I don't know Ramiro Burr, I don't know his work, and I don't know whether he "caused the [San Antonio] Express-News to unknowingly publish work under his name that was not, in fact, his own work," as the newspaper's editor, Robert Rivard, said -- though Burr's resignation from the paper Tuesday, complete with squishy pseudo-apology, certainly suggests that its ethics investigation marshaled damning evidence against him. Whether it did or not, and with all due respect to Sasha, I must point out one thing I do know: Journalists don't get ghostwriters. That is simply not part of the deal.
Ramiro Burr may be an esteemed award winner, as Sasha says, but that esteem and those awards are founded on trust that's looking more than a little shaky right now. Everyone who read the words beneath his byline over the years operated under the assumption that they were reading his work, not someone else's. That's a fundamental part of the journalistic compact. It's also what the paper was paying him for.
True, editors change a writer's work, adding and striking words and whole passages. But the original text is supposed, by editors and readers, to be exclusively the work of the writer whose name appears on it. Remember the Jayson Blair scandal and its ugly aftermath, in which Rick Bragg resigned after he was caught subcontracting out his reporting duties? Hard to forget; there's a reminder in every New York Times article tagline that lists the people other than the bylined writer who contributed to the story. If Burr did what he's accused of having done, he apparently didn't think the usual journalistic rules -- of transparency, of integrity -- applied to him.
Douglas Shannon, the former intern who says he ghostwrote scores of columns and dozens of stories for Burr, is right to say he's "disappointed that the Express-News didn't notice the changes in the work [Burr] was turning in between 2001 and 2003." If they weren't Burr's words, his editors should have noticed the difference, no matter how much they might have liked Burr and been reluctant to question his honesty. Any alert editor ought to have detected the presence of a different writer, and there's nothing curious about Shannon's saying so.
As besieged as journalism is these days, as threatened as it is by bloggers and other amateurs, one thing we professionals still have on our side is the code under which we operate -- a code designed to earn and retain the readers' trust. If we abandon that, there's not much reason for readers to trust us over anyone else.
Hello GL:
Feet to fire and "one or two other" things is a metaphor for burning at the stake. Uncredited use of someone else's work is wrong, but your tone is so final, and there hasn't been a determination of fact yet, has there?
I hope it isn't as bad as it appears to be: a ghost writer seeking credit, a critic who apparently used his work in whole or part without giving it, a newspaper taking a hit and above all, readers who have come to trust that critic, believing his insights are his.
With the way arts journalism is going right now, these kinds of stories are so depressing. The whole thing feels like a witch hunt to me, but I recognize that, in the end, we have nothing but our willingness to be transparent on issues of honesty.
Regina Hackett
Laura,
Well put.
I find the idea of a critic having someone else do his/her legwork nauseating.
Did this guy skip Ethics 101?
Ramiro deserved to have his feet -- and maybe one or two other things -- put to the fire.
GL