Truth, Lies, and Second Chances

In October 2020, The Atlantic published a long feature, bylined “Ruth S. Barrett,” titled “The Mad, Mad World of Niche Sports: Among Ivy League-Obsessed Parents.” The piece chronicled the mad scramble by some suburban parents to use “boutique sports” like fencing, lacrosse, and squash to give their children a leg up in admissions to elite universities. The article received widespread praise, but also got considerably less flattering attention from Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple. Wemple’s October 24, 2020 column focused on the writer’s past—Barrett was once Ruth Shalit, the bright young star whose journalistic career in the 1990s was derailed by a plagiarism scandal—and suggested that in view of those past sins, her new piece should be approached with considerable caution. He also flagged what he thought were suspicious details.

A few days later, The Atlantic ran a lengthy editor’s note which stated that after the article was published, “new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.” The note accused Barrett of having perpetrated a major deception on the magazine by helping a main source—a Connecticut sports mom identified as “Sloane”—invent an extra child to better disguise her identity. The piece talked about Sloane having three daughters and a son; in fact, she only had three daughters. A couple of other minor details were corrected as well. The note also said that “in the interests of transparency” Barrett’s byline should have included her maiden name, under which she wrote during the earlier controversy. It ended with a devastating mea culpa. Read Full Article »