When Not To Pull Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps

A long time ago, I heard the term “bootstrapping” described as a journalistic no-no in the newspaper world. It meant inflating the credibility of a source.

I haven’t seen the word used that way in years, but I see examples all the time. Here’s one, from The New York Times:

“Mr. (X)… is currently at Harvard’s prestigious Society of Fellows.”

“Prestigious” is the bootstrapping here. By using the word, the writer boosts Mr. X’s credibility without any proof. I’m sure X is a fine fellow/Fellow, and I’m willing to believe that Harvard’s Society of Fellows is full of prestigious folks. But just slapping the adjective down doesn’t tell us how he got to be a Fellow, what makes the group prestigious, etc. Intentionally or not, the author can be leading the reader to conclude that Mr. X knows what he’s talking about, and thus to believe his assertions. Better to state the affiliation neutrally (“he’s a member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows”) or work a little harder at establishing his credibility (“he’s the author of 25 books about this subject and has taught at Oxford for two decades”), and let the reader judge how credible Mr. X may be.

Avoiding bootstrapping forces the writer to step back from the page, think about what he or she is trying to say, and be sure assertions are backed up.

Bootstrapping is also an excellent red flag for the careful reader; it can be an indication that other journalistic claims, not just source credibility, aren’t adequately supported.

I say this as someone who blogs for a prestigious website.