I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong, and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation. So, I did some digging on the Internet and in the Globe archives.

Here is the story, as far as I've been able to tell.

FACT: 1973: Mike Barnicle started work for the Boston Globe.

FACT: 1979: Barnicle "was invited on a congressional trip to Southeast Asia and offered to write about it for the paper. According to Barnicle, the Globe declined.

"Barnicle took vacation time and went on the trip anyway, writing articles for James Bellows, then the editor of The Los Angeles Herald Examiner. One of those articles ended up on the front page of The Boston Herald American, the Globe's arch-rival, according to both men. "Writing for the competition is forbidden by most newspapers." (1)

ALLEGED: 1990:

"Attorney Alan Dershowitz had accused Barnicle of falsely attributing a racist quote to him. Neither Barnicle nor the Globe retracted the column, but in a confidential legal settlement reached after his complaint, the Globe agreed to pay Dershowitz $75,000, according to a lawyer who has been briefed on the matter." (2)

FACT: 1990:

During the Charles Stuart murder case, "Barnicle wrote one article no other reporter could confirm. Under a banner headline, he reported that the Prudential Insurance Co. had issued a check for $480,000 to Stuart, in payment of a life insurance policy for his wife, Carol DeMaiti Stuart. The day the article ran, the company denied it. No similar check has been found. The Globe, which has occasionally corrected other facts in Barnicle's columns over the years, ran no correction. "Greg Moore, the Globe's managing editor, said last week, 'Our reporting on the Carol Stuart case after Charles Stuart committed suicide still stands, except for the $480,000 check. I don't think anyone involved in that case thinks we shouldn't have corrected it.'" (3)

ALLEGED: 1991:

"Boston Magazine examined one of Barnicle's articles and could find no evidence that two characters in it ever existed. In the article, Barnicle was quoted as telling the reporter that he had given one of the people he had written about the magazine's telephone number. 'If he wants to talk to you, he'll call you,' he was quoted as saying." (4)

ALLEGED: 1992: Chicago columnist Mike Royko accused Barnicle of plagiarizing several columns.

That's all history. Although the above incidents bear no relevance to the current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already shaky. Those who have said that first time offenders deserve leniency can see that the Globe has been very lenient towards Barnicle's first offenses.

Now let's look at how this week's situation developed.

1998:

FACT: June 19th, the Boston Globe asks Patricia Smith to resign for fabricating people and quotations in her stories. She does. The Globe announces a review of all columnists' articles for accuracy, including Barnicle's.

FACT: June 21st, the Boston Globe reports that they completed a review of all Mike Barnicle's columns back to January 1990, and gives him a clean bill of health. However, in the wake of the Patricia Smith scandal, the Globe announces they will be scrutinizing all columns more closely.

FACT: June 22nd: On the WCVB program "Chronicle," Barnicle holds up a copy of George Carlin's book "BrainDroppings" and says about it: "A yuk on every page."

QUESTION: Did Barnicle read the book or not? His language on the show gave the impression that he had. Barnicle now claims he hadn't. This means he either misled the viewers of the show or he is lying now. Either way, he was false.

ALLEGED: Barnicle claims to have gotten a list of jokes, which included several very similar to lines in "Brain Droppings." The source of this list is uncertain:

According to the Washington Post, "before the punishment was decided, Barnicle said in an interview that a bartender had given him the jokes and that he did not know they came from the Carlin book."(5) According to the Boston Globe, "Barnicle told the Globe he had received the column material from friends and was unaware that it had come from Carlin's book." (6) According to the Boston Herald, "Barnicle said he hadn't read the book and that friends gave him the jokes." (7)

QUESTION: So what was it -- one friend, many friends, a bartender, a friend who tends bar?? His story doesn't seem to add up. This discrepency has been noticed by others, as evidenced by the following quote:

"One staffer said Barnicle gave the editors conflicting accounts of how he got the one-liners: 'First it was two people who gave him the stuff. Then it was one person. He made a representation he didn't know about the book. He clearly didn't tell the truth. I'm stunned that Barnicle shot himself in the temple.' In yesterday's interview, Barnicle repeated that he still believes the material came from a bartender." (8)

FACT: Sunday, August 2, Barnicle writes a column titled "I was just thinking" He intersperses these quotes with his other observations. The column's title give the impression that the article contains Barnicle's own thoughts and words. There are 38 jokes in the column, and ten of them (more than a quarter of the article) came from his "friend's" list. Barnicle provides no attribution for these quotes, not even mentioning they weren't his. Several of the jokes use the first person singular ("I hate it when..." "But I think..." "I don't get it..." and so on) giving further impression that these are Barnicle's ideas.

QUESTION: Did he ever ask the friend where these jokes came from? Everything written has an author, unless you believe there's 1000 monkeys typing away out there. If he knew that his friend didn't write the jokes, aren't there official fact checkers at the Globe who could have researched it for him?

FACT: A Globe reader recognizes the quotes from Carlin's book. Monday night he contacts the Globe, and Tuesday morning notifies the Herald.

FACT: Wednesday: Boston Globe editors meet with Barnicle for several hours to discuss the incident. Matt Storin, Mike Barnicle's boss, interrupts his vacation in Europe to attend the meeting via conference call. Barnicle holds to his story that a friend forwarded the jokes to him and he was "stupid" to reprint them without checking first. They agree that one month suspension is suitable punishment for his offense. Barnicle never mentions the Chronicle story.

FACT: After the Globe announces the decision to suspend him, WCVB runs the tape of Barnicle with the book.

QUESTION: Did Barnicle forget about his endorsement on Chronicle or did he deliberately hide this from his editors?

QUESTION: If you were accused of copying from a book you never read, wouldn't you pick up the book to see if there's any validity? Even if you hadn't read the book, wouldn't you recognize the cover? Even if he didn't remember the Chronicle incident, it should've looked familiar enough to know he had some contact with the book.

FACT: After the WCVB tape is revealed, the Globe asks for Barnicle's resignation. In the words of Matt Storin, he "misrepresented himself either to his television audience or his editors; this contradiction is unacceptable."

FACT: The story of Barnicle's plagiarism is reported nationwide on television, radio and newspapers.

FACT: Thursday, Barnicle announces that he refuses to resign. The story continues to play in newspapers, television and radio shows.

FACT: Friday morning, Barnicle met with the publisher. Neither party will comment about what happened, and the status quo remains. We will probably remain in this standoff (Globe demanding Barnicle's resignation and Barnicle refusing) until Matt Storin returns from vacation.

Those are the facts. Here are my opinions and interpretations:

Frankly, It doesn't look good for Barnicle.

If you check the definition of plagiarism in writing books or academic codes, Barnicle's actions are clearly plagiarism. Students who plagiarize can be and have been punished by failing grades (for the plagiarized work or for the entire course), dismissal from the student magazine (if that's where the offense occurred) and even expulsion. Barnicle is a veteran journalist with twenty-five years of experience. Shouldn't professionals be held to the same code of conduct as students, if not higher?

And, frankly, if a student came to a teacher with a similar story, would you believe it?

"These quotes in your story are very similar to this book." "A friend gave them to me; I never read the book." "This videotape shows you recommending the book to others." "Yeah, but I never read the book when I spoke about it."

Second, Mike Barnicle is a journalist, not an entertainer. He may be an entertaining journalist, but nonetheless, a journalist first and foremost. There is a difference between rumor and reporting, between the tabloid Globe and the Boston Globe. That difference is credibility, which is earned. Journalists all do their part to maintain the reputation of the profession, because if there's no respect for the medium, people will stop listening. If you don't believe me, think about the news sources you rely upon and the news sources that you dismiss. Then ask yourself why you trust some and not others. I suspect it has to do with believability. And if one column in a newspaper is false, why should you trust anything else published in the paper? That's why they had to fire him. And even among entertainers, there is still the notion of "stealing" somebody else's jokes.

Now, Barnicle was given a column in the news section as a vehicle to express his views in "his own literary voice" (10). His current actions were a dereliction of the duties of his job. He was hired to write, not to borrow others' words.

Frankly, this whole mess reminds me of the Gary Hart debacle. He KNEW he was being scrutinized, practically challenged observers to point out flaws, and then pulls this stupid stunt and acts surprised and astonished that he's in trouble. The "Boston Herald's Inside Track" column(11) suggests that Barnicle may have purposely provoked the editors while Storin was on vacation, assuming he'd win any standoff and the editor would be forced out.

I don't care how many people call or write to complain; the Globe cannot let him have his old job back. Newspapers have a certain ethical standard to uphold, and Barnicle violated that. I can think of one compromise which might appease both sides. Take away Barnicle's column in the news section, but give him a spot in the Sunday Globe Magazine. He's still writing for the Globe (to appease his fans), yet will no longer be in the newspaper proper (to appease the critics).

How does that sound?

Information from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Phoenix, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post was used in compiling this report.

Some ideas and words in this document have appeared in an earlier form in other letters and Usenet posts written by me.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Felicity Barringer, "Globe Columnist Refuses to Resign," New York Times, August 7, 1998.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Howard Kurtz, "Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle Told to Resign," Washington Post, August 6, 1998.

(6) Mark Jurkowitz and Don Aucoin, "Barnicle case stirs reaction; columnist, publisher set to meet," Boston Globe, August 7, 1998.

(7) Ed Hayward, "Writer draws support form some corners," Boston Herald, August 7, 1998.

(8) Howard Kurtz, "Boston Globe Columnist Refuses to Resign," Washington Post, August 7, 1998.

(9) See her excellent posts on the subject in ne.general.

(10) Trudy Lieberman, "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize," Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 1995. [Note: This is an EXCELLENT article about plagiarism and journalism, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in further reading on the subject.]

(11) Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, "Feud may have led to Storin scraping Barnicle off Globe," Boston Herald, August 7, 1998.

Addendum

Since I first posted my timeline on the 'Net, several people have challenged the facts as I presented them. In response, I provided more details on several issues. Rather than edit the original post, I am putting these additions in this new post.

If you want to read further about Barnicle's past transgressions, I highly recommend the article on Patricia Smith in the current issue of Brill's Content, which provides detail on the Boston Magazine's Barnicle Watch and has a few other facts that I haven't seen reported elsewhere. For more information about plagiarism in general, check out Trudy Lieberman's article in Columbia Journalism Review titled "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize."

And, for the best coverage I've seen on the current story, Dan Kennedy's reporting for the Boston Phoenix.

Simple question: Was Barnicle ever found guilty in any forum of anything prior to the Carlin incident? Was there any actual *proof* of wrongdoing by Barnicle?

Actually yes. There's one more case I found out about after I wrote my timeline. Here are two accounts:

Title: The Globe, columnists, and the search for truth[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 21, 1998
Author: Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff
Start Page: A1

But questions about whether Barnicle embellishes his column have percolated over the years, with matters really heating up in the early '90s. A primary catalyst was Dershowitz's charge that Barnicle had manufactured a sexist and boorish quote about him in 1990. When the Harvard law professor went on television at that time to invite anyone else who'd been similarly treated to step forward, it unearthed the story of a Dorchester gas station proprietor who sued for libel over a 1973 column, claiming that he'd never made a racist statement Barnicle attributed to him. The case had ended with the Globe paying the plaintiff a total of about $40,000.

Title: Dershowitz hits Barnicle columns[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 20, 1998
Author: Kate Zernike, Globe Staff
Start Page: B1

In 1973, a Blue Hill Avenue gas station owner denied having made a racial slur, and sued Barnicle. The case was finally settled in 1982, with the judge saying portions of the disputed quotations appeared in Barnicle's notebook, but that he could not verify the entire statement. He ordered damages of $25,000, plus about $15,000 in interest dating back to 1974.

BARNICLE AND DERSHOWITZ:

In 1990, Barnicle wrote about his first meeting with Dershowitz, a chance encounter by Out of Town News in Harvard Square. Barnicle claimed that Dershowitz said "I love Asian women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive" Now, I have a lot of problems with Dershowitz, but he's not stupid. Do you really think he'd go up to someone he'd never met before and say something like this??

Anyway, Dershowitz challenged this quote, and his son, who was present during this meeting, agreed that Dershowitz never said anything like this. Barnicle claims there were two witnesses -- one dead and he wouldn't name the other. The owner of the newsstand, who introduced them, doesn't remember this quote and doesn't remember if there were any witnesses.

The newspaper did settle with Dershowitz out of court, paying him $75,000, although never admitting actual wrongdoing.

Title: Dershowitz hits Barnicle columns[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 20, 1998
Author: Kate Zernike, Globe Staff
Start Page: B1

In the 1990 column, which was about Dershowitz's publicity-seeking and entitled "Open Mouth, Get In Paper," Barnicle closed with a scene in which he described the only meeting between the two men, at Out of Town News in Harvard Square. The conversation had taken place eight years previously, and Barnicle wrote that during it, Dershowitz said, "I love Asian women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive."

In a letter to the Globe and in subsequent columns in the Boston Herald in 1990 and 1992, Dershowitz said the two men exchanged only brief greetings, and there was no mention of Asian women. His son, he said, witnessed the conversation and backed him. Barnicle said there were two witnesses, one of whom had died in the intervening years; he would not name the other. Sheldon Cohen, the newsstand's owner, who introduced the two men that day, said he could not recall the conversation or any witnesses.

A few months later, the newspaper's ombudsman, Gordon McKibben, wrote that he could not determine who was telling the truth, but was skeptical of Barnicle's ability to remember the quotation. "The real issue is credibility," he wrote.

Dershowitz yesterday said Barnicle admitted twice to fabricating the quote. In the first instance Dershowitz cited -- from his transcript of the show -- Barnicle replied to a caller to the Brudnoy show who asked about the quotation in the Dershowitz column, "I gotta tell you about Alan Dershowitz . . . he's got a legitimate beef with me. . . . I apologize to Alan Dershowitz." According to the Dershowitz transcript, Barnicle said he had written an upcoming column about the incident.

WBZ-radio discards tapes after five years, Brudnoy said. But Brudnoy -- and Dershowitz himself -- conceded yesterday that Barnicle's olive branch did not include an admission of fabrication.

Title: The Globe, columnists, and the search for truth[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 21, 1998
Author: Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff
Start Page: A1

Dershowitz said the quote attributed to him, "I love Asian women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive," was fiction. The dispute was highly publicized at the time and neither the Globe nor Barnicle ever acknowledged the quote was concocted. On Friday, Barnicle said he had "never violated the trust my publisher has placed in me" in 25 years as a Globe columnist.

But it seems clear that Storin -- who left the Globe in 1985, returned in 1992 and became editor in 1993 -- was concerned about Barnicle's reputation when questions about Smith's 1995 columns first came to his attention.

Storin said that when possible problems with Smith surfaced several years ago, she "entered the framework" in which the long- standing questions about Barnicle existed. "I knew going way back that people said Barnicle made things up. . . . To the best of my knowledge, the paper had not addressed the Barnicle questions head on. I had this very talented black woman. . . . How then can I take action against this woman under this circumstance?"

Instead of moving formally against Smith at the time, Storin gave the Globe's three Metro columnists -- Barnicle, Smith and Eileen McNamara -- the "rules of the road" governing accuracy in the columns, and established a more formal editing and monitoring procedure.

"Everybody was put on equal footing," said Managing Editor Gregory L. Moore. "And the clock started ticking then."

. . .

After making sure that Smith now knew the "rules of the road," he issued the same caution to Barnicle and McNamara. Barnicle had no problems with that, Storin said.

. . .

But questions about whether Barnicle embellishes his column have percolated over the years, with matters really heating up in the early '90s. A primary catalyst was Dershowitz's charge that Barnicle had manufactured a sexist and boorish quote about him in 1990. When the Harvard law professor went on television at that time to invite anyone else who'd been similarly treated to step forward, it unearthed the story of a Dorchester gas station proprietor who sued for libel over a 1973 column, claiming that he'd never made a racist statement Barnicle attributed to him. The case had ended with the Globe paying the plaintiff a total of about $40,000.

At about the same time, Boston magazine began a column checking the authenticity of some of Barnicle's columns. And in a 1991 column on the Dershowitz case, then Globe ombudsman Gordon McKibben concluded that "the way the hoary quote is inserted at the end of the column . . . invites skeptics, including me, to marvel at Barnicle's confidence in his recall."

"There certainly was a good amount of scrutiny in connection with the Dershowitz column," said John S. Driscoll, who was Globe editor at the time. Driscoll also recalled requiring Barnicle to divulge the names of sources when he was writing about the Charles Stuart/Carol DiMaiti Stuart murder case in 1990. Driscoll explained that he required that Metro columnists be edited at the managing editor level, but he didn't indicate that there was any fact-checking system in place.

Title: The lawyer and the columnist[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 28, 1998
Author: David Warsh, Globe Staff
Start Page: F1

The proximate reason for Dershowitz's complaint was Barnicle's attribution to him in 1990 of a remark made in 1982: "I love Asian women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive." Barnicle said the quote had been recalled from a chance sidewalk conversation of eight years earlier; it was injected into a column about a feud between Dershowitz and Barnicle's friend William Bulger, then the Senate president.

Dershowitz denied ever having said it. He threatened mightily, eventually reaching a resolution of the matter with the newspaper -- thereby avoiding the process of mutual discovery that would have shed light on the question of whether the youthful Dersh had been racist, sexist, or, in his own words, a potential adulterer, or Barnicle a liar.

"...in another incident the Globe settled for $75,000 after lawyer Alan Dershowitz charged that Barnicle had attributed a phony quote to him."

Brenda Luscombe, "Theft, or cutting corners?" Time Magazine, August 17, 1998

Numerous comedians, including Jay Leno, Barry Crimmins, Mike McDonald and other local artist say that stealing a joke without attribution is thievery. While Patricia Smith's fabrications hurt her audience, plagiarism also hurts the original authors -- damaging their reputation and reducing their audience.

The article concludes:
"The idea she is so much more reprehensible than someone who just plagiarized is also wrong," [Barry] Crimmins said. "At least fabrication requires using your own imagination and being inventive. A plagiarist is just a Xerox machine."