22 November 2008
Plagiarism and fabulism: The John Manukia scandal
12 May 2006
Commentary by Natalie Smith: Te Waha Nui Online
The case of disgraced Herald on Sunday journalist John Manukia remains one of the great mysteries of the New Zealand media. It has left Manukia silent, his career in tatters, and – compared with the New York Times cases of fabrication – insufficiently answered by the media.
Experienced journalist John Manukia was sacked from the Herald on Sunday last October amid allegations that he had fabricated a story about former South Auckland police officer, Anthony Solomona.
Solomona appeared in court in early 2005 facing accusations of assault while on duty. He was convicted of one case of assault against 17-year-old Angelo Turner, and the case sparked an investigation into police conduct and a media furore.
However, Solomona refused to give interviews.
Then, in October, the Herald on Sunday scored a “scoop” interview with Solomona.
David Bennett, writing for the Independent, says the article in question tells how “Solomona was now working as a security consultant. He was glad the inquiry had found there was no sick culture in the police, believed he was innocent, regretted that he had apologised to Angelo Turner and paid him $1250, regretted that he had left his job for the integrity of the force”.
One week later, the Herald on Sunday released a retracting statement – the story was false, the interview had never occurred, and reporter John Manukia had been dismissed.
John Utanga was a close friend and onetime colleague of Manukia. He is also chairman of the Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA).
“Obviously, as an old friend, I was hurt by John’s actions,” he said.
Utanga has commented publicly on the scandal, particularly over the impact it has had on Pacific Island journalists.
“It was really hard to get a journalism job in the nineties, so when John got a job at the Herald he was seen as a ‘beacon of hope’ for the Pacific Island community.
“I worry about the perception of the rest of the Pacific Island journalists – although there aren’t many of us. I think it’s a valid concern – editors may worry when hiring a Pacific Island journalist – do we have another Manukia here?” he says.
“He did a lot of good work as a journalist.”
There is much pressure on Manukia to talk to the media – Utanga says he has heard there is pressure from his former employers, the Herald on Sunday, for him not to speak out.
“Obviously it is John’s personal decision, but there is legal pressure on him not to speak out, and jeopardise his position any further,” says Utanga.
John Manukia had a 14-year career, and worked for a range of media organisations, which included the Herald on Sunday, the New Zealand Herald, the Sunday News, New Zealand Truth and the Pacific Island radio station Radio 531.
In reaction to Manukia’s dismissal by the Herald on Sunday, his former employers, Fairfax Media Ltd, inquired into the work he had carried out while part of their company.
Peter O’Hara, chief operating officer and editor-in-chief of Fairfax, released a press statement revealing that from a random selection of 12 of Manukia’s stories, some could not be “satisfactorily verified”.
O’Hara said some of the stories could not be substantiated at all, others contained quotes from people whose existence could not be confirmed, some contained quotes from people who confirmed they had said such things but not to a reporter or the Sunday News, and one contained quotes from a man who denied he spoke to a reporter at all.
O’ Hara said that there was a high standard set for verification of articles, and that this standard was based on legal requirements, the Fairfax New Zealand code of ethics and the New Zealand Press Council’s statement of principles.
Parallels to Manukia’s situation can be drawn to the infamous Jayson Blair case. Blair was an employee of the New York Times, and in 2005 he was dismissed for “frequent acts of journalistic fraud”.
Blair was an “up-and-coming then 27-year-old African-American reporter who …had habitually filed stories from places he had never visited, quoted people he had never talked to…and described places he had never seen,” says Alan Samson, a lecturer in Journalism at Massey University.
Many attribute the actions of Blair, at least in part, to the pressure placed upon him as an “up-and-coming” young, African-American.
Cases of journalistic plagiarism and fabulism seemingly abound in contemporary society. The rise in plagiarism is often attributed to the ease in which information can now be obtained on the internet. However, fabulism is far more rare, and it is far more difficult to comprehend both motivation and the possible justification behind the action.
Manukia is not the first case of plagiarism or fabulism in the New Zealand media, however. Most recently, in 2004, New Zealand Herald reporter Renee Kiriona was found guilty of plagiarising an article from the Waikato Times, although in her defence was a complicated situation involving two drafts and an enthusiastic editor.
There are several other incidences of plagiarism in New Zealand, yet it is fairly rare.
Alan Samson, in his Pacific Journalism Review article about dishonesty in the newsroom, cites a report on the “Soviet-Afghanistan” conflict in a 1985 issue of the New Zealand Times. The article was written by Greg Hyam, who made out that he was filing the piece “under fire from Russians fighting to subdue Afghan rebels”.
However, Hyam later admitted that the article was completely fabricated, that he had never been to Afghanistan and that he had lifted all the photographs from other publications.
Samson writes that journalism’s ethical codes preclude fabulism, which is outright story invention. Unlike plagiarism, there is no ambiguity for fabulism.
He believes the only thing that plagiarism and fabulism have in common is their “dishonest intent”. He draws on theorist Plotz, who says that “there is surprisingly little overlap between plagiarists and fabulists”.
Plotz cites the infamous example of Stephen Glass, who he calls the “New Republic’s fabulous fabulist”. Glass is now immortalised in the film Shattered Glass, and despite the scandal of his actions, has made a fortune from writing fiction.
The burning question, however, is why a journalist would fabricate a story.
The general public consensus is that John Manukia, as a Pacific Island journalist, faced a great deal of pressure from his community, his employers and in turn himself, to be able to source Pacific Island stories.
David Bennett of the Independent writes that the editor of the Herald on Sunday, Shayne Currie has told other media the reporter felt "some personal pressure to get a good story."
But how could John Manukia, an experienced and successful journalist, believe that a fabricated interview could go unquestioned?
As media commentator Russell Brown put it in his weekly Listener column:
“It’s hard to grasp what disgraced Herald on Sunday reporter John Manukia thought he was doing when he fabricated an interview with former South Auckland policeman Anthony Solomona for his paper – still less how he thought he’d get away with it when his “exclusive” interview was to be splashed over two and a half pages.”
The case remains one of the great mysteries of the New Zealand media, and has left Manukia silent, his career in tatters.
- Natalie Smith is a Graduate Diploma in Journalism student at AUT University. She compiled this report as part of her Public Affairs Reporting paper and – like other journalists – was unable to interview John Manukia.
- PIMA website
- John Utanga’s statement
- Alan Samson on plagiarism and fabulism
- Wikipedia on Jayson Blair
- Other Media Ethics articles
- Media Ethics Online magazine
