Malcolm Gladwell of Tipping Point fame has had his share of fame and if Slate Magazine is concerned then he is due for some infamy. The story revolves around a speech he gave at The Moth, a literary conclave in New York. ]You can listen to it here at This American Life Episode 348.] The speech revolves around Malcolm’s early days as a reporter and some incredibly amusing acedotes around particular work he did that was modified beyond what would be referred to as a journalistic framework.

Jack Shafer (Slate) exposes the moth stories as a work of fiction and the speech was manufactured. However he states the real problem was that it was exposed to a larger audience of Public Radio and his standing:

Gladwell’s spiel works not because the stories are particularly funny but because of his reputation as a reliable, meticulous journalist. Puncture the illusion that he’s telling the truth, and the laughs leak into the ether.

His argument is that the fiction works because of Malcolm’s reputation as meticulous and reliable.

However, the veracity of the story is neither here nor there in the context of this audience, the objective was to entertain a reasonably sophisticated audience and that audience translates to National Public Radio and particularly This American Life.

Malcolm however was forced to disclaim elements of the speech, he writes:

There is a disclaimer at the end of the This American Life broadcast, to the effect that the Moth is a place where “people come to tell both true stories and occasional tall tales.” As I think should be obvious if you listen to it, my story definitely belongs to the “tall tale” category. I hope you enjoy it. But please do so with a rather large grain of salt.

This leads to the question of whether this speech reflects badly when we ask Malcolm to address larger issues such as this Ted talk:

Regardless of what you think about Pasta Sauce, the story illustrates the point he wants to make in an entertaining way. Does the truth of the story make a difference?, Maybe, am I concerned if it is not, not really.

Unlike journalists at the New York Times or The Guardian, I am not after facts but interpretation and I am interested in his interpretation and insight. His stories relate to a key insight such as multiple Pepsi or Pickles. (The plural of Pepsi is Pepsi)

We understand the difference between journalists and commentators and we look for different things from each. The sophistication of the reader is based on how well formed their filter is, we really don’t need journalist police looking out for us.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts