Sally O'Rourke
Essays
"Jimmy's World": Fiction Under Deadline
When Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke wrote the feature item “Jimmy’s World” in 1980, she likely had no idea that it would become one of the most discussed articles in the history of journalism. Some may admire the vivid writing, or praise the social relevance of Cooke’s portrayal of an eight-year-old heroin addict. However, what makes “Jimmy’s World” really stand out is the fact that “Jimmy” himself never existed. Cooke concocted the tale under editorial pressure and as a means to advance her career. Her fiction remained disguised until days after she received the Pulitzer Prize for the story. The reveal devastated both Cooke’s career and the Post’s reputation, and serves as a valuable reminder to journalists on the importance of fact-checking and truth-telling.
In 1979, Cooke approached the Post with an enviable résumé, claiming degrees from Vassar College and the University of Toledo and experience at her hometown newspaper, the Toledo Blade. As a young African-American woman, she also provided a needed counterpoint to the Post’s typically older, male staff (Goldman 12). She began her career in the Weeklies section, which usually featured light, neighborhood-centered features. Her ambition soon led her to seek the “big story” that would land her on the front page and move her up in the newspaper’s chain of command. She found what she was looking for while assigned to write a piece on drug abuse. Rumors informed her of preteen drug addicts, and Metro section editor Milton Coleman demanded she find one (Goldman 12). These pressures were particularly intense, C. Gerald Fraser claims, due to Cooke’s race: “To get somewhere today, [the black reporter] must not only be considered ‘objective,’ but must prove his objectivity by reporting on the negative aspects of black life” (Eason 436). The character of “Jimmy” signified one of the most extreme aspects of contemporary “black life,” and could perhaps be seen as Cooke’s proof to her editors that she could handle the Post’s heaviest material.
The Post, to its detriment, was all too willing to take her word for it. James Michener, writing for U.S. News and World Report, claimed the Post did not check Cooke’s background and “handled [her stories] with more tenderness than otherwise have been the case” due to her value as a “twofer,” or an African-American female whom “management could cite twice in claiming it does not practice discrimination” (Eason 435). The Post’s ombudsman, Bill Green, wrote shortly after the revelation of Cooke’s deceit that “[s]o impressed had the staff been with her and her writing that the usual check of references was done in a cursory manner” (Green online). The Post’s failure to check Cooke’s background, whether due to her talents or her demographics, caused the newspaper to miss what should have been obvious warning signs – namely, doctored references and false information.
The Post also erred in expecting Cooke to be more aware of “black issues” because of her race. David L. Eason writes of “the predicament of middle class black reporters as mediators between a predominantly white management and audience, and a black ghetto underclass” (Eason 435). The predominantly white staff’s unfamiliarity with the life of lower-class, urban African-Americans led to less questioning of Cooke and her article than usual. Executive editor Ben Bradlee asserted that “[w]hite reporters, much less white editors, don’t circulate much in Jimmy’s world … The possibility that the story was not true never entered my head” (Petrakos 71). However, some of the Post’s staff doubted the veracity of “Jimmy’s World” early on. Vivian Aplin-Brownlee, Cooke’s first editor at the Post, stated: “I never believed it, and I told Milton [Coleman, editor of the Post’s Metro section] that. I knew her so well and the depth of her. In her eagerness to make a name she would write farther than the truth would allow” (Green online). Others in the newsroom also came forward with their skepticism, but the primary staff somehow overlooked them. “Nobody ever came in this room and said, ‘I have doubts about the story’ – before or after publication – and nobody said someone else had misgivings about the story,” Bradlee protested (Green online). The question remains: were the primary editors really uninformed about staff doubts, or were they so eager to see Cooke and “Jimmy’s World” succeed that they unconsciously marginalized any skepticism and plowed forward? We will never know for sure.
The pressures of working at the Post were not limited to young, female, African-American reporters, however. The newspaper’s policy was “creative tension,” encouraging journalists to compete with their colleagues for stories and recognition (Corrigan 8). The Post’s then-recent laurels for breaking the Watergate scandal only exaggerated this tendency, as editors “encouraged [reporters] to think of themselves as the Marine Corps of journalism” (“Ben’s World,” 530). This grand self-image likely led to carelessness in the newsroom. The staff of the Post was so assured of the groundbreaking nature of “Jimmy’s World,” and was so pleased in the possibility of garnering a Pulitzer, that it failed to perform the basic journalistic obligation of checking the facts. In neglecting this indispensable duty, the Post demonstrated “that devastating scandals don’t just happen to presidents” and suffered the fate of Nixon: “embarrassment, investigation, expiation, loss of public respect” (Powers 3385).
Cooke may have felt especially pressured due to her race and the high-powered reputation of the Post, but I believe that her primary motivation was ambition. Her editor assigned her a simple story on drug abuse; Cooke chose to focus on the particularly provocative topic of child addicts. When she could not find one, she could have informed her editors and selected another angle. Instead, she saw an easy opportunity to propel herself into the Post’s major leagues while forgoing the hard investigative journalism that her colleagues used to succeed. The Post must be criticized for failing to check Cooke’s background and the facts of the case, and the paper rightly lost some credibility when the truth came to light. In the end, however, Cooke must be the one found culpable. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press; in return, journalists are obliged to deliver the truth to the people. It makes no difference that there “are” or “could have been” real children like “Jimmy”; Janet Cooke lied to her editors, public and the Pulitzer committee, and, as such, broke this valuable contract.
Works Cited
“Ben’s World” in National Review, 15 May 1981 (530-532).
Corrigan, Don. “The Janet Cooke Tragedy: A Lesson for J-Education” in Journalism Educator, October 1981 (8-10).
Eason, David L. “On Journalistic Authority: The Janet Cooke Scandal” in Critical Studies in Mass Communication, December 1986 (429-447).
Goldman, David. “Creative Writing: The Janet Cooke Story” in Biography, November 1997 (12).
Green, Bill. “Janet’s World” in the Washington Post, 19 April 1981. Retrieved 24 October 2006 from http://academics.smcvt.edu/dmindich/Jimmy’s%World.htm.
Petrakos, Chris. “Of Watergate and Janet Cooke” in Quill, Nov/Dec 1995 (71).
Powers, William. “Get Happy” in the National Journal, 29 October 2005 (3385).
Home / Advertising / Essays / Theses / Resume / Links
copyright 2009 by Sally O'Rourke
