Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" has long been touted as forerunner of these genres. Recently, Ben Yagoda (editor of the literary journalism compilation, "The Art of Fact") looked into Capote's fact checker, Sandy Campbell. After reviewing the brief article on Campbell, explore whether your opinion of "In Cold Blood" has changed.
Also, discuss why so many of the examples of "strong journalism" that were selected for our book, "Key Readings in Journalism," such as Martha Gellhorn's "The Face of War," the articles from Ernie Pyle and this week's readings are "non-traditional" kinds of journalism. What does this say about day-to-day journalism?
This is my first time reading Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood.” Before reading the excerpt in “Key Readings in Journalism,” we talked in class about the recent speculations surrounding this work, and the misgiving that some people have had with the new journalism style in terms of facts. I personally enjoy literary style journalism but I feel that many times the facts are stretched in order to fill out the story. I felt this way about the “In Cold Blood” excerpt because of the conversations and thoughts that were explained in a lot of detail, such as Perry Smith’s thoughts as he left the interrogation room. Although I know that many of the facts were taken from later confessions and detailed transcripts, I still also know that some liberty must have been taken by Capote when writing those thoughts. Once I read the article on Campbell, I felt pretty much the same way about the novel. It was interesting that his fact checking consisted of only checking on “checkable” facts, like dates, times, and names. I feel that there must have been a reason that the dialogue of some of the characters was not looked into as deeply, but I feel that it is because it’s somewhat implied that Capote used his creativity to write the piece along with the facts. Overall, I think it’s a great story and it is intriguing because it is based off of a true story and is advertised as completely truthful, but I feel that you must go into reading it with the realization that there is going to be some kind of extra stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of “non-traditional” journalism is not very comparable to day-to-day journalism for me because they are such different styles of writing. Their mission to inform the public of current issues is the only thing that I feel they have in common. Otherwise, non-traditional journalism borders on entertainment in addition to information. Still, nowadays there is entertainment journalism in the form of celebrity gossip and trivial news, but they still follow the format of day-to-day news, maybe to keep up with today’s fast paced news environment. Literary journalism is a kind of entertainment that a book is, it is emotionally investing and it takes a little more time and effort to appreciate. I think that they are two totally different mediums of journalism and can’t be compared very easily.
I definitely agree that Capote used his creativity with this piece, but how creative can you be in journalism or so-called nonfiction novels? We have movies today that begin with a the disclaimer that it is based on a true story, couldn't this piece still work if it did the same? To me, I'd consider it more credible if it had not tried to be something it wasn't (journalism) and just owned up to what it really was (fiction based on nonfictional occurrences). I agree with you, it's a great story and it is intriguing and it still can be, just not in a journalistic venue.
DeleteAfter reading the brief article on Sandy Campbell, Truman Capote's fact checker, I still feel the same about "In Cold Blood." When I first read the book many years ago (and the excerpt just now), I thought it was a great story and incredibly well written. Obviously,some parts of the story are questionable in accuracy. Truman couldn't recall the conversations that the victims had before they died because he didn't know them. And the thought that the two murders escaped to murder more people because the police were being slow on a lead might not be altogether true. I think he took some artistic license in writing his book. That doesn't make the piece not an example of strong "non-traditional" journalism. The facts are still generally correct and it does relay the information to the public about the event that they need to know. Details and facts such as who was killed, how and why they were killed, who were the murderers,and where did the murders occur were all accurate. "In Cold Blood" should still be considered the forerunner of the genre of literary journalism or new journalism."
ReplyDeleteAddressing the other question, I think that so many examples of strong journalism picked for this book were nontraditional kinds of journalism because they are important works as well as the day-to-day journalism. The day-to-day journalism is usually just facts whereas these examples of journalism give more details and a story to be sucked into. The way these stories are written feel as though we could be present at the event. I think especially with war, that this type of journalism is needed. Typical American citizens have never witnessed war in front of them because war has never been on our home front. Another reason that the book has these examples of non traditional journalism is because it is a book teaching journalism. A student in journalism needs to know about all different kinds of journalism in order to be a good journalist.
Caroline, I think that you make several strong points in your blog post. I think that with the literary style of journalism that Capote used, it is next to impossible to be 100 percent accurate. However, I still think that Capote was overall mostly accurate, and his work represents a strong example of "non-traditional" journalism.
DeleteThe fact that so many examples of non-traditional journalism were selected for our book speaks to the importance that these works had on journalism. I think that you are correct when you say that they are just as important as other typical day-to-day journalism in terms of their impact. In some ways, these works give the reader something that typical journalism doesn't. Like you stated, they are written as if they could be present day events. In this way, they can be considered more timeless pieces of journalism than typical day-to-day journalism.
I agree with the opinion that literary journalism can be seen as more timeless than traditional journalism. As I discussed in my blog post, since news is often cyclical, we have much to learn from past events. While literary journalism may not be able to reach 100% accuracy, it provides insight and details that traditional journalism does not, and might draw in an audience that isn't as inclined to read or react to cut-and-dry fact reporting. As Caroline asserted, so many of the selections in our book are nontraditional, which speaks to the value of nontraditional news.
DeleteAfter reading Ben Yagoda’s article on Capote’s fact Checker, Sandy Campbell, I began to have some doubts on the factuality of “In Cold Blood.” When first reading the excerpt of “In Cold Blood,” I did not question that the story might not be completely true. The introduction explained that Capote wrote the story as a “nonfiction novel” that was accurate and I did not doubt that fact. The detail included in “In Cold Blood” engrossed me in the story, which contributed to my lack of questioning of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe article on Sandy Campbell made me think about if the story was accurate. I was reminded of how difficult it is sometimes to remember conversations word for word. Additionally, I was surprised to read that Capote added his own, invented, part to the story. Yagoda writes, “One early revelation (acknowledged by Capote before his death in 1984) was that the last scene in the book, a graveyard conversation between a detective and the murdered girl’s best friend, was pure invention.” Although this is just one part of the book, I feel like the entire book loses some of its validity because of this one section being made up.
While Yagoda’s article placed some doubt in my mind, it did not completely change my opinion of “In Cold Blood.” It is mentioned that Capote practiced remembering conversations for two years before he wrote this book. I do believe that it is possible and probable that Capote was able to remember the conversations he recorded in his book. I have some experience with ethnography, and while I felt it was challenging to remember complete conversations, I never felt that I completely forgot them either. Additionally, this subject matter was particularly important to Capote, which makes it more likely that he was able to accurately remember conversations.
I think that the fact that many examples of strong journalism were non-traditional types of journalism says that these types of journalism have a greater effect on the audience. Day-to-day journalism is often mundane in their format and communication of stories. While the content could be the same in both types of journalism, non-traditional types like the non-fiction narrative of “In Cold Blood” are more enthralling. They have the power to affect readers, while day to day journalism often just informs.
The idea of New Journalism has a large amount of skepticism surrounding it. The introduction to In Cold Blood explains, “Sometimes blurring the line between fact and fiction, New Journalism has always held a controversial place in the field. Many people object to including dialogue between several people at scenes at which the author could not have actually been present or known precisely what was said, “ (King and Chapman 2012). After reading this, my thoughts on the excerpt of In Cold Blood were already slightly different than they could have been.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Sandy Campbell article continued to instill doubt in my mind about whether or not In Cold Blood was “non-fiction.” The difficulty of remembering conversations word for word makes it hard to fathom how a book of its kind could be completely non-fiction and accurate. Ben Yagoda’s article even added some surprise for me as a reader. This article stated that In Cold Blood even added pieces into the story that were completely made up.
This balance between fact and fiction in journalism creates an interesting dynamic. In Cold Blood is one of the most famous pieces of its genre. However, the balance between giving the readers good writing and a good story, and telling facts about a story people are interested in, is difficult when taking on this style of writing. I wish that pieces such as this were framed not as journalism, but more of a story “based on true events.” If this were the case I would have enjoyed In Cold Blood even more.
These types of journalism are popular because of the emotion it creates in people. The emotion creates a powerful reaction, and therefore more interested and involved readers. I think that this type of non-traditional journalism is preferred over day-to-day journalism because it gives an environment where a reader with no previous knowledge on the topic can understand and engage themselves in the story.
Ryan, I agree with what you are saying. I think that it is difficult to say that "In Cold Blood" is completely non-fiction. Like you stated, it is highly unlikely that Capote was able to remember and rewrite entire conversations without making mistakes. In addition, because of the style he was writing in, it is reasonable to believe that he changed things in order to make his work more appealing to readers. This could also explain why "In Cold Blood" may have included things that never even occurred.
DeleteI do, however, think that Capote's work can still be considered journalism. Having said this, I think that people should keep in mind the style he was using and not accept everything that he wrote as fact. Obviously the "new journalism"/ "literary journalism" style is much different than day-to-day journalism. I think that in order to capture the reader's attention and create emotion, the writers in this style sometimes stretch the truth. Therefore, I think it is important to read these works with some skepticism. Overall, although Capote may not have been entirely accurate, I still think that he was mostly accurate considering the style that he used.
Steve, I agree with you that Capote's piece could still be looked at as journalism. Although there are some questions about his accuracy, it is important to note that he did not make up the story. Also, I feel pieces like this one should allow for the writer to tweak the story a bit, allowing him/her to paint a clear picture. As Ryan notes, it is extremely hard to remember conversations verbatim, forcing the writer to make tweaks in sake of the fluidity of the story.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read "In Cold Blood" back in high school, it was one of the most captivating stories I had ever come across--and still feel that way today. I personally think it is a marvel that Truman Capote invested so much time into discovering the truth behind the murder of the Clutter Family, and subsequently formatting all of his research, interviews, and data collected into one cohesive book that works as not only an entertaining novel, but also "literary journalism." When it comes to the debate on whether or not the story is accurate, I like to believe that it is mostly accurate with a touch of invention in order to smooth the facts collceted by Capote into one story. As Yagoda wrote in his article, Capote had trained himself to remember conversations verbatim in his head and then write them down afterwards with 92% accuracy. I think that this is an impressive skill that would have allowed Capote to be strongly accurate with his quotations and dialogue. Additionally, given that 'In Cold Blood' was published in fact-checking publications like The New Yorker or Time magazine, I think it is safe to say that there MUST have been more fact-checking involved in Capote's work because these groups would not have wanted to risk their reputations for being accurate and true accounts of news stories. Yagoda himself wrote in this article that he is not sure whether or not more fact-checkers than just Sandy Campbell worked on 'In Cold Blood,' which makes me feel as though he is simply attempting to create controversy without being fully informed himself. Additionally, I think that the "errors" included in this article were small enough to the point that they should not be considered substantial enough to debunk the credibility of 'In Cold Blood.'
ReplyDeleteKeith, I certainly agree. I don't see why the New York Times and Time magazine with put their necks out for this book, if they weren't sure that it was at least mostly accurate. Otherwise, it could jeopardize their reputations, which is not something that they would do with as high of a standing as they have. It would be disastrous for them to not have a high level of accuracy in publications that they endorse.
DeleteAs far as Capote himself, I don't see why he would publish blatant lies as truth. As an intelligent man, I think that he did the best he could to be as accurate as possible and that should be what we take from his account.
Keith, I agree with you completely. This story has facisnated me for a very long time and continues to do so today. Capote's ability to train himself to remember conversations verbatim in his head and then write them down afterwards with 92% accuracy is amazing. That is a valuable skill to have as a journalist as well as a novelist. Also, like Mary, I agree that the New York Times and Time magazine wouldn't have risked their reputation for being truthful if they weren't sure that it was at least mostly accurate. When you say that, "I think that the 'errors' included in this article were small enough to the point that they should not be considered substantial enough to debunk the credibility of 'In Cold Blood," you make a good point. These small errors aren't that big in the grand scale. The story is still accurate in the bigger and more important aspects. Time, location, and who was involved is all true.
DeleteI also agree with you Keith. I like how you specified that you think "it is safe to say that there MUST have been more fact-checking involved in Capote's work because these groups would not have wanted to risk their reputations for being accurate and true accounts of news stories." This is a really great observation and a key element of journalism in terms of accuracy and truth.
Delete"In Cold Bold" is certainly a controversial book, as you point out and it still appears as an outstanding example of literary journalism while also remaining provocative because of Capote's "true lies."
Literary journalism is a totally different animal than traditional journalism. It is often embellished with the author’s creativity, but, as with traditional journalism, we operate under the assumption that what we are reading is indeed true, and based in fact. This was not entirely the case with Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood.” Perhaps the main difficulty in determining the truth of a piece of writing such as this is only being able to check the “checkable” facts, such as dates and names. That is to say, is it reasonable (or even possible) for an entire second investigation to take place in order to fact-check the first one (especially when certain important people had died)? Literary journalism may be more enjoyable reading for some than the cut-and-dry reporting of traditional journalism, but readers should be aware of the author’s creative input and, in some cases, downright bad reporting.
ReplyDeleteFor many reasons, literary journalism does not have as big of a role in news as traditional journalism. For one, readers expect immediacy in news. After all, one of the main purposes of news is to inform the public so that they might make informed decisions that affect their lives in meaningful ways. Taking months to tell a novel-length story, which arguably tells more than it ought to as it isn’t strictly reporting facts, is not the ideal way to quickly and simply deliver facts to your audience. However, stories which have been novelized are most likely to remain relevant long after the newsworthy event itself has been resolved. In this manner audiences can learn and inform their decisions from past events, because news is often quite cyclical, with different people playing parts in similar events.
Audiences have a tendency to believe everything they read or see on T.V. This is especially the case when certain programs or books boast the “based on a true story” line. This can be misleading if the author or producers decide the story’s drama is more important than its actuality. However, Capote’s facts, arguably the most important ones, were checked and confirmed, and I find his book to still be deserving of the credit of being the “forerunner of these genres.” As long as audiences are aware of what to expect and look out for, literary journalism may be among the most long-lasting journalism we have in an age of immediacy in which one story replaces the next and stories often become buried, are moved on from, or forgotten.
Over the past week, all of the readings we covered in class have all been non-traditional types of journalism and are all unique in their own way. Between stories such as “In Cold Blood” or the war articles written by Ernie Pyle, these stories involve direct quotes and personal stories which can lead to a certain amount of suspicion when reading these stories. After reading Ben Yagoda’s article on Sandy Campbell, and the introduction to “In Cold Blood,” I had a few doubts on how valid this story really was. With the introduction that was given in Key Readings in Journalism to the “In Cold Blood” piece, I felt as if this served almost as a disclaimer saying that not everything in this article is true, so don’t believe everything you read. “Sometimes blurring the line between fact and fiction, New Journalism has always held controversial place in the field.” (King and Chapman, 2012) When a statement like this is given, it makes me question how true the story really is. One thing that I was very impressed with was how accurate Truman could remember conversations word for word, which added credibility to his story, but after reading the Yagoda article; this also put some doubt in my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe article that was written on Sandy Campbell pointed out a few major flaws to the “In Cold Blood” story which did not make Truman or The New Yorker look good for publishing this story without another fact checker. One of the biggest red flags that I noticed was when Yagoda was talking about Campbell’s work and he said “his work seems to be all about the dates and distances…” (Yagoda, 2013) Yagoda also said that Campbell didn’t confirm most of the direct quotes that were used in this story, which is a huge error since quotes are so important in new journalism. Making sure all of the information is accurate in these types of stories is crucial, and that fact that Capote even admitted to making some things up in his story made me question some of the validity this story holds.
Traditional journalism and new journalism are completely different, and I like traditional journalism better because it is hard to question it as opposed to the skepticism revolved around this non- traditional journalism. I am not used to this type of new journalism because after reading the stories we covered in class this week, they reminded me more of a history lesson than journalism. However, I did learn this week that history and journalism can flow together smoothly, as seen in stories such as “In Cold Blood.” These stories bring out a certain type of emotion in all of their readers, which I could see why people like this type of journalism since they can relate to it, however, personally I like traditional journalism better so I can hear the straight facts on not have any doubt about it.
Upon reading “In Cold Blood,” I was fascinated, because it was descriptive, and it told a really good story. Earlier in the semester, I remember saying that I do not enjoy literary journalism as much as I do other forms, because of its length, but “In Cold Blood” provides to me a piece that could be described as literary journalism, but it peeks my interest more. As noted before, the detail allowed me to enjoy the piece even more, because it not only told a story, but it also allows for me to place myself into the story itself, rather than just reading facts and figures that serves as the only way for readers such as myself to understand what is going on.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Capote’s piece, I feel the same about the piece as I did before. I kind of expected for there to be some inaccuracies along with the story, which made Capote’s piece useless in determining how I feel about “In Cold Blood”. Obviously, the stories portrayed in Truman’s piece will differ from the actual event, as time and other factors will result in changes to how the story is retold. Even with the inaccuracies, it is tough to deny the fact that Truman’s piece is a great example of what nontraditional journalism looks like. Truman tells the story in such a way that allows the audience to picture many of the things that are discussed in his piece. For that reason, I believe the inaccuracies are an integral part of his piece, because I feel that it allows building a scene, rather than just telling the story in a more traditional style that often does not allow much room for creativity. This also serves as a reason why “Key Readings in Journalism” makes use of so many nontraditional pieces, because they show the creativity and a more elaborate form of journalism than just fact telling.
The Slate article by Ben Yagoda does not change my opinion about Truman Capote’s (arguably) groundbreaking work. Having studied previous Truman Capote writings as well as his life, he often wrote in a style that could be transferred to film. This is especially true with In Cold Blood. In Cold Blood is one of my favorite books of all time. The Slate article does not say imply that In Cold Blood is not valid and it is not as if he did not fact check at all. The article mentions that dates and certain occurrences were indeed checked. Our book classifies In Cold Blood under the heading, “Classic Reporting.” But the chapter itself says “Sometimes blurring the line between fact and fiction, New Journalism has always held a controversial place in the field. Many people object to including dialogue…the author cold not have actually been present or known precisely what was said…writers of New Journalism inject(ing) themselves into the story…” (p. 299-300) I remember my English teacher sophomore year of High School explaining to us that In Cold Blood is not completely accurate but what it accomplished was extraordinary because Capote did put himself/his voice in the action. For the past few weeks in class we have debated over traditional journalism’s purpose versus non-traditional journalism’s purpose. Personally, I do not think this debate is ever going to end simply because we are living is the crucible of speed. People want their information faster and faster, and will find any means necessary of doing that. This may be why we can probably find more “holes” in reporting now than ever before. News stories that come out in parts today are not as popular among readers because we, perhaps subconsciously, want to know what happens next. Its not that either of these styles accomplish different things, because at the end of the day they still inform readers of an event or issue. However, day-to-day journalism, I argue, no longer goes through the great depths that “Classic Reporting” used to. The only example I can think of this is the Susan Smith case from 1994.. It is not simply “New Journalism” here; it is a new world of journalism. Rules have changed because people and society’s needs have changed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this excerpt about Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, and already knowing a great deal about the case and book, I think that regardless of the fact all being 100% accurate the book is a prime example of great investigative literary journalism. It would be impossible for Capote to write an entire novel, let alone an interesting one, without embellishing ideas and actions that happened. To even complain about the dialogue used in the book seems ridiculous. Of course Capote didn't know everything that the killers were thinking or saying, but he did have 8,000 pages of notes to give him a very accurate idea. Is that not just as good?
ReplyDeleteAs far as literary journalism goes in being the most publicized pieces throughout history, all i have to say is of course they are. These are the articles that had the most time spent on them, told the clearest and most enthralling stories, and were written to stir emotion not just give basic information. This does not say that day to day journalism is worthless, as it seemingly holds the same purpose as the internet does, to deliver basic information. Non traditional journalism is much more of an art form, and requires months of investigation and writing. They are two completely different forms of writing in my opinion, and should be studied as such.
Reading Yagoda’s article on Campbell changed my opinion of “In Cold Blood” a little, for reasons that address the second question about nontraditional kinds of journalism. The “nonfiction” issues Yagoda points out regarding Capote’s famous piece are very similar to the issues involved in writing for memoir. I took a close on memoir writing at Ursinus with Jenny Boylan, a transgendered memoirist. As a class, we had trouble handling the issue of what to do when you are recounting an event in your life that involves dialogue, but you can’t remember every word that was spoken or every detail of the exchange. Jenny told us that, when writing a memoir piece, the emphasis is on the story – the atmosphere of the events recounted and the feeling of the effect those events had on the memoirist’s life – not on the facts. We could, in other words, fill in memory gaps with made-up dialogue. This has gotten some memoirists in trouble…but creating nonfiction in this way obviously has far more significant implications for journalism. Capote appears to have made up conversations he could not have possibly known had happened, which is somewhat problematic as far as journalism goes, but pretty much acceptable as far as story-telling goes. In my opinion, it would be a little irresponsible of Capote to fabricate parts of his story and publish it as strictly journalism, but he did label it as a “nonfiction novel,” which might make it okay. When we talked about Lule, we frequently considered whether the emphasis in news should be on the facts or the story. Lule seemed to suggest that there needs to be a happy balance between both. Too much fact and you lose the framework that helps your audience understand and process the significance of the story. Too much story and you may be overlooking details that need to be interrogated (as was the case with the NYT and 9/11) or falsely characterizing people (as Capote ran the risk of doing in his work) and ultimately misleading your audience. Even so, these nontraditional journalism pieces, like Capote’s and Gellhorn’s, which tend to focus more on the story side of things become renowned, historical works that we end up studying in a journalism class. I think this speaks to the idea that well-told stories, like myths, are timeless in that they are able to capture the human imagination and interest, even several decades after they are originally published. Consumers need the more typical day-to-day journalism where the emphasis is facts with maybe some story/myth to make important decisions and be responsible citizens, but pieces that fall under this category will most likely not be read in a journalism class in fifty years.
ReplyDeleteRosie, thank you for sharing your opinion and personal story with memoir writing at Ursinus. That sounds like an amazing experience to have. I agree with you that it would be irresponsible of Capote to be creative with his writing and create parts of his story (such as the conversations between the deceased victims) and then publish it as strictly journalism, but since, as you wrote, he labeled it as a nonfiction novel. That is a different genre and therefore could be okay. I'm also happy that you brought Lule into this, because he was an important part of our curriculum and he also had valuable things to say regarding accuracy and journalism.
DeleteI personally don’t like this “new journalism” style of journalism, because this seems that there is no information to be gained. I just don’t see what one can learn from reading about someone groceries list? At least with the literary journalism you can feel and make connections with, and with “strong journalism” there was an element of the unimaginable that makes it more interesting to read. This day-to-day journalism doesn’t have what it takes in my opinion to maintain the interest in the masses. I think that it has to do with the opening; the Capote’s opening to “In Cold Blood” was very dry and not relatable in an thought provoking way. But the more you read the more interesting it gets like a novel or short story. Although unlike with “the Face of War” and literary journalism, “In Cold Blood” and this new non-traditional journalism seems to be even farther away from making a statement that even remotely sounds like news. When the narrator is describing what is going on it really takes away from the readers ability feel connected to the story they become outsiders. My view of “In Cold Blood” has changed a little since reading the articles that Hettinga suggested/ asked, I did not realize just how much work goes into creating a piece like this one. I also really liked how the Sandy Campbell article was setup with the way that it gives the pros, cons, and the history of Campbell himself. This week’s reading really helped me set my limits for the different types of journalism.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the excerpt of Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” first, I found it very interesting. I thought this “new journalism” was a fascinating style, which would be able to keep readers more entertained and engaged in readings. I thought this style added a more visual sense that gave the reader sight, instead of more normal forms of journalism which just fed factual and informative information. As I stated I enjoyed the excerpts from Truman Capote’s nonfictional novel until I read Ben Yagoda’s article on Sandy Campbell who was Capote’s fact checker. The article didn’t necessarily discredit Capote’s research and facts used in his story, but just conveyed the idea that some of his facts could not be taken literal. For example in the article, Capote admits to creating scenes and other items of minimal significance to add to the story. My personal problem with that type of journalism is that I prefer my news literal. I want to be able to trust my journalistic source to have the correct information and reliable research when read a story. I believe in journalism, it is essential to have the most accurate information, whether it is obscure detail or a very important fact in the case. Although I enjoyed the reading as if I was reading a novel, I feel learning that the author added his personal creativity to the story, discredited the story as whole.
ReplyDeleteIn the other Non-traditional forms of journalism we read about and discussed in class last week, they were different than traditional journalism we are used to seeing in everyday society, but the authors didn’t add his or her own creativity to the story. The author may add adjectives or descriptive writing to paint images for the reader which is ok in my opinion, as long as the original information isn’t altered. One quote that really stuck out to me in the ”In Cold Blood” excerpts was ““Sometimes blurring the line between fact and fiction, New Journalism has always held controversial place in the field.” I believe in journalism, and in relaying the news, the line between fact and fiction should never be blurry.
I had never read “In Cold Blood” prior to this or seen the recent movie “Capote” with Phillip Seymour Hoffman; however, I did hear about the controversy surrounding this piece and we briefly talked about it in class. I like to root for the underdog and enter things with an open mind, but this piece read like a screenplay to me. I felt like this easily could translate into a movie or an afternoon soap opera, which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. There is no doubting that this was an entertaining piece and that it was well-written, but it is definitely questionable to consider this journalistic or a “nonfiction novel,” which seems like an oxymoron to me. This was my initial impression before even reading the article about fact-checking this piece. After reading that article, my opinion was solidified: this piece cannot be trusted. When it said he was 92% accurate, I seriously laughed out loud. 92% accurate is not accurate. 100% accurate is accurate. How important were the 8% of inaccuracies. This shouldn’t be a quantitative number of accuracy, it’s qualitative. If one thing in your article is inaccurate, then you are inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteAs far as day-to-day journalism goes, these non-traditional examples of great journalism indicate that our style of so-called traditional journalism isn’t as enjoyable to read and won’t go viral like these articles did. Yes, there must be a balance of making the consumer happy and excited to read, but within the boundaries of journalistic integrity! People liked these articles, they were well-received, but liking something doesn’t necessarily make it reliable or accurate. What makes an article accurate is that the facts are checked and it can confidently be called 100% accurate in comparison to Capote’s 92%. Somehow there needs to be a melding between this literary style, reliable information, and the means to get this to the public (literary journalism is lengthy and a publication only has a certain amount of space).