Steven Glass’ case study brings up at least two main ethical issues encountered way too many times within journalism. The first ethical wrongdoing he commits is the use of deception as a means of creating more interesting and engaging stories for The New Republic. He decieved his editors into thinking that his notes were real, his interviews happened, and the people he wrote about in his articles actually exisited. The means in which he decieved was his constant use of fabrication in order to circulate ‘information’ and expose ‘news’ to the public. In order to decieve, Glass used another ethical issue, fabrication. Glass fabricated his characters, places, and actions. In the end, by breaking the ethical/moral codes of journalism like utilizing truthfullness and accuracy, Glass committed the crimes of deception and fabrication. Thus, Glass lost the trust of fellow journalists, his editors, and the general public which single handedly destroyed his credibility as a journalist forever.
Published in a study done by the academic journal, Mass Communication & Society, from 2004, deception is defined as “a stratedy for gathering information that is vital public service including exposing wrongdoing by government officials or informing consumers of fradulent practices.” This study conducted among journalists found that these journalists viewed deception “as the last resort, when all other means have exhausted.” I think this is very true in the case of Glass, because he utilized some real sources in his articles, but when things started to lack color within his story he resorted to deception by adding in non-existant characters. Without realizing it or not, in this way Glass was decieving his readers and everyone else who came in contact with his writing.
The way in which Glass created the first ethical issue, deception, among his works was through the act of fabrication. The American Journalism Review from 2001 interviewed several journalists and editors, involving those like Lane who were direcly involved with Glass’ case as well as other cases involving fabrication in media. In question as to why a journalist would want to commit the crime of fabricating a story Frank Ahrens, a staff writer at the Washington Post, told the Journalism Review his thoughts. “You’re on deadline, you didn’t have time to do the research somone else has already sone, your quotes are “banal” or “flat”, you think, “Wouldn’t it be better if he said this instead?” Ahrens said, “but you stop.” These points brought up were definitley some that Glass could relate to. Within the movie and the “60-minute” interview, Glass expressed that he felt under pressure and that he wanted to make his stories more exciting. In particular, Lane said in the same American Journalism Review that,”Steve was so bent on doing what he was doing and then covering it up that there really, I think, in hindsight, was very little that could have been done prophylactically. It was just luck” that a writer with Forbes Digital Tool caught a lie.”
There are several solutions to comabting the use of deception and fabrication in media today that have been utilized ever since Glass’ case and many similar cases to his. Fred Brown, the chairman of the Society of Professional Jouralists’ ethics committee and the Denver Post’s Capitol bureua cheief said that the media has “become more sensitive to ethical problems than we were perhaps 10 or 20 years ago.” This means that in the 21st century people should be commiting less ethical crimes in journalism like Glass. Brown also said, “We understand that in an environment where people are bombarded by all kinds of media…it’s important that serious media have credibility and are serious about maintaining it.” I think that what Brown said here shows a great start in authority within the journalism world making sure to take a firm and positive stance on this matter and combating it when it occurs. In regards to Glass, Lane said he hopes if others encounter someone like Glass, that they examine that person’s background “with a fine-tooth comb.” I think a strict background check of journalists before they are hired at any publication would be a prime way of solving, but also preventing fabrication and deception from ever happeing.
Robertson, Lori. American Journalism Review, Mar2001, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p20, 10p,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=35c3a24c-b36f-4f43-b1ac-c9917be5d563%40sessionmgr115&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ufh&AN=4158222
Seow Ting Lee. Mass Communication & Society, Winter2004, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p97-120, 24p, 1 Chart. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=f051707c-f3e4-4235-9578-68431c89ddf1%40sessionmgr104&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ufh&AN=12775039