I think that what Bragg did was both dishonest and unfair to the reporter (J Wes Yoder) who actually visited the town and did the reporting. I do not think this transgression would have merited him being fired, and one could argue that even the suspension was too harsh - especially if it is true that Bragg was not alone in carrying out this practice - but at least he should have been made to admit his mistake, apologize to Yoder, and post a corrections notice regarding the incident. What I find to be serious is not the transgression itself, but Bragg's refusal to take responsibility for abusing his position of superiority over his intern and neglecting to give him any credit for bearing the brunt of his work. Also disturbing is the fact that newspapers such as the Times routinely tolerate this practice and in so doing keep some freelance reporters who work for them from getting any credit. Finally, on a sidenote that is perhaps not completely relevant but definitely is related, I have heard of many cases of people who go beyond Bragg and have others write up what they claim to be their own memoirs. Take Sarah Palin, for example. She paid someone else $1 million to write her book, Going Rouge, for her, and received about $8 million after it was published so far (I don't know the exact figure). I guess there is truth to the claim that fame, like power, can bring up the worst in people.

While Bragg’s offense wasn’t as serious as Stephen Glass’, it is similar in that both men undermined the credibility of the publication and misled the public with their writing. While Bragg didn’t completely fabricate his stories like Glass did, they both seemed to follow the paths they did for a desire for the “excitement factor.” This was clear with Glass – he made up the stories that everyone wanted to read – and while Bragg generally stuck to the truth, he was lazy in making sure he stuck to the facts, focusing instead on the shocking nature of his works. As the Slate article showed, he made many factual errors which he could probably have avoided if he had collected the information himself. In addition, I found this example of a piece of his writing based on facts collected by an intern suspicious: “Chugging softly, it pushes the narrow oyster boat over Apalachicola Bay, gently intruding on the white egrets that slip like paper airplanes just overhead, and the jumping mullet that belly-flop with a sharp clap into steel-gray water.” While a beautiful piece of writing, phrases such as “slip like paper airplanes,” “belly-flop,” and “steel-gray” consist of highly detailed and particular words that evoke a very specific image; I can only imagine someone who was actually at the scene to be able to select those words as truthful representations of events. Bragg’s laziness will affect the effect his articles have on me: when I was reading them, I so appreciated his attention to detail and ability to conjure such images from the truth, but now, knowing that he often wasn’t the one to conduct the interviews or observe the scene, he seems manipulative and I won’t be sure whether to believe a detail or not, as he clearly valued beauty of writing over truth, which not only involves facts, but also an accurate and faithful portrayal of whatever is being covered. Since Bragg used so many small techniques and subtleties to depict certain scenes, I have much reason to believe that many of his descriptions were only lightly based on the truth.
Bragg’s actions are not only unfair to the public reading his articles, but also to those interviewed for the articles. As intern Milton Allimadi said, “readers I had interviewed must have been surprised the next day. While interviewing them I identified myself as Milton Allimadi, and the next day the byline would be totally different.” If Bragg was willing to change a few details and manipulate the truth, he may have also been willing to portray his interviewees in a different light- if he had actually been the ones to interview them, he would have picked up their nuances and emotions and would most likely have portrayed them truthfully. However, as he often wasn’t the interviewer, the credibility of his descriptions of people is compromised. The quotation from Allimadi also presents another obvious issue- Bragg’s unfairness to his stringers and interns. As Times reporter Peter Kilborn described it, “he's presenting it to the reader as his art, as his work, and it wasn't.” I was shocked by how little Bragg cared about doing true and honest reporting that would give him the best possible way to present the truth, as exemplified by the way he let Yoder do most of the reporting for him and visited Apalachicola for a few hours to justify the dateline for the story. He didn’t seem to feel any guilt for depending so heavily on his interns, who were never even credited- he even seemed to believe that he had the right to do so: “I had a much better pair of eyes than I have right now out there. We often re-create a scene, or an image, based on someone's memory. I had someone there for four days, soaking up every detail, every nuance. Often that's what stringers are -- not just quote-gatherers, they're your eyes.” The characterization of stringers as “eyes” implies to me not that interns, to Bragg, provided the best possible way to “soak up every detail” for the best possible story, but simply that they were a means of writing with as little work as possible.
Bragg deserved to be ousted from his position. As a journalist, he should have known the limits and the unfairness of his actions- while they produced some beautiful pieces of writing, their purpose was to report, not to create. His actions negatively impacted the readers, the subjects of the story, the interns, the publication, and the credibility of the media. He should have held the same view as Kilborn: “I want to control the story. I know what the essential elements are for a feature story. I want to see the images. I want to hear the voices. It's a matter of pride. I'm not going to paint a picture and have somebody else come in with his brush.”

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

Though Bragg did take shortcuts he shouldn't have, I don't believe his "transgressions" were that serious. Granted, he was lazy enough to send a reporter to gather information for him, and then visited the site briefly so the dateline wouldn't be a blatant lie. But he also reported the facts of the story as he knew them, which is the reporter's job. Bragg could have been more true to his readers had he done the reporting himself, but if he knew that he worked well with Yoder and that Yoder would gather sufficient information for the article, then he cannot be severely reprimanded.

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

Bragg's actions don't make me think of him differently as a writer, but as a reporter. Ultimately, the articles that Bragg produced were powerful and informative pieces, as they should have been. The place where Bragg didn't live up to expectations was in his reporting; in fact, he hardly did any reporting at all. Bragg attributes his use of freelance reporters to his age, which must be at least partially true, and which makes his actions slightly more excusable. But he should have wanted to write the best story he could have, which would have included full reporting done by himself, not by a proxy reporter.

Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

No, it doesn't. First off, most of the pieces in the book were written at an earlier time, when Bragg presumably did more of his own reporting. Secondly, the pieces in the book wouldn't lose much reliability even if Bragg had taken shortcuts in those, too; Bragg at least took enough care to make sure he sat down with his reporter to get the facts straight, and did visit the site briefly. Most of the pieces in the book, though, should have been reported mostly by Bragg himself, so this new information on Bragg's technique does not sway my opinion of his writing.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

I don't think the transgressions the pieces describe are nearly as serious as they make them out to be. Although Bragg's use of Yoder isn't the best way for him to get a good feel of the story, at least he already knew and trusted Yoder well enough to allow him to gather information in place of himself. The facts Bragg uses are accurate, and I don't think it's a problem that Bragg used Yoder to gather information, but I do think it's a problem that he didn't really get to experience the story firsthand before writing about it firsthand. His style depends on very vivid, specific images and descriptions, images that could only be truthfully written about after in-depth, firsthand reporting. I think it is a somewhat serious transgression, but reflects more on the profession of reporting than Bragg himself.

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

A little bit. I realize that it must be harder for Bragg in his old age to keep the same standards as he used to (I hope he was more ethical as a younger reporter), but what he did is, in my mind, clearly against the moral code of journalists, though only a little bit.

Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

If I read these pieces before reading the piece that warranted him all this attention, I would probably think less of it, and Bragg as a reporter. I think, though, that his writing would not capture the main point much less had he done all the interviewing himself.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are? Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer? Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

I think that while Bragg's transgressions may not have been quite as severe as Jayson Blair's (who I wrote my 15 page journalism paper on freshman year) or Steven Glass's, they're still pretty serious. How can Bragg write in such detail if he was barely there to witness the events? He includes many pieces of information that aren't necessarily obvious at first glance, so it makes me wonder how true they were. I don't see anything wrong with having an intern do a basic interview every so often, but it sounds like Bragg was doing this more than 'every so often.' If I were to read Bragg's writing again I would definitely have less trust,and wonder who really observed the events. I still think he's a good writer,and his pieces are certainly effective, but at the same time- how good can we give him full credit for this if other writers did the research. That's a crucial step in the writing process that can't be overlooked.

Although Bragg's transgression is not as serious as fabricating a story, as Stephen Glass did, I do not think it is acceptable to take full credit for a a piece without being sure of every detail or finding the meat of the story for oneself. Although I respect the fact that Bragg owned up to the accusations against them and while I believe he might have had honest intentions, the questions as to who found the information in his stories not only tarnishes his reputation but the reputation of journalism as a whole. Readers should be able to be confident that journalism reports the facts - and although Bragg's stories are not necessarily based on lies, the passing of information from person to person to be interpreted by him leaves room for readers to doubt what he writes.

I think that this does affect the way I read the pieces in the book. These articles are still powerful for me, and I can still learn from the way they are written. But the part that always impressed me most in Bragg's pieces is his ability to use the smallest details to set the scene or to show an issue at hand (for instance, how he used the farmer's sunburn and the golfer's tan to show the class difference in the article we read for the in-class essay). Now that I know that Bragg did not see some of those small detail first hand, and may even have invented a few of them, some of the power of the pieces is gone for me.

I think the transgressions against Bragg are fairly serious because it is not fair to the reporter who did the work and it is not fair that Bragg misleads the reader, making them think that it was he who wrote the piece. For me, this does make me question his work because how are we supposed to know if he actually witnessed the things he described or if he simply heard someone else say it and decided to go with it because it made his story better. The minor details, I thought, were the details that made Bragg's pieces unique and different from other pieces that I have read. Now that I know that there is a chance that some of details, that add so much to the pieces, may or may not be true I find it hard to look at his work with the same respect that I had before I knew. If I were to continue reading his work I would probably find myself focusing more on trying to decipher what could be fabricated and what I could believe than reading the story and enjoying and analyzing his writing techniques. Yes Bragg's offenses are not as brazen as Stephen Glass' because he did not completely fabricate a story but the thought that some of the minor details that give a story its color and tone could be made up really restricts my ability to read his pieces purely for there content and style.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

I think that the seriousness of the transgressions is based upon the extent of the fabrication. I do not believe that the reporting by Yoder should be considered a fabrication but I do not believe that it is right not to cite Yoder as doing some of the reporting for the piece. However, the fact that Bragg went over the notes with Yoder makes it a little better. Also, given that it is apparently the industry standard to use stringers, I do not believe that Bragg committed such atrocities as is implied in both of the pieces.

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

After reading the articles from the Post and slate.com I feel somewhat cheated. I was under the assumption that he had done all the reporting himself, now it seems as though Bragg was just a face to put on the articles. Now, not knowing what was actually written by Bragg I don't know what parts of his writing I can trust. I feel much differently about him as a writer.

Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

I feel now, as though I have to read his pieces with a grain of salt. Although I do not think that he plagiarized or invented things out of thin air, there is no way to tell given that he had his unpaid intern vividly describe a scene and then use the description. I don't really know how to react to this because it is not plagiarism however it is not Bragg's real writing.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

Like Dan, I agree that his trangressions depend on how much he actually made-up facts. Of course, he should have given credit to his stringers. I think that as a writer you can still incorporate others' observations and write creatively as long as you discuss what you wrote with the observer. I think the bigger sin in Bragg's case was that in some stories he just got the facts wrong. In that one article, he must've have been completely carried away or something...

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

As a writer, Bragg has the tendency to make vivid descriptions, always setting up the context so that we can better understand the article. I think it works most of the time in his writing, but if parts of that detial were fabricated, he is nothing more than a fiction writer.


Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

It does affect that way I read pieces. His mistakes show me that he is prone to overexaggeration at times. He may not have necessarily made up facts, but could have tweaked them in his head in order to make the story more interesting. That, is not acceptable in my opinion.

First, this type of transgression is no where near as bad as what Mr. Glass did. While his actions might show laziness and unfairness, Bragg at least uses facts and information that he believes to be accurate. I think it is dishonest to take credit for the work of another but since Bragg did not attempt to misinform the public I do not think he committed a first time fire able offense.

After reading the pieces I still think Bragg is an excellent writer. Although reporting is time consuming and labor intensive, I think the part of journalism that requires the most talent is actually writing the story. As all of his story sound distinctly "Braggarian," I believe he simply used the facts others had gathered as a structure for his story. Thus he still deserves the credit for the writing.

As a read some of the pieces in Bragg's book I remember having a hard time imagining Bragg talking to some of the people he described. Knowing that others could have been the ones actually there makes a lot of sense. This fact in itself does not change how I read his pieces but it does reduce my overall trust with Bragg and make me question some of his details and quotes which seem to fit "too perfectly."

Alright, well first off what Bragg did was not nearly as bad as what Glass did, but that does not mean his mistakes can be ignored or gone without any type of punishment. In my mind what is so wrong with the situation is the fact that Bragg prides himself on detail and setting the scene, but how could he truly draw a picture in your mind if he was never there?? My problem is that what makes his writing awesome and truly elite is his attention to detail and that detail clearly demonstrating the major point and the characters, but now his details and ironic pieces were not found by him, but by someone else. He should have given credit to the other writer, I do not really see why he didn't. Perhaps he did not want to lose his pride or status? Whatever the reason, his writing lost a little bit of it's magic and power. Bragg of course is still a gifted writer, but I am not too sure about his attention and ability to bring a scene to life. I, though, do not think it is fair to assume or say that all of the other pieces were cited wrong. I do not think he could have made it as far as he did without being caught. He is a respectable writer, with only this mark on his reputation. Bragg probably wrote his articles, at least I would like to think he did. Whoever wrote these articles is a talented writer, and at least the stories themselves are true.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

I don’t think the transgressions are that serious. Although Bragg was dishonest and withheld credit where it was due, he did not completely fabricate stories like Jason Blair. I don’t think anything can excuse his actions, but I also don’t think his actions can discredit him and his past work. Unfortunately, because he did not actually see the events first hand he wrote about, doubt crawls into all his pieces, and his credibility lies upon the goodwill and sympathy of the person reading it. I think it’s possible that the world of journalism overreacted to Bragg’s actions because of the Jason Blair scandal.

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

Yes, a little bit. Although his manipulation of the English language is unique and very good, I believe that writers and reporters should have some dignity about their work. The dignity is not only a journalistic dignity about reporting the truth, but also a sort of pride in creating a piece of writing that is entirely their own. Each writer has his/her own style and signature written into the piece. Although Bragg does have his own style, I think he lost some dignity when he relied on an intern a bit too much because the piece was not entirely his own.

Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

Not really, mostly because Bragg was younger when he wrote the pieces. The only problem is that I cannot trust his word that he only used the intern because he was getting older, so I have to hope that he did most of the reporting on his own. I did not like every piece we read, but the ones I did like, I liked because of the writing style and the way Bragg presented the information. Most of the stories were believable, such as the story about Vidor, so I do believe he actually reported what he saw. Even if he didn’t, the point of the story is to expose the deep-rooted racism in some areas of the south, which I believe exists. So I read the stories focusing more on Bragg’s writing technique than content. Most of his stories were not so outrageous that I would devastated if they were false, like the story about the eight-year-old heroin addict.

How serious do you think the transgressions the pieces describe are?

I think if Bragg was doing very straightforward reporting, it would not be as bad, but since his kind of reporting relies on very specific details, it's hard for me to imagine that he can create the elaborate, intricate imagery of the places and descriptions of the people without actually visiting the places and interviewing the people. It makes me doubt his accuracy. If it could be confirmed that every single detail in his stories are from the notes of his interns/stringers, then it would be a lot less serious than if he just made stuff up to fill in the gaps.

Does it make you think differently of Bragg as a writer?

Yes. He must have felt some guilt writing all those descriptive scenes as if he was there the whole time. He must have known that people would have the assumption that he had done all of his reporting firsthand since his writing is so descriptive and specific. I don't know why he thought it was alright.

Does it affect the way you read the pieces in the book?

Yes. His stories are less touching because the most important aspect of his stories- the places and people- are less convincing. Now I will doubt a lot more about the truthfulness of his descriptions, which I had really liked before.

Friendship is like earthenware; once broken , it can be mended; love is like a mirror; once broken ,that ends. Do you think so?

This page is very informative and fun to read. I appreciated what you have done here. I enjoyed every little bit part of it. I am always searching for informative information like this. Thanks for sharing with us.