Sam Sobel Op-Ed, "In cold Blood"

Sam Sobel                                                                                       Op-Ed, In Cold Blood

Public opinion is one of the most malleable things in the world, the media being the oar that changes the direction of the tides. To even go slightly off of pure fact, disrupts those waves forever. The National Press Photographers Association, “a professional society that promotes the highest standards in visual journalism”(1), states one of its top rules for photojournalists to be no tampering with the truth of an image. No photoshop, no staging, etc. Photojournalists who ignore or purposefully go against this rule are disavowed in the community, and are often unable to find a job in photojournalism again. This same rule should be clearly applied to written journalists as well. Although photojournalism allows for a more explicitly visual interpretation of truth and lies, written journalism should be held to the same standard of telling the truth. One of the most famous examples of this argument concerning what liberties can be taken with truth in Journalism is “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote. Although many consider Capote’s novel to fall under the category of either Journalism with stretched boundaries or a nonfiction novel, I would say that “In Cold Blood” is realistic fiction. Whereas some realistic fiction novels only contain truth in the type of setting and people in the story, Capote’s novel contains mainly truth, with real names, places, and more, but still extends too many liberties with truth to make it non-fiction in any manner.

The first chapter that has a focus on a specific aspect of journalism in “Elements of Journalism” by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel is titled, “Truth, the first and most confusing principle”. This title seems to sum up well the importance of truth in journalism, and all the complexities that accompany it. The chapter begins with discussing the infamous pentagon papers, words that revealed U.S. officials blatantly lying to American citizens about the status of the situation in Vietnam. In this opening, Benjamin C. Bradlee, the executive editor of the Washington Post at the time, is quoted as saying “What might have happened, had the truth emerged in 1963 instead of 1971?”. The incident of the pentagon papers is one of the best in terms of dealing with the concept of truth and timing. What would have been different if honesty instead of hubris had prevailed from American officials? Would less troops have died in seemingly meaningless battle? Would communities have come together in a different way back home? The questions can go on forever, as the American people never quite recovered from the lack of faith in authority that came about after the Vietnam War. Although a bit of a twisted truth about a murder in Holcomb, Kansas doesn’t seem to carry the same weight as war and presidents, it carries a heavy weight all the same.

“In Cold Blood” had and continues to have a monumental impact on American society and culture, due to its close-up look at murderers, and its chilling yet still entertaining telling of how, when, where, and why a murder in a small town in Kansas took place. The novel focuses on details that few other stories before it were able to, as Capote seems to have infinite information about places that he was never even in. A large part of the components that make “In Cold Blood” a classic were fabricated or stretched out to beyond the reality of the fact, essentially making the reasons that this book is so famous just lies. In terms of timing, if Capote had really been at those places and only told the truth, not a single stretch in the fabric of truth of his novel, how would its impact have been different? Would it still be considered a great American classic, or merely one in a line of many stories concerning the same subject?

In analyzing the importance of truth in Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”, the five W’s of literature must be taken into account. What was stretched or lied about, why was it done, does the “when” and the “where” of the book impact anything, and if the “who” was changed in Capote’s story, would there have been a difference? Truman Capote’s “Fact Checker” for “In Cold Blood” was a gay man from New York City named Sandy Campbell, a thespian turned literary fact-checker. On notes found from Capote’s original writings, there are scribbles by Campbell asking, “How do you know this?” all over, to which there was never any reply. Two examples of what was stretched or lied about include the misinformation concerning how long the Kansas Bureau of Investigation took to follow up on a lead in the case, “a Wall Street Journal article suggested that the Kansas Bureau of Investigation waited five days before following up on what turned out to be the crucial lead in the case, rather than doing so immediately, as Capote wrote. This is not a trivial matter, because if the KBI had acted quicker, the killers—Perry Smith and Dick Hickock—may not have made it to Florida, where, according to a separate investigation by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, they possibly committed four additional murders, of a husband and wife and their two young children”(2) Another part of the novel that was admitted by Capote to be entirely made up, was the end scene of the book: the graveyard conversation between a detective and the murdered girl’s best friend. The question then, is why did Capote stray away from absolute truth?

“Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth”, “Elements of Journalism” states in bold letters. Did Capote go against this because of of self-consciousness, was he worried that his writing wasn’t good enough? Did he feel like he had to add untruths? This is often the case with photoshopped journalistic images, the photographer doesn’t think that the image is scandalous or outrageous enough, that often drastic edits must be made. Perhaps Capote wanted a better end than the one in real life, where the hanging was the end of the story. Capote might’ve wished for at least some closure at the end of the story, aware that he or any of the other characters weren’t able to get it in real life? If the killers had been a different race or gender or age, how much would that have affected its fame? If it had taken place in New York City instead of Kansas? If “In Cold Blood” had come out today, it would just be seen as another “How to make a murderer”, and I believe that people would be more upset at the untruths told, as there are many books and stories today about the same general subject that are told in a wonderful manner, and don’t stray from reality. If “In Cold Blood” hadn’t been credited with creating the “true crime” genre, would it have even survived in that category? Because of the hypothetical nature of these questions, the additional questions and answers are limitless, none of them definite. I am sure though, that there would have been a difference in the reception and legacy of “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote, if the entire novel had been pure facts and reality, which it wasn’t. Although “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote is a thrilling tale that changed American literature, it is far from a Journalistic work. The second that Capote stepped outside of true and pure fact, his story was no longer one of journalistic integrity.

1) https://nppa.org/code-ethics

2)https://slate.com/culture/2013/03/fact-checking-in-cold-blood-what-the-new-yorkers-fact-checker-missed.html