See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely, author of (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies, later accused of data fraud and academic misconduct.
Certainly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak have massive journalistic ethical errors: the former fabricating news for the US Government and the latter blowing a CIA agent's cover (the Plame Affair). Yet, they are celebrated journalists.
It seems that you have to:
- not be hypocritical (it is a greater sin to preach and sin; than simply to sin)
- be younger (established powerhouses can steamroll these accusations)
And to GP: thank you! The number of times Dan Ariely is involved in this data fabrication stuff does make the whole thing seem a bit fishy. At best, he is bad at trusting people, which makes any claims he makes low-coefficient since they could be from data from fabricators.
She was disgraced because she reported inaccurate claims (on WMDs in Iraq) from government intelligence sources. Specifically she reported them without sufficient skepticism — without checking the sourcing of the claims (I.e. asking questions like “how did the CIA acquire this intelligence”) or giving sufficient credence and attention to counter claims.
Although this is considered bad practice, it is not considered fraudulent. She was indeed takling to highly placed government sources and had reason to believe they were credible.
My opinion: Although what she did was rightly viewed, eventually, as journalistic malpractice, she was clearly pleasing her editors who routinely moved her stories to the front page. These editors also failed to demand skepticism and wider investigation, and while at least one was pushed out, the institution of the NY Times remained credulous about government claims. I routinely see stories where they uncritically repeat government claims — especially where classified intelligence is involved and especially relating to military operations. Therefore I believe Miller is also something of a scapegoat.
I was feeling guilty for besmirching Johann Hari's reputation in my own mind until looking at his wiki page and finding the HE TOO was involved in both plagiarism and fabrication scandals like Jonah Lehrer.
Weird. Explains the mental merger I guess.
> Dan Ariely was the only author to have had access to the data prior to transmitting it in its fraudulent form
I am curious to know more on this one. Odd to see so much pointing fingers happening. I'm guessing that isn't as rare as I would assume it is?