Seow Ting Lee's "Lying to Tell the Truth"

In his research, Seow Ting Lee discovered that most journalists practicing today recognize deception as a tool being used to obtain information. His article can be found for free through the Ole Miss library's EBSCOhost search engine.

This research will benefit from the study of previous relationships between authors and their sources. Journalists and other authors will be considered. This research focuses on authors whose sources have been deceived for the benefit of the author. Most of the subjects in this research have been accused or convicted of a violent crime. This makes the job of the author an exercise in caution. Sources who are on trial have certain interests to protect which may affect the relationship between themselves and an author attempting to capture the story on paper.

The author usually deceives the sources in order to attract their trust and thus have more access to the information to which a source may be privileged. The journalist's first priority is to the truth. The search for truth is impeded in many ways. A source may be unlikely to talk to an author if it is clear that the author believes the source is guilty of a crime.

In "Lying to Tell the Truth", Seow Ting Lee studied journalists and their beliefs about deception as a tool in seeking truth. Lee refers to Jay Black's finding that many journalists "conceding that deception should be avoided, it may be justified in rare instances, such as when the information is of great importance and cannot be obtained any other way." In his research he encountered statements such as "It was an important story" or "It was absolutely crucial for the story."

In "Predicting Tolerance of Journalistic Deception", Lee expounds on the levels of deception:

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 me- dia savvy, and if the deceptive act involved withholding of information rather than active falsification of information.

There are several key elements to be studied. These elements will show how the relationship between an author and a source is affected by deception. This research will examine consequences for the author, the subject and profession of writing itself. The consequences may be immediate, may only affect the author, may only affect the subject or may not be realized until after the relationship is over. This research will discuss the reasons for deception. The source's blindness to the deception will be researched.

Reading accounts of past interactions between authors and subjects will be the main focus of the method. This provides two advantages. The information is readily accessible in most cases and the information has had time for review and criticism making it more valid.

Research will show how authors deceived sources. It will show whether this deception was intentional or not. It will show what effects the author and subject experienced immediately as a result of the source's realization that deception had taken place. It will show what effects this deception had on the story sought after by the author. Any future implications on the author, source and craft of journalism as a whole will be presented.

The conclusions of this research will have significance in understanding how authors present themselves to subjects in order to obtain the best information possible.