<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;lying&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Journalism FAIL</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03474312343/dailydirt-journalism-fail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03474312343/dailydirt-journalism-fail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While journalists are expected to follow a certain set of standards or code of ethics, that's not always the case. Every now and again, someone breaks the rules and gets away with it -- if only temporarily, since they usually get caught in the end. One famous example is former U.S. journalist Stephen Glass, who had fabricated many articles while he was working for the magazine <i>The New Republic</i> in the 1990s. (Apparently, he's now fighting for the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/04/local/la-me-adv-glass-20120704">right to practice law</a> in California, after he was denied a license in 2007 on moral grounds.) Here are a few more examples of bad journalism.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/01/wired-fires-jonah-lehrer-_n_1848459.html" href="http://huff.to/Qg0rCu">Jonah Lehrer, who had blogged for <i>Wired</i> for several years and was recently hired (and then fired) by <i>The New Yorker</i>, reportedly fabricated quotes and recycled or outright plagiarized parts of articles.</a> While Wired had initially agreed to keep Lehrer on as a features writer, after carefully examining a number of his posts, the magazine just recently decided to end its relationship with him due to his failure to "meet WIRED editorial standards" or to "follow basic good journalism practices." [<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/01/wired-fires-jonah-lehrer-_n_1848459.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/07/18/how-this-guy-lied-his-way-into-msnbc-abc-news-the-new-york-times-and-more/" href="http://onforb.es/SlflrP">Ryan Holiday, marketing director at American Apparel, calls himself a "media manipulator."</a> He wrote a book called "Trust Me, I'm Lying" on how to exploit the media by lying. Even worse, he used Help a Reporter Out (HARO) and pretended to be an expert on pretty much everything -- by lying, of course -- and managed to fool reporters from MSNBC, ABC News, CBS, The New York Times, and more. He claims it was all part of an experiment. [<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/07/18/how-this-guy-lied-his-way-into-msnbc-abc-news-the-new-york-times-and-more/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://gigaom.com/2012/09/25/what-a-plagiarism-epidemic-says-about-the-decline-of-print/" href="http://bit.ly/Rj47mN">Margaret Wente has been accused of plagiarism -- copying the words of another Canadian columnist for her own article in 2009 about genetically modified foods in Africa.</a> She has <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnist-margaret-wente-defends-herself/article4565731/">responded</a> to the allegations, but her employers have also disciplined her (without revealing the details of her punishment and obviously not firing her). [<a href="http://gigaom.com/2012/09/25/what-a-plagiarism-epidemic-says-about-the-decline-of-print/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/187335/journalisms-summer-of-sin-calls-for-leadership-transparency/" href="http://bit.ly/UXhnPp">Poynter.org has a wrap-up of the year's journalistic failings (so far) -- which it calls Journalism's Summer of Sin -- and it prescribes some measures for news organizations to prevent (and deal with) plagiarism and fabrication.</a> The year isn't over, though, so place your bets on how many more journalistic fumbles will occur before 2013. [<a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/187335/journalisms-summer-of-sin-calls-for-leadership-transparency/">url</a>]</li>
</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03474312343/dailydirt-journalism-fail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03474312343/dailydirt-journalism-fail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03474312343/dailydirt-journalism-fail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101220/03474312343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DOJ Two Step: It Should Be A Criminal Offense To Lie About Your Age On Facebook... But We Probably Won't Go After You For It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/02375716801/doj-two-step-it-should-be-criminal-offense-to-lie-about-your-age-facebook-we-probably-wont-go-after-you-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/02375716801/doj-two-step-it-should-be-criminal-offense-to-lie-about-your-age-facebook-we-probably-wont-go-after-you-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we obviously spent a lot of time on the SOPA hearings this week, there was another Judiciary Committee meeting of interest this week <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11152011.html" target="_blank">concerning cybersecurity</a>.  Part of the discussion focused on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is being regularly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0404088432.shtml">abused</a> by law enforcement to bring all sorts of questionable charges against people.  This, by the way, is one of the reasons why we fear the felony provisions in SOPA, because we know how the DOJ abuses similar laws.
<br /><br />
In this case, one of the key issues is that law enforcement has used the law in the past to say that any violation of a terms of service agreement -- such as lying about your age when signing up for a dating site -- could be a criminal offense under the CFAA.  That, of course, is insane.  Even more ridiculous, however, is that the DOJ's official testimony at the hearing was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57324944/doj-fibbing-on-web-sites-should-be-a-crime/" target="_blank">about how important it was to keep this part of the law in place</a>, allowing it to add questionable charges.
<blockquote><i>
The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," -- Richard Downing,  Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief
</i></blockquote>
But then, Downing also seems to be <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68486.html" target="_blank">saying the exact opposite</a>:
<blockquote><i>
&ldquo;The DoJ is in no way interested in bringing cases against people who lie about their age on dating sites, or anything of the sort. We don&rsquo;t have the time or resources to do that,&rdquo; 
</i></blockquote>
So.... the law must allow such prosecutions, but it has no interest in bringing such prosecutions.  That makes perfect sense.  If you're a DOJ official, I guess.  For the rest of us... huh?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/02375716801/doj-two-step-it-should-be-criminal-offense-to-lie-about-your-age-facebook-we-probably-wont-go-after-you-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/02375716801/doj-two-step-it-should-be-criminal-offense-to-lie-about-your-age-facebook-we-probably-wont-go-after-you-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/02375716801/doj-two-step-it-should-be-criminal-offense-to-lie-about-your-age-facebook-we-probably-wont-go-after-you-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-that's-comforting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111117/02375716801</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Nov 2011 03:26:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>Justice Department Drops Its Request To Be Allowed To Lie In Response To FOIA Requests</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/16003216640/justice-department-drops-its-request-to-be-allowed-to-lie-response-to-foia-requests.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/16003216640/justice-department-drops-its-request-to-be-allowed-to-lie-response-to-foia-requests.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ After taking a pretty widespread public mocking for its proposal to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/03100716519/justice-department-wants-to-be-able-to-lie-response-to-freedom-information-requests.shtml">lie</a> to people when receiving requests for documents it didn't want to give out, the Justice Department says it is <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/Justice_Department_pulls_controversial_FOIA_regs.html" target="_blank">dropping that plan</a>.  As you may recall, the Justice Department wanted to be able to say that documents didn't exist, even if they did.  In the past, the DOJ has been able to say that it "cannot confirm or deny" the existence, which might force people to file suit to find out about certain documents.  However, the DOJ wanted to deny their existence entirely, even when they did, in fact, exist.  For rather obvious reasons, this troubled people. 
<br /><br />
Of course, the DOJ's capitulation is done rather petulantly.  While it admits that, having heard the comments to its proposal, its suggested language "falls short" of the necessary transparency, it still defends the basic idea behind lying to the public, while denying that it's lying.  It first notes that the practice of responding with "there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request" even if there were such records, has been in place since 1987, under the guidance of then Attorney General Ed Meese.  And then they try to explain how that's not lying:
<blockquote><i>
The logic is simple: When a citizen makes a request pursuant to the FOIA, either implicit or explicit in the request is that it seeks records that are subject to the FOIA; where the only records that exist are not subject to the FOIA, the statement that "there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request" is wholly accurate.... 
</i></blockquote>
It then insists that this practice is never "lying," but that the DOJ will try to come up with ways to be more transparent.  Somehow, I'm not sure I believe that will really happen.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/16003216640/justice-department-drops-its-request-to-be-allowed-to-lie-response-to-foia-requests.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/16003216640/justice-department-drops-its-request-to-be-allowed-to-lie-response-to-foia-requests.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/16003216640/justice-department-drops-its-request-to-be-allowed-to-lie-response-to-foia-requests.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now-it'll-just-lie-without-permission?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111104/16003216640</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:45:25 PST</pubDate>
<title>UK Politician Tossed Out Of Parliament For Lying About Opponent During Election</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/04001511880/uk-politician-tossed-out-of-parliament-for-lying-about-opponent-during-election.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/04001511880/uk-politician-tossed-out-of-parliament-for-lying-about-opponent-during-election.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having just gone through election season here in the US, with all sorts of crazy political claims made in political commercials, it's interesting to see that, over in the UK, one elected member of Parliament, Phil Woolas, recently lost his seat after a court <a href="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/a-tough-penalty-for-false-political-claims/" target="_blank">threw out the results of the election</a> because Woolas went "too far in distorting his opponent's positions" (found via <a href="http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2010/11/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/12:66/20101112122740:284F9F5A-EE82-11DF-8F15-4BABF559ED1D/" target="_blank">Dave Farber</a>).  Not only was the election thrown out, and Woolas removed from office, but he's prohibited from serving in Parliament for three years.  Harsh.
<br /><br />
Of course, while this might seem appealing for folks who are fed up with insane and misleading political advertising, as FactCheck.org notes in the link above, thanks to the First Amendment, we actually say it's legal for a politician to lie in that way (though, I would imagine that a defamation lawsuit might be possible).  And while that might not seem fair, as FactCheck points out, the idea behind this is that we actually trust the voters to figure things out:
<blockquote><i>
We certainly don't approve of false or misleading political claims, by any candidate or party. But the founders of our democracy left it to the voters, not the courts, to sort fact from fiction.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/04001511880/uk-politician-tossed-out-of-parliament-for-lying-about-opponent-during-election.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/04001511880/uk-politician-tossed-out-of-parliament-for-lying-about-opponent-during-election.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/04001511880/uk-politician-tossed-out-of-parliament-for-lying-about-opponent-during-election.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wouldn't-that-be-nice...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101116/04001511880</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:26:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Telltale Signs A CEO Is Lying (Or Not)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/04085911564/telltale-signs-a-ceo-is-lying-or-not.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/04085911564/telltale-signs-a-ceo-is-lying-or-not.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ NPR has a story about a study that tried to figure out <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130544236" target="_blank">indicators that a CEO is lying</a>.  The researchers went through the statements made by executives on earnings calls for companies that later had to restate earnings, and found a few key signals that indicate lies.  The researcher's own summary:
<blockquote><i>
We find that answers of deceptive executives have more references to general
knowledge, fewer non-extreme positive emotions, and fewer references to shareholders
value and value creation. In addition, deceptive CEOs use significantly fewer self-
references, more third person plural and impersonal pronouns, more extreme positive
emotions, fewer extreme negative emotions, and fewer certainty and hesitation words.
</i></blockquote>
Honestly though, reading through this, it seems pretty difficult to use this to really come to any serious conclusions.  For example, one of the indicators is that:
<blockquote><i>
lying executives tend to overuse words like "we" and "our team" when they talk about their company. They avoid saying "I."
</i></blockquote>
The argument is that the CEO doing so is trying to avoid responsibility for the statement, but couldn't it also be that they actually appreciate the work of the team around them?  My initial reaction to a CEO who uses "I" repeatedly is that he or she is hogging the credit and not a good leader.
<br /><br />
That said, some of the other parts do make sense, such as answering a different question than the one asked.  There was an example given of that:
<blockquote><i>
For instance, in 2002 NPR interviewed Computer Associates CEO Sanjay Kumar, who later went to prison for securities fraud, about his company's auditing practices.
<br /><br />
Here's what he said: "There's no one out there today in the world of public companies who has the former chief accountant for the SEC running their audit committee. We do. There's no one out there who has the pre-eminent governance leader, professor [Jay] Lorsch, for example, running their governance committee. We do."
<br /><br />
In other words, Kumar was asked, "Can your books be trusted?" And he replied by saying, "We hire the very best auditors." Larcker says that can be a big warning sign.
</i></blockquote>
Finally, the things to worry about are CEOs who use extremely positive wording on things:
<blockquote><i>
"If all my speech is 'fantastic,' 'superb,' 'outstanding,' 'excellent' and all my speech sounds like a big hype -- it probably is," Larcker says.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, if that's true, then Steve Jobs is the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to lying CEOs.  As an example, in the period of about thirty seconds during the iPad launch, he used the words "extraordinary... the best experience ever... it's phenomenal... it's unbelievably great... way better..." etc.  Which I think sort of points out why this kind of research, by itself, is pretty tough to be used to indicate anything.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/04085911564/telltale-signs-a-ceo-is-lying-or-not.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/04085911564/telltale-signs-a-ceo-is-lying-or-not.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101025/04085911564/telltale-signs-a-ceo-is-lying-or-not.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>moving-his-lips?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101025/04085911564</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:46:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Fake Engineer Tries To Get Lighter Sentence... By Faking References</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0143172909.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0143172909.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, here's a fun one.  A guy who was found guilty of faking his credentials to get a job as a maintenance engineer for the airline Qantas tried to get a lighter sentence by submitted four sterling references.  But... <a href="http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/national/national/general/fake-engineer-produces-fake-references-to-get-a-lighter-sentence/1366264.aspx" target="_new">it turns out that those references were faked as well</a> (found via <a href="http://www.therawfeed.com/2008/11/fake-engineer-provides-fake-references.html">the Raw Feed</a>).  The guy didn't even do a particularly convincing job faking the references either.  All four were formatted the same way and signed by the same hand, and one was from the president of a sports organization... that didn't even exist.  You would think, in the age of the internet that people would assume that making up entire organizations wouldn't be particularly effective.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0143172909.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0143172909.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0143172909.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-dumb-and-then-there's...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081121/0143172909</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Oct 2008 05:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Entellium Execs Simply Made Up Revenue</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/2148102498.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/2148102498.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It always surprises me when I hear about various tech startups that eventually resorted to outright scamming.  I can understand the pressures of running a startup as things get tough, but I can't ever imagine resorting to making up revenue outright.  Yet, whenever an economic downturn hits, these stories start popping up.  You may recall back in 2001 when the hot startup Critical Path was caught <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20010405/1726215.shtml">making up about 10% of its revenue</a>.  A day later, one of the biggest speech recognition companies of the time, Lernout & Hauspie, announced that its Korean division <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20010406/1055246.shtml">had made up almost all of its revenue</a>.  In that case, it resulted in the end of L&H completely, as well as <a href="http://www.crm-daily.com/perl/story/10138.html" target="_new">jail time</a> for the CEO.
<br><br>
It looks like we may be getting another such story.  Just a few weeks ago, CRM provider Entellium was <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/entellium-launches-rave-crm-storefront/story.aspx?guid={B1DAFCAC-3405-4478-BDEC-0EAF6DE2B23D}&dist=hppr" target="_new">announcing new products</a> (which they spammed us with a press release about).  On October 1st, we received another email pitch from Entellium, urging us to download its software for a free 30-day trial.  That same day, the company's <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008221247_webintellium02.html" target="_new" target="_new">CEO and CFO suddenly quit</a>.  A couple days later, most of the company's employees were <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008227093_entellium04.html" target="_new">laid off</a> and told that the company was out of money.
<br><br>
The whole thing seemed quite odd, especially considering that the company had raised over $50 million, had just launched this product and everything seemed to have been moving forward.  Late Wednesday, however, the details came out.  It turned out that the two execs who quit, Paul Johnston and Parrish Jones <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8gBlkOTAlAvnpngy8_81fpcsknAD93MLV7O0" target="_new">had been flat out lying to its board and its investors concerning revenue</a> for years.  For example, since 2006, the company made less than $3.8 million, but told the board it brought in $15.5 million.  That's not just a slight fudging of the numbers -- that's extreme fraud, which was used to help the company raise that $50 million.
<br><br>
The biggest question, though, is where were the board and the investors on this.  It's difficult to see how investors would hand over more than $50 million without ever conducting an audit.  They simply believed the two execs.  It's also worth noting how the fraud unraveled.  Apparently, the VP of HR was cleaning out the desk of the former head of sales, and discovered the bogus set of books that the CEO & CFO had been showing the board.  She turned them over to the company's comptroller, who gave them to a board member -- which resulted in the board pretty quickly calling the CEO to let him know that they were sending over their own "contract" CFO to "check some things out."  That was the point at which the two execs resigned.
<br><br>
You always hope that these stories are simply cases of bad seeds, and that there aren't others doing the same, but it'll be worth watching to see if we start hearing other similar stories.  They seem to come in bunches.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/2148102498.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/2148102498.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/2148102498.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-that's-one-way-to-hit-your-numbers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081008/2148102498</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>