Kevin Horne – Blog 2 – Shattered Glass

The movie “Shattered Glass” provides perhaps the most unique and complete dramatization of an ethical media issue that has ever been made. It tells the story of Stephen Glass, a former reporter for the popular magazine The New Republic who was caught fabricating stories — so many, in fact, that an investigation yielded that Glass used fabricated material in 27 of the 41 stories he wrote for the magazine.

In the cutthroat media world, Glass deceived his colleagues, his friends and the public simply to get ahead and make a name for himself, at the cost of personal integrity. Glass even went so far as to create fake voicemail boxes and fake company websites so that the magazine’s fact checkers would not catch on to his deception. Glass also painted himself as the victim when his editors — Michael Kelly and, more famously, Chuck Lane — would question things he had written in stories, going into emotional explanations about why the facts didn’t all fit.

“I lied to my family, my girlfriend — If I had a dog then I would have lied to my dog at that time too,” Glass would later remark. The message Glass propagates is one that is so pervasive, the lying spilled over into his personal life, creating an ethical dilema that has come to define him. Ultimately, Glass was caught after an article he wrote about the fake company Jukt Micronics was investigated by the competing Forbes magazine and proved to be fraudulent. Glass’ failures are a prime example of how detrimental lying in journalism can be and how lack of  internal oversight can lead to a situation like The New Republic was in.

Although Glass is the most famous example, his situation is far from unique. “Since Glass’ fictionalizing was discovered in 1998, the journalism industry has continued to posit a number of perfectly legitimate cures for the recurring spates of ethical transgressions: We need new ethics codes, a system of fact-checking, tougher editors who ask hard questions of reporters, lectures for new hires and, if all else fails, the latest plagiarism detection software,” said Lori Robertson for the American Journalism Review (Robertson p. 34).

Indeed, Glass’ desire to get ahead at all costs is something that many young journalists contemplate. The thrill of seeing your name in a national byline is something that many journalists can wait a lifetime for. Glass was gaining popularity in his 20’s, which drove him to create more and more outrageous material just to continue the rush of fame.

The question of why people fabricate is a fascinating one. It could be because people desire love and admiration, or just to avoid rejection (Shaprio p. 262). Those emotions are common in any profession and are a natural human condition. It’s important not to succumb to those evils, though. Integrity must lead the way in journalism, and in this case, Stephen Glass fell short.

The principle objective of any journalist is to seek the truth. Glass proved to be the antithesis of that ideal. Rather than seek the truth, he ignored it. Although Glass is chiefly to blame, the editors at The New Republic also share some of the blame for loss of public trust and the black mark Glass’ actions left on the industry. ” The Stephen Glass incident “underscored the press’s centrality in American life, in particular the notion that self-regulation of the press works,” according to Matthew Ehrlich (Ehrlich p. 104).

Self-regulation of the press (i.e. consumers will evaluate the product) proved to be a failure in this instance. However, Glass’ deception got past the fact-checkers and editors at The New Republic at least 27 times. I think the general public is able to excuse this type of content getting by the editors once or twice, but not 27 times. Ehrlich was right in saying that self-regulation doesn’t work — in this case, it worked too late.

”It was very painful for me. It was like being on a guided tour of the moments of my life I am most ashamed of.”’ Glass said of the movie “Shattered Glass” to the New York Times. It’s hard not to wonder if Glass is remorseful or just sorry that he got caught.

Lying can ruin a life forever, as Glass knows. But even today, the first thing many people think of when they pick up The New Republic is Stephen Glass’ story. It’s hard not to do that, as it’s left such a mark on American journalism that it has come to define the magazine, despite continually putting out a quality product. Lying is so detrimental to everyone around you, and I imagine there isn’t a day that goes by when Glass doesn’t think about the harm he’s done to many people, from his family to his former colleagues.

There must also be more editorial oversight, especially with young reporters. Always ask questions — that’s another characteristic of a good reporter. Glass continually was able to get stories past fact checkers and especially editor Michael Kelly. In the movie, Kelly defended Glass no matter what, even when organizations would complain about the factuality of Glass’ stories. While there is virtue in an editor-writer relationship that includes a high level of trust, there still needs to be substantial scrutiny to make sure that someone as malicious as Glass does not push an inaccurate story through to the publisher.

Ultimately, personal responsibility trumps all in journalism. But when someone like Glass uses highly technical deception tactics to lie, it’s clear that regulation and increased scrutiny is necessary.

Resources

Ehrlich, M. C. (2005). Shattered Glass, Movies, and the Free Press Myth. Journal Of Communication Inquiry, 29(2), 103-118. doi:10.1177/0196859904272741