The Problem With Crowdsourcing

Case 10-G

Crowdsourcing a Book: John Lehrer, Bob Dylan and Nonfiction Truth

Micro Issues

Larger publications are, for the most part, in the business of “one-upping” each other. There is tremendous competition at the top. Jonah Lehrer’s deceptions were discovered by a smaller publication because they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. Because of the allegations, they gain followers and curious viewers. The New Yorker conversely looses a staffer. The larger publications are focused on keeping their status on top.

Lehrer’s religious beliefs are not relevant to the story. Moynihan was a self-proclaimed Bob Dylan fanatic, that’s why TableT Magazine became involved.

It’s true that Lehrer’s age could have played a part in his poor decision-making, but I can’t help thinking that there should be more checks and balances from his editors, especially since the book and blogs were both published.

Midrange Issues

I think it was a good ethical decision for The New Yorker Web site to keep the blogs up on their site with the note about the content being published elsewhere. There is no reason for them to delete the post entirely, first, because some of the work is original. Many of the great thinkers of our time repeat themselves in their speeches and public appearances, it’s fair to say that a writer – or journalists – who is claiming to be an expert on a certain topic would restate many of the arguments he had previously put to pen.

The personal brand is a big strategy of communication professionals in today’s society. Creating a persona that reflects your own expertise is hugely applauded in media circles, but as we can see in Jonah Lehrer’s case, it can sometimes back fire. I witnessed firsthand Lehrer “personal brand” as I worked at a company that sponsored one of his personal appearances in Connecticut. It was shortly after the book Imagine came out. He appeared on stage with other up-and-coming millenials all with personal brands that made them stand out in their respective fields. The topic of the discussion was no less creativity - something that branding apparently is lacking.

Creativity is not the only avenue by which an up-and-coming journalist can experience ethical dilemmas, but it is the most notable one. Journalists thrive on originality and expertise. But it’s difficult for a young person of only 30 years to have studied something long enough to be an expert on it. Therein lies the dilemma, how can a person new to the field be an expert on it. Even social media changes with the speed of light. Ethical dilemmas that the media companies face who employ these young journalists are steeped in the naivety of the worker. We are young, fearless. We do not fully grasp how our decisions – that may have likely gotten us through college – can have serious ramifications in the real world, where there are critiquing eyes everywhere. Furthermore, the media companies can loose their credibility or their readership, which leads to their overall profitability.

Macro Issues

Jonah Lehrer should have created new content for the work he was doing at The New Yorker. But using his old work doesn’t seem so grievous to me. I guess the wrongdoing is that fact that he tried to pass it off as “new” content, which at best can be held up to a “rookie” mistake. Now, plagiarizing on the other hand is wrong. There are rules and policies against that in the journalism field and it’s a standard method of practice.

Barnes & Nobles’ decision to take Imagine off of their shelves is an interesting decision. On one hand, parts of the book are not accurate. But on the other, there are great tidbits of information to be gained by the reader. I think the bookseller may have chosen to take the book of the shelf to preserve its own reputation and “brand”.  Readers should be able to make their own judgment, but they can also access the book from other sellers.

Crowdsourcing is the way of modern journalism. It’s almost inevitable as there is just too much information on a subject by other reporters or observers. Also, it’s easy. In an age that demands for information and entertainment at a record pace, it’s almost impossible not to find another person’s work in your own research. Journalists are particularly susceptible to this as they are under tremendous time restrains and little original reporting is done.

Crowdsourcing ultimately alters the nature of journalism as it was intended, but in today’s society it may be more necessary to be able to elaborate on someone else’s story then to spend the resources to find your own.

Social media makes crowdsourcing so easy. I’m not sure to what extent there are limits to it in journalism.