back
35 comments
If some of these stories seem a little too fantastical to be true, it’s possible that they are.

Michael Finkel, the author of this article was fired from the Times in 2002 when he admitted that a character profile he had published was actually a “composite character” who didn’t really exist [0]. I wouldn’t be surprised if some embellishments has been added to this character sketch as well, at least in the book if not in this article.

[0]-https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/5740/

> I wouldn’t be surprised if some embellishments has been added to this character sketch as well, at least in the book if not in this article.

We're talking about an art thief though, they usually need no help with embellishing their stories. Although perhaps I confuse them with art forgers ("F for Fake" comes to mind).

I guess I'm saying is that I agree with you, but would give this the benefit of expecting to be lied to while only caring about how entertaining the story is (again, see "F for Fake").

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

The Times seems to be pretty strict with their journalists - in the late 1980s, Boris Johnson (he later became Prime Minister) was sacked by the Times because Johnson invented a quote from his godfather, the historian Sir Colin Lucas.

I'm not sure how common this is in the industry- whether lying is a slap on the wrist among some newspapers... Johnson still works as a columnist for other papers.

1. This is about the NY Times

2. The Times sacking BoJo for lying was before News Corp turned it into a tabloid without editorial standards in the early 2000s

3. That was BoJo's first graduate trainee job after uni - sacking a pimply faced newbie for making up stuff is not a hard decision even if he went to Eton and Oxford...

I don’t know either, and hopefully someone here in journalism can comment on how serious it is to do what Finkel did.

I like how the New Yorker Book Review article (recently on HN [0]) reviewed both the book as well as the author. I thought that was a fair assessment- bringing the prior journalistic issues to light while also discussing the merits of the book.

[0]-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581

Fabricating events, people, or facts is pretty much the worst thing a journalist can be accused of, but sadly it's all to tempting for some.

Journalism is hyper competitive, but the reality is proper reporting is an often boring, greulling grind. The remarkable, career-defining stories are so rare most could never dream to break them. Sources almost never provide coherent quotes, and facts sometimes contradict each other. It's an extremely unfulfilling pursuit most of the time.

So it's not too difficult to understand why some reporters might embellish a quote or something small, trying to better illustrate a larger narrative, or perhaps make their piece more appealing to their audience or their colleagues.

Once that line is crossed, they can soon find themselves inventing entire people or scenarios. History is littered with examples, but the reality is we probably only know of the most prominent cases, i.e. those who were caught.

I look at it the same as steroids in professional athletes or white collar crime. Those in the lower echelons are constantly looking for a way to climb the ranks of esteem and further their careers, but the tangible opportunities to make their mark don't often materialize.

In journalism school, I think most programs have at least one ethics course effectively dedicated to studying rather famous instances of journalists disgraced for one reason of another, most often fabrication.

Huge cultural strides have been taken since the days of yellow journalism and so facts are usually vetted by a small team. I think it's usually a matter of one small untruth spawning a network of supporting lies. The coverup is often worse than the crime, as it were.

In a role and industry where credibility is the only currency, it's extremely serious to make any factual error, even mistakenly.

I left the industry more than a decade ago, but can offer the following real-life annecdote. I was almost fired for mistaking one mountain for another on one of my first pieces. It was a weeks-long ordeal of meetings, "trainings," and reprimands both official and casual, and that was a dumb mistake my editor made and I mindlessly agreed with, not even something I introduced surreptitiously, or even with any intent.

Thanks for sharing your experience. To what extent do you trust Finkel‘s writing here?
Personally, I have zero trust.

In reality, the entire article could be thoroughly vetted, and Finkel may well have made a full "recovery" and rededicated themselves to the truth, but fabricating facts at that level is unforgivable.

New York Times != The Times of London
It's just The Times, not "The Times of London"

The Times != The New York Times

No no, he was just hallucinating.
What a strange story. The worlds most successful art thief did it not for profit or prestige, but apparent mental illness (compulsion). He was only caught because he was spotted, escaped but returned 2 days later to finish the job. He got 3 years, did it again, got another 3 years and still hasn't stopped! Compulsive behavior is the only way this makes sense to me.

Another piece of trivia is that when he was arrested his mother destroyed a lot of the art. She got 3 years for doing that.

There was a thief of famous old books from the monastery Mont Sainte-Odile in France / Alsace. As they found out after some time (riddled as he broke in several times without them noticing) the the thief entered through secret stairways and chambers. [1] If I remember correctly the thief didn't try to sell them but hoarded them.

There are many other articles about the heist if you google for "Book Thief Mont Sainte-Odile".

[1] https://www.goodnightandgodbless.com/travelogues/the-book-th...

Sounds a lot like Bill Mason’s story too. Amazing book as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mason_(jewel_thief)

What always amazes me is the extreme difficulty these guys must face when fencing their stolen loot. It's not as if you can sell a few Rembrant's in some isolated parking lot and recoup their multi-million dollar value.

Granted there's always some may have been stolen on order [1], but for the rest, they would be more or less unsellable.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museu...

Interestingly enough, this guy solves that problem by... not selling it.

Which rather defeats the point I'd imagine, for most thieves.

In some cases, the art may also be stolen to divert resources from other investigations, or, for that matter, to use as a bargaining chip with authorities.

(When one of Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' paintings was last stolen, it was to force the Norwegian police to divert resources from the investigation of an armed robbery which had been conducted a few months earlier.)

I can also see it being a good bargaining chip to have should you find yourself under prosecution.

"Oh, it so happens I may be able, through my contacts, to influence whoever stole this priceless work of art to return it to the owners, where it rightfully belongs... Well, at least if I am somewhat motivated, so, what's in it for me?"

With apologies for not remembering the article I read, to provide a source…

I have read that stolen masterpieces are sometimes used as currency for (high level) criminals. Similar to how Tide bottles were (still are?) used as a value exchange within homeless communities, “I owe you $X00,000 but would you accept this Picasso instead?” passes some stolen art around at a large discount to “market value”.

But why would that Picasso have any value? You can't show it to others and it's difficult to resell it. And if the cops find out that you have it - they will confiscate it.
For the same reason normal paintings have value. You could just by a high-quality print indistinguishable from the original.
You can resell normal paintings and show them to others.

In many cases there's also a reward for any information regarding the stolen artwork. So that makes it even harder to resell those artworks.

Ostentatious displays of wealth. The well connected often want you to know how well connected they are.
Depends on what level of criminal you are. I’m sure there’s some rich criminal boss in Belarus that could certainly get away with displaying it. Maybe later he’ll sell it to Putin for a literal ton of gold bars. Right now the Russians are paying debt by literally flying around airplanes full of gold. Who could do anything about it?

The world is a big place and the rule of law we trust to just work in the West is certainly not the norm everywhere.

True. They could get away with it in countries that aren't friendly with the West and that don't extradite. But the problem is that they could no longer travel to the West. Oligarchs that aren't being sanctioned and aren't being wanted for anything else would probably want to avoid that. Especially now - when the situation in Russia is unstable.
I expected the author to be the British Museum
Now that is a funny comment.
Considering how low cost security cameras are, I'm always amazed how these people manage to go so long without getting caught.
“Starting in 1995, Breitwieser and Kleinklaus committed an average of one theft every two weeks for seven years.”

I can imagine smaller galleries had only a few cameras, if any, during that time period.

This wasn't recent
Recent and related:

How a Frenchman stole two billion dollars’ worth of art - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36449581 - June 2023 (19 comments)

I kinda don't understand the appeal of stories/movies/etc about prestigious thieves, as if that's supposed to be a good thing.
An unusual display of skill can be impressive and interesting for its own sake, separately from its moral valence.
Finding something interesting is not the same thing as moral approval.

Cancer is interesting. Nobody thinks it’s a good thing.

Appeal seems to be proportional to abs(goodness)! :)