, convincing sources to confirm or deny hunches. The total outcome of their efforts, however, raised enough national attention and suspicion for an official investigation into President Nixon’s activities, bringing about the end to years of corruption and abuse of power.

While some of these people used questionable methods during their reporting, there were no fouls more important or obtrusive that those committed by those being studied. The journalists were acting in the interests of their audience, the group they are charged to protect. Seow Ting Lee concurs with this justification in his research in “Lying to Tell the Truth.” His research indicates that practicing journalists recognize, use and accept this type of behavior in their daily lives. His report shows journalists repeatedly claim justification for their use of deception because they were exposing more damaging injustices.

If practicing journalists today are continuing the same strategies from decades past with similar results and consequences, this type of activity can be expected to continue in the future. As long as this practice is used carefully, as it has been in the past, journalists should have no problem gathering credible and pertinent information from difficult sources.

Literature review for research paper

This research will be based on a number of books and journal articles that discuss the various definitions, occurrences and consequences of journalistic deception. Deni Elliot and Charles Culver discuss the situations that constitute deception in journalism and whether this deception is ever morally justifiable. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein deceived sources to get information that could prove or disprove their hunches. Janet Malcolm presents a first-person practical study of the relationship between a writer and a subject. Her book The Journalist and the Murder narrates the story of a convicted murderer and the writer who proclaimed his innocence in order to remain privileged to sensitive information. Seow Ting Lee constructed a study where practicing journalists were interview about their personal experiences with deception, introducing some empirical evidence into the discussion. Lee followed up with a study of how tolerant journalists were of other’s deception as well as their own.

Elliot and Culver begin their discussion with the story of Chicago Sun-Times reporters Zay Smith and Pamela Zekman. In an attempt to study and report on governmental corruption, they opened a bar for the purpose of creating a bribe situation.

Ables 2

When their plans worked to perfection and they had documented multiple offenses, the pair was surprised to learn they were denied the Pulitzer Prize. Former editor of the

Washington Post Ben Bradlee was a member of the committee that made the Pulitzer decision. Bradlee had overseen two reporters help uncover massive fraud conducted by and in the name of the President and stated that their target as journalists should be those who deceive. They should not utilize or participate in this deception (Elliot 3). Despite their efforts and success in exposing corruption in the American government, the reporter’s deeds went unrewarded. Clearly their use of deception did not harm anyone other than corrupt public officials. Their sting operation actually improved the quality of life in Chicago (if only to trivial degree) as these officials were removed from their positions of power.

Bradlee takes an objective a stand on this issue while his practices may be more subjective in relation to this topic. His supervision of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate investigation ultimately proved successful despite a number of questionable practices during the investigation. On one occasion the reporters contacted the Justice Department about grand jury testimony. An agent there had trouble remembering the name of the man in question. Since Bernstein and Woodward thought they knew what his answer should be, they suggested a name (Bernstein 201). The agent confirmed it but got the first name wrong. Bernstein and Woodward called back and suggested the full correct name and the agent confirmed. Unfortunately, they were all wrong about when and where that name had been mentioned but Bradlee (unaware at the time these practices had led to misinformation) let the story run and the Post experienced

Ables 3

immense pressure after the information in their story was reported false elsewhere. Perhaps Bradlee saw an error in this method and years after the Watergate investigation, exercised his opinion in denying the Pulitzer Prize to Smith and Zekman.

However, their small steps across the line of ethics were necessary to obtain their information. Had they revealed their motives to everyone they encountered, their access to information would have been limited perhaps to a degree that could have ended the investigation before any real progress had been made.

Seow Ting Lee discusses the situations where deception arises in the workplace. His research contends that deception is prevalent in the current workplace but still met with negative reactions by some. As a method of research, Lee used 20 depth interviews to communicate with those who might have important information. Lee describes the depth interview as "an extended conversation with a purpose." Its merits, according to Lee, include an ability for the interviewer to reveal "hidden feelings, attitudes and beliefs that respondents are unaware of or that exist vaguely in their consciousness." Another researcher, Berger, contends that the depth interview is a way to get through the normal defenses people might have about sensitive topics such as the use of deception in journalism. This type of extended dialogue seems useful in obtaining more qualitative data. Lee intended to talk to working journalists about their experiences, rendering their responses (assuming the information they gave is accurate) completely valid, as the best measurement for the existence of something like journalistic deception would be it's measure of existence in field work. All but two of the 20 journalists interviewed had at

Ables 4

least 10 years of experience. The interviews conducted average an hour and a half in length, with the longest being 2.5 hours and the shortest 57 minutes.

Lee found that 14 of the journalists interviewed had used deception. Those who said they did not use deception said they knew of someone who had. Lee found that most of those who had used deception tried many tactics to justify their actions. They accepted responsibility but denied that it was wrong. Some said that refraining from deception is the best course of action, but in some cases it was justifiable. The justifications demonstrate that the journalists were working for something more important - "It was an important story" - or to keep someone safe - "If their identity was known, there would be a lot of trouble." Lee says that the imperative of truthfulness (the inverse of deception) is understood by all who deceived, "or else there would be no need to justify such exceptions."

Lee successfully proves that journalistic deception does exist and is justified for the purpose of continuing deception or continuing a story pieced together using deception. Many claimed it was to protect their source. One of his interviewees gave hard proof of this: "Let's say if someone asks you, "Did so-and-so talk to you?" And you say no, I don't have a problem with that if you've made an agreement to protect the person. You know, what you put in print and what you do to get something into print are two different things."

Based on his research, Lee says there are three rules that help explain journalistic deception:

Ables 5

1. Who is deceived (newsmakers vs. audiences)

2. The perceived character of the person deceived (good vs. bad)

3. The nature of the act (omission vs. commission)

Lee expands on the discussion of deception in “Predicting Tolerance of Journalistic Deception.” He establishes that deception exists and is used as a tool but notes that it may not be a morally indefensible tool. “Journalists are expected to tell the truth, but in what appears to be a paradox, they may have to deceive to get at the truth (Lee – Predicting 1).” This research establishes the use of deception in the practices of journalists and begins to determine what situations constitute immoral deception. Lee lays out a system for determining how deception is interpreted by journalists.

The various deceptive acts appear as points in a continuum; some acts are more acceptable than others. Three assumptions appear to shape the continuum: (a) who is being deceived (audiences vs. newsmakers or sources); (b) the perceived moral character of the person being deceived (good vs. bad; media savvy vs. not media savvy); and (c) the nature of the act (omission vs. commission). In general, journalists were more willing to use deception if the person being deceived is a newsmaker or a source, a “bad” person, someone who is media savvy, and if the deceptive act involved withholding of information rather than active falsification of information (Lee – Predicting 24).

From his research Lee concludes that competition is the most important factor in determining whether deception is considered moral or not. Lee states that these factors

Ables 6

are more important than any individual factors such as education level or personal ethical

beliefs. Regardless of any ethical criticisms or consequences, Lee notes that deceiving a source may ultimately damage the reporter’s credibility (Lee – Predicting 35).

Janet Malcolm presents her case for journalistic deception with razor sharp honesty. Her book The Journalist and the Murderer is the account of deception in the relationship between writer and subject. Jefferty MacDonald was a highly respected Army doctor convicted of murdering his family. He established communication with author Joe McGinnis and solicited his skills for the purpose of writing a book that MacDonald hoped would help exonerate him. McGinnis had participated in this type of activity before, covering the Nixon campaign. There McGinnis learned of the privileged information he could obtain as a writer (Malcolm 11). He undertook the project with MacDonald as an opportunity to break out as a writer. During his investigation of MacDonald and the trial, McGinnis became overwhelmed with the idea that MacDonald was guilty. Certainly this information would have led MacDonald to cease his relationship with McGinnis but McGinnis never shared these feelings. In fact, while MacDonald was in prison, McGinnis wrote him letters continually establishing his belief that MacDonald was innocent and a victim of bad investigation; he referred to him as his “friend.” MacDonald, convinced that McGinnis was working to prove his innocence, continued to give McGinnis support for his investigation. MacDonald provided McGinnis the use of his apartment in Los Angeles for research purposes as well as giving him access to all case files and basically anything McGinnis requested. McGinnis’ book on the subject, Fatal Vision, was published and painted a clear picture of a brutal

Ables 7

murderer with no room for doubt. MacDonald sued McGinnis for libel saying the book defamed him and that he was deceived. McGinnis claims he has done nothing wrong, that to reveal his intentions would have sent MacDonald fleeing contact thus ruining his project.

Malcolm presents the idea that there is a difference between "the reporting and writing phases of the journalistic enterprise…as if the reporting and writing were done by two different people." She writes that the reporter is friendly and nonassertive so that he gains the trust of the subject and therefore is more likely to get better information. The writer then takes that information and constructs an interesting, sometimes scandalous story.

The libel trial raises many questions of practicing journalists. Is it ethical to deceive a subject in order to get information, especially if that information is truth? McGinnis's defense calls other professional writers to the stand to defend that "McGinnis's deception of MacDonald was standard operating procedure." Malcolm then finds herself as a victim of the dilemma about which she is writing. After the trial is over, no one will talk to her. Malcolm treated the construction of her story as ruthlessly as McGinnis had told his. Her stark adherence to the truth is evident in the first sentence of her book. "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."

These researchers have provided a framework for this paper’s assertion that deception in journalism is ethical only when necessary for exposing a larger, eventual

Ables 8

truth and must also be done in a way not to immediately or intentionally harm physically or through an act of libel. In some cases, deception is the only way to obtain information. A journalist must sometimes hide his motives to become trustworthy but as long as this does not harm anyone and is understood as necessary for a greater outcome, it is morally justifiable.

Sources

Deni Elliot and Charles Culver, “Defining Acts of Journalistic Deception.” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Portland, Oregon, July 2-5 1988).

Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, All the President’s Men, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975)

Seow Ting Lee, “Lying to Tell the Truth: Journalists and the Social Context of Deception,” Mass Communication and Society Winter 2004: p 97-120.

Janet Malcolm, The Journalist and the Murderer (New York: Knopf, 1990)

The New Yorker vs. Masson

Posted below is a review of the legal brief of the case of The New Yorker vs. Masson in which Janet Malcolm was exposed for fabricating quotes for a story. It shows deception at its worse and most unnecessary.

After being dismissed from his project management job at the Sigmund Freud Archives, Jeffery Masson participated in a series of interviews with New Yorker writer Janet Malcolm about his activities at the archives. Malcolm quoted Masson at length about various topics using actual quotation marks to surround the body of text attributed to Masson himself. Masson found fault with six particular statements and brought this to Malcolm’s attention. Further complicating the matter were Malcolm’s missing handwritten notes, which supposedly contained the information used to create the direct quotes. Malcolm also had more than 40 hours of recorded conversation between herself and Masson.

Masson filed a libel lawsuit against Malcolm in 1984 alleging that she had fabricated quotes and that these quotes were libelous. After review, the Supreme Court eventually ruled 7-2 that Malcolm had fabricated quotes but that the quotes were not libelous. They argued that enough evidence was found in the tape recordings to give foundation to the quotes Malcolm attributed to Masson.

An interesting point of argument surrounded Malcolm’s quoting Masson that he called himself and “intellectual gigolo.” This was supposedly part of a conversation Masson had with Freud archives associates Dr. Kurt Eissler and Dr. Anna Freud about future plans for the Freud home and archives. Nowhere in the tape recordings does the term “intellectual gigolo” appear.

Malcolm also quoted Masson as saying that he had plans for “sex, women, fun” at Freud’s home at Maresfield Gardens. Malcolm attributed to Masson the claims that he would turn the house into a place of “sex, women, fun” and it would be like “the change in the Wizard of Oz, from black-and-white into color.” These “quotes” were derived, supposedly, from actual recorded quotes of Masson saying that he had ideas for “big parties” at the Freud home and again, no taped evidence of the direct words “sex, women, fun” were found.

The Court based its decision about fabricated quotes on the notion that using actual quotation marks in any reputable publication would lead the reader to believe that anything found inside the quotations was an actual reproduction of words spoken. However, since Masson was a public figure this alone was not sufficient in claiming libel. Malcolm escaped further action because her most exciting “quotes” found at least some basis in the taped conversation. The Court held that despite the misjudgment on Malcolm’s part, no evidence of libel against a public official was present.

This information is pertinent to my research because despite her proven deception of readers by fabricating quotes, Malcolm was not held to any punishment. According to the Supreme Court, this type of deception does not warrant any action and conceivably is an acceptable form of journalism.

Book review of "The Crime of Sheila McGough"

Janet Malcolm is a rare breed of journalist. She dives deep into the intricate details of our interaction and communication as a societya. Malcolm brings these nuances to the front of the dialogue in The Case of Sheila McGough. In her previous work, The Journalist and the Murderer, Malcolm told of the deception of writer Joe McGinnis as he lifted information from a convicted felon whom he “knew” to be guilty. Sheila McGough instead tells the story of a woman Malcolm “knows” is innocent. Malcolm uses the story of McGough to make her point that absolute truth and the “truth” we see in court are two different things. Juries and judges (like movie audiences) like aesthetically pleasing stories. But absolute truth cannot be confined to such.

McGough was a lawyer (disbarred after her conviction) who helped a client in a transaction involving the sale of insurance companies. Her client, Bob Bailes, was a con artist who hired her services as he arranged the sale of two insurance companies. A down payment to be held in escrow by McGough until the complete transaction was finished was withdrawn immediately and McGough was charged with “escrow fraud.”

Malcolm has extensively studied the legal process and concludes that McGough’s conviction was the result of her inability to “tell a good story” in court , or anywhere for that matter; their first conversation lasted two hours and Malcolm did not get a word in until after this time. This, Malcolm believes, is the cornerstone of winning any legal battle. A victim’s (or defendant’s) story must be easy to understand and convincing. Malcolm describes McGough as longwinded but honest, decent but “maddeningly tiresome.” Throughout the book she argues that McGough just didn’t provide the right facts in the right way and was beaten by the prosecution because their story was better.

The truth of McGough’s told in its entirety, and complete truth on every occasion Malcolm says, is “messy, incoherent and aimless” and to tell this story would deter a jury from sympathy for the defendant. She argues that McGough was so brutally honest and truthful in her daily life that she never had to construct a “likeable” story and was at a loss when she was faced with the charges she knew were wrong. Unfortunately this “entire” story that might have proved her innocence, might still not have worked because, Malcolm claims, juries and judges didn’t like the spun stories better.

Janet Malcolm, The Case of Sheila McGough (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999)

Book review of "In Cold Blood"

In Cold Blood is an intriguing, bizarre example of how life is truly stranger than fiction. Truman Capote's nonfiction account of four murders in Holcomb, Kansas tells the story of a father, mother, brother and sister were sinisterly executed in their home, two in their own beds.

Capote reconstructs the story as it would be told in a novel. The characters are introduced through their favorite activities and interactions with family and close friends. The reader begins to feel empathetic from the beginning. The children are near-perfect examples of innocent youth, both involved and joyful. This is cast upon the (basically) universal knowledge that they are soon to be slaughtered in their own home. This method accentuates both the innocence of the family and the ruthlessness of the killers, Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. Capote also switches back and forth between scenes at the Clutter home and scenes of "Dick" and "Perry", as they are referred to in the book, going about the business of preparing their break-in. This creates suspense as the reader is always pulled away to another scene of less excitement just as the previous scene was reaching a climax. The story builds like that, with the narrative almost reaching climax, then moving to another scene in the story. The chapters are short, making the book flow faster at first. Capote also alters the length of the chapters, with the shorter ones leading up to a monumental parts of the story. This creates an almost physical interaction between the story and the reader in that it feels that the reader is reading faster as the chapters reach their climax.

It is interesting that the story fits so well into the fiction narrative sequence. This required extensive research on Capote's part, exemplified by the details in the story. Perry corrects people's grammar throughout the story. This is perhaps most notable when he corrects the grammar of the news reporter who wrote a story about the murders. While reading about the horrible events he himself helped carry out, he is more concerned with incorrect grammar in the story. It is these types of detail that bring the story to life and elevate it to something more than just a nonfiction account of crime.

Despite his sense of empathy for the victims in the build-up to the murders and arrests, Capote seems to side with Perry Smith in the end. He expounds on research about insanity and its relationship to criminality as a sort of defense for Perry. Hickock is not given the same treatment, as after their confession, Hickock showed no remorse for his actions or an indication that he was criminally insane.

The book comes to a close much slower than it opens with Capote sort of "soap-boxing" for the final chapters. This attempt to almost justify the crime, Perry's involvement at least, is less subtle than his attempt to inspire innocence about the victims giving the book an ambiguous overall feeling.

Change in Research

My research can no longer be confined to Watergate discussion. I am looking for deception in every realm of journalism. Posted below is a review of another report by Seow Ting Lee regarding journalists and deception.

In "Lying to Tell the Truth: Journalists and the Social Context of Deception," Seow Ting Lee studies the practice of deception by those in the news industry. He contends that these practices are common within the journalistic realm. He supports this idea with quotes from other researchers who say that it is not only common but necessary to obtaining some stories. He believes deception is used to mislead audiences as well as sources.

As a method of research, Lee used 20 depth interviews to communicate with those who might have important information. Lee describes the depth interview as "an extended conversation with a purpose." Its merits, according to Lee, include an ability for the interviewer to reveal "hidden feelings, attitudes and beliefs that respondents are unaware of or that exist vaguely in their consciousness." Another researcher, Berger, contends that the depth interview is a way to get through the normal defenses people might have about sensitive topics such as the use of deception in journalism. This type of extended dialogue seems useful in obtaining more qualitative data. Lee intended to talk to working journalists about their experiences, rendering their responses (assuming the information they gave is accurate) completely valid, as the best measurement for the existence of something like journalistic deception would be it's measure of existence in field work. All but two of the 20 journalists interviewed had at least 10 years of experience. The interviews conducted average an hour and a half in length, with the longest being 2.5 hours and the shortest 57 minutes.

Lee found that 14 of the journalists interviewed had used deception. Those who said they did not use deception said they knew of someone who had. Lee found that most of those who had used deception tried many tactics to justify their actions. They accepted responsibility but denied that it was wrong. Some said that refraining from deception is the best course of action, but in some cases it was justifiable. The justifications demonstrate that the journalists were working for something more important - "It was an important story" - or to keep someone safe - "If their identity was known, there would be a lot of trouble." Lee says that the imperative of truthfulness (the inverse of deception) is understood by all who deceived, "or else there would be no need to justify such exceptions."

Lee successfully proves that journalistic deception does exist and is justified for the purpose of continuing deception or continuing a story pieced together using deception. Many claimed it was to protect their source. One of his interviewees gave hard proof of this: "Let's say if someone asks you, "Did so-and-so talk to you?" And you say no, I don't have a problem with that if you've made an agreement to protect the person. You know, what you put in print and what you do to get something into print are two different things."

Based on his research, Lee says there are three rules that help explain journalistic deception:

1. Who is deceived (newsmakers vs. audiences)

2. The perceived character of the person deceived (good vs. bad)

3. The nature of the act (omission vs. commission)

Lee discusses limitations on the idea of journalistic deception. He claims that there are some who would not deceive regardless of how necessary deception might seem. Lee claims much of this can be explained simply through personal beliefs or religious influences. However, the reader must be aware that some of these people might lie about this topic to protect themselves, a major justification used by those who did deceive.

This article was extremely pertinent in that it's the first article I've found that related directly to my topic. Lee discusses the deception of audiences which caused me to consider more the nature of deception as it applies to victims families.