The story of Stephen Glass, as told in the 2003 film “Shattered Glass,” is an account of a journalist who fabricated story after story, and somehow managed to get away with it for some time. To aspiring journalists who believe in the ethical quality of their profession, the depth of Glass’ offenses may come as a shock. It certainly did to me, even after I had learned about Jayson Blair’s offenses earlier on during my time at Penn State’s communications program.
Perhaps one of the most daunting questions the film raises is, why do journalists feel the need to plagiarize and fabricate? Perhaps if we as a profession can come to understand this question better, we may be better equipped to find and catch those who commit such offenses in the future.
“Nor is the problem a lack of ability,” Ivor Shapiro said in his scholarly article, Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating. “Stephen Glass proved himself a more than gifted writer and brilliant reporter at several leading magazines before the New Republic retracted 27 of Glass’ 41 pieces.” (Shapiro, 2006)
Shapiro confirmed that talent couldn’t be the problem, or else Glass would not have gotten the job in the first place. What, then, compels him and others to make up stories, when they possess the ability to write quality truthful stories as well?
Shapiro points to Glass’ novel, The Fabulist, in which Glass offers justifications such as the desperate need for approval as part of the reason he fabricated articles, in that “he longs to be admired and loved; he cheats to avoid rejection.” (Shapiro, 2006)
This connects with a startling feature of the film “Shattered Glass,” which is the somewhat sympathetic light in which filmmakers portrayed Glass’ character. Surely this is not meant to glorify fabrication as a forgivable offense. Instead, it highlights a concept that professional journalists may be familiar with, but that the average person may not consider: those who fabricate and plagiarize do not necessarily have malice in their hearts. Their intention is not always to deceive or blindside the public. Instead, it might be to earn recognition and approval for doing good work or to escape the increasing pressures to find an outstanding story. It proves that even the charismatic, smiling young journalist who offers compliments to his coworkers can be guilty of offenses that make us all bristle.
Another disturbing issue raised by the film is, why was Glass not caught earlier? He had fabricated a total of 27 articles, which had begun before “Hack Heaven,” the piece that finally had him caught. Could it be that the others in the newsroom were so blindsided by their amazement at Glass’ fascinating stories that they neglected to thoroughly check for the pieces’ soundness?
“He finds himself increasingly encouraged to write ‘snarky, glib, superior’ copy,” Shapiro wrote of Glass (Shapiro, 2006).
While it was entirely Glass’ choice to fabricate, one must wonder if we do not live in a time in which journalists increasingly walk the line between news and entertainment. Was Glass encouraged because editors knew the public would love his almost outrageous stories?
If the increasing public desire for “infotainment” influences newsrooms in any capacity, then it is easy to see why Glass’ coworkers at the New Republic would have been so excited over the young journalist’s stories. There is no denying his fabricated pieces are the sort of the thing the public would be interested in reading, the sort of thing that would sell magazines. We must ask ourselves if there has indeed been a blurring between news and entertainment. If so, consumers of the news may be seeking magazine articles that read like fiction, which would certainly describe the stories Glass wrote.
Even I must pause to wonder at this point whether I am trying to absolve Glass of some of his wrongdoings by trying to blame market preferences for infotainment. In the movie, he came off as frightened and remorseful, in a way that viewers may feel sympathetic toward. Whether Glass was indeed remorseful and frightened or not, his foray into fabrication was substantial, and caused harm not only to himself, but to his staff and to his current and former editor combined. It could have cost the magazine its reputation, even if none of the other staff members had ever fabricated or plagiarized an article. Causing injury to one’s own reputation is regretful enough, but putting others at risk as well was thoughtless on his part.
“You know it’s a good story if you have to say, ‘I’m not making this up,’” said professor Curt Chandler during a lecture in his Penn State class, “Principles of Multimedia Journalism,” which is a class I’m currently enrolled in. All Glass’ stories had this quality, except he was, in fact, making this up.
References
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why they lie: Probing the explanations for journalistic cheating. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31(1), 261-266. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=20591083&site=ehost-live