Ignoring One’s Journalistic Duty and the Number One Rule of Journalism
The 2003 film, “Shattered Glass,” dramatizes the tarnished career of New Republic journalist Stephen Glass. While at The New Republic, Glass fabricated 27 stories and brought about two serious ethical issues; failing to uphold his journalistic duty of informing the public, and deceiving both his sources and colleagues in multiple ways.
With access to important information, it is a journalist’s job to inform the public and help them make essential decisions. In Chapter 3: The News Media’s Role in Society of the textbook The Ethical Journalist,” Cathy Trost and Alicia Shepard discuss journalists’ motivation on September 11, 2001. “It wasn’t profit-it could only be instinct that drove these journalists, an ingrained conviction that their profession is a high calling to public service,” (Foreman, 2010, p.25).
Through fabricating so many stories while at The New Republic, Glass participated in many acts of deception. The rising star created fake websites, business cards and voicemails to satisfy fact checkers, and ultimately deceive his colleagues. While also collecting information for a story on a Republican convention, Glass deceived the public and potential sources by using a different name and personality. His ultimate act of deception however, was lying to his readers through his 27 false stories.
Glass’ acts of deception are unethical because they break journalism’s two unacceptable targets, the audience and one’s colleagues. His unethical decisions also were not intended to help others. When deceiving his sources and colleagues, he was not later sharing important vital information with the public, but instead just looking to get ahead in his career.
In “Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating,” Ivor Shapiro analyzes the reasoning behind fabricating journalists like Glass, Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair. “Glass’ stories were rich in the kind of vivid, unattributed details that his colleagues, bosses, and readers loved—details that were too good to be true.” Shapiro attributes acts of deception to the “rising value given to narrative detail and story- telling values in today’s reporting.”
Shapiro’s journal also touches on an idea of two moral compasses. He believes aspirations for the future clouded Glass’ moral judgment and made him lose sight of his journalistic duty to inform the public. He suggests that, “although normal morality may prevail in private life, unfettered ambition drives decisions involving money or [one’s] career,” (Shapiro, 2006, p. 264).
In my opinion, Glass’ acts of deception and failure to uphold his duty as a journalist rely heavily on a culture within the newsroom. Many young journalists, like Glass and Blair experience a new pressure surrounding deadlines, one they were unfamiliar with in college. A pressure exists from editors or producers to know everything right out of college and never make mistakes. I believe Glass succumbed to a fear a failure, pressure from deadlines and high career aspirations, and as a result, made unethical decisions because he saw them as the only answer.
Many scholarly journals analyzed the newsroom environment and blamed editors for expecting too much from their staff of recent college graduates. In Rebuilding Trust, Bonnie Bressers uses personal stories from newspaper editors across the county to explain how acts of deceptions can often occur.
James Sheledy of The Salt Lake Tribune claims he “instinctively trusts reporters until the point [he] has evidence of the contrary.” Sheledy sees flaws in this assumption and goes on to explain that “instinctive trust should not be synonymous for blind trust.”
Bressers’ journal also tells the story of Lorraine Branham of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Branham once controlled a newsroom where half of her staff was recent college graduates. Branham said she “spent a lot of time coaching them on reporting and writing, but devoted little time to discussing ethics and journalistic standards.” She goes on to state that she took ethics for granted and assumed young journalists already had a full understanding of journalistic values (Bressers, 2003, p. 8).
Journalists who make unethical decisions and fail to follow through on the responsibilities associated with their profession, ultimately lose their job and ruin their career. In the end, New Republic editor Michel Kelly made the right decision investigating Glass’ stories and, finally firing the young star.
I think the best solution to avoiding a catastrophe like the one depicted in “Shattered Glass,” is telling the truth at all times. I think Glass should have come forward to his editor if he felt pressures within the newsroom environment, because honesty early on in the process could have avoided the situation entirely.
I also think there needs to be a greater focus on teaching ethics to young working journalists and the fact checking process. Education prevents confusion, and could create a good defense in a legal setting. Through watching the film and examining this case and scholarly journals, I have learned the importance of telling the truth at all times. While deception may provide short-term benefits, the long-term effects outweigh any fear of failure or temptation to get ahead.
References:
Bressers, B. (2003). Rebuilding trust. Quill, 91(5), 8.
Foreman, G. (2010). The ethical journalist: Making responsible decisions in the pursuit of news. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 31(1), 261-266.