Situation Definition:
As the movie title suggests, Steven Glass found his demise in two primary ethical issues. First, he created a web of fabricated stories that he passed off as nonfiction. He deceived his peers and readers. Secondly, he jeopardized the careers of his coworkers by lying to them and having them believe that he was a legitimate journalist.
Analysis:
In reflection, Co-worker of Steve Glass at The New Republic, Hanna Rosin analyzes her experience working alongside Glass. “I wanted you guys to feel something in my presence, to be excited to be around me,” he explained. “And as I crossed more lines, the lies became more and more extreme, and I just became more and more anxious and crazy and out of control” (Rosin 2014). Rosin quotes Glass reflecting on a pattern of insecurity. Once the lies started as he suggests, he became too caught up with impressing others, which eventually lead to him being caught. His issue with fabrication stemmed from an ideal to impress his coworkers. Once it worked, he became addicted to it and continued to fabricate stories.
But to understand how his addiction came to life, it is important to look at the roots. After just starting at The New Republic, “he was assigned to write a story on an arcane piece of Washington legislation. He thought it needed sprucing up and a serial liar was born” (Kroft 2003). Because of a pressure to perform, Glass fell into a pattern of lying. As Glass reveals in his interview with Steve Kroft, even when his mind willed him to stop the fabrication and deception, there were no positive results. From the first story, he became addicted to lying. For Glass, lying equaled peer approval.
As was portrayed in the film, Glass loved being the center of attention. In the SPJ’s (Society of Professional Journalists) Code of Ethics, a notable rule is: “never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information” (SPJ 2014). Glass deliberately breaks this rule on a day to day basis. He becomes the star of The New Republic and most of the employees there love and support him. In his theatrical performance, he neglects the integrity of his editor, Charles Lane. He says, “You’re my editor, you’re supposed to back me!” (Shattered Glass 2003). Thus, drawing in his editor to the web of lies. When the dust clears, he is fired from the firm but leaves behind a cloud of doubt with The New Republic. He depreciates the integrity of the magazine and the credibility of its writers, his friends.
How might have Glass avoided this dilemma? In his interview with Kraft, he suggests that the fabrication only started when he joined The New Republic. He was successful as editor of the University of Pennsylvania’s newspaper and obviously had talent as a writer. But when he felt more pressure from his new job, two things overtook him: pressure and laziness. Pressure, the more obvious reason, overwhelmed Glass into a state of borderline deliriousness. He felt like he was forced into producing material above his ability, and to impress, he fabricated. But paired with the pressure to perform, is the cop-out of laziness. Yes, he might have felt excessive pressure, but succumbing to that pressure was Glass’ own laziness. It is much easier to make up an exciting story than to sit through unfavorable press conferences and legislative meetings. He sided with the more promiscuous option and eventually paid the price.
The idea of a journalist or reporter fabricating brings into question the validity to even give the title of journalist or reporter to that individual. Is a journalist who makes up stories even a journalist? Or would it better be suited to call him/her a novelist? And then how does that make the peers of a novelist look? Are they too novelists? And then by definition, would The New Republic be a company of novelists? These are the issues that Stephen Glass has brought about for himself and his peers.
Conclusion:
When studying journalistic ethics, it almost seems silly to study a fabricator of fiction. But at the same time, this fabricators ability to permeate into his peers and readers convincing them that he was telling the truth is something worth taking a look at. Stephen Glass was charming and charismatic, which aided his entrance into the journalistic world, but the lesson to be learned would be learned by looking at how he rose and fell.
His rise to power was almost forced by pressure. He wanted to impress, but was that necessary? Glass failed to weigh in the consequences of his actions, which might have been his biggest flaw. He had the job. He had the experience. From a third person standpoint, it was manageable. But he caved because of insecurity. But then the answer couldn’t simply be “think before you act.” Perhaps the answer to his predicament would be something more along the lines of, “look at the case of Stephen Glass: he failed because he lied, his insecurity was unmanaged and it controlled him when he could’ve been honest and successful.”
References:
Kroft, S. (2003, May 7). Stephen Glass: I Lied For Esteem. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephen-glass-i-lied-for-esteem-07-05-2003/
Rosin, H. (2014, November 24). HELLO, MY NAME IS STEPHEN GLASS, AND I’M SORRY. New Republic, 42-51.
Shattered Glass [Motion picture]. (2003). Alliance Films Inc.
Society of Professional Journalists Improving and protecting journalism since 1909. (2014, September 6). Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp