Stephen Glass was three things: a great storyteller, a skillful liar and a terrible journalist. By fabricating 27 of the many stories that he wrote for The New Republic, there were clear ethical violations made. He disregarded both moral and practical incentives, the two most powerful for ethical behavior among journalists. Stephen Glass is a perfect example of how faking it leads to more problems for everyone than it solves; whether it be for himself, his audience, or his newspaper.
The first major ethical issue lies in the fact that he deceived the public. By passing off his stories as real, he failed as a journalist to inform the people based on truthful facts and events. He acted in a deceiving fashion because honest journalists have an underlying duty to the public in order for them to have an honest and impartial account of current events. Citizens need this reliability so they can make the democratic institutions work and make important choices. Stephen Glass rid of this responsibility the second he began fabricating a story let alone twenty seven.
The second ethical issue is that he betrayed The New Republic. Glass put the reputation of his managers, editors, publishers and coworkers on the line when they put their trust in him and believed in his work and ideas. This was simply unfair. To jeopardize so many others just to make a more interesting story with one’s own name on it is unacceptable.
Journalists serve to provide a quasi-civic function. They provide reliable information that the public uses to make governing decisions in regard to their communities and nation. This places a lot on the shoulders of journalists. It is a big responsibility. Considered the watchdogs of society, journalists are in the know with things that the public simply doesn’t have access to. They must gather information in an ethical and honest way that portrays an accurate representation of what is happening in the world. Everyone needs this in order to be fully informed on the world around them. The media plays a key role in our society today and always will regardless of the medium.
Stephen Glass clearly acted in irresponsible manner. He defied the true definition of good journalism and who knows what motives could underlie those actions. To breach journalistic integrity is doing the easy thing in some ways. It is far harder at times to insure all information is exact and true and it is far more time consuming to “cross your t’s and dot your i’s” and pay attention to the little details. This is why good journalism is not as easy as one may think. To find the balance between making a piece interesting while staying true to the facts all whilst insuring you also make a profit and stay true to yourself is not an easy feat. Good journalism is expensive and for that reason, companies hope for a good reputation in turn.
Glass may simply not have wanted to put in the work to get the end result. As said by The Staten Island Advance, “But we’ve a pretty good explanation of why Stephen Glass did it – he was lazy…Glass comes across as a young man desperate for the approval that he’s clearly getting. It’s also apparent that he could have been a pretty good journalist if he had wanted to be, so elaborate are the lies he must concoct to cover up the fact that he wasn’t one.” (Staten Island Advance) He cut corners and fooled everyone in turn. With constant looming deadlines over journalists and the pressure to come up with interesting cutting edge stories, there is a lot of stress involved. With Glass, he was clearly on a career high doing the best out of his colleagues and coming up with hit story after hit story. After a while, when you write so many lies, you start believing them yourself. With fabricating stories on so many accounts, you have to question one’s character, and not only was Glass acting immorally, but he flat out disregarded all ethics standard in the field. He was an up and coming journalist making a splash in the pond of news media and was trying to make a name for himself in the business. He tried so hard to prove himself worthy. Glass was willing to take any and every step to get to the top and going against everything the profession stood for was just part of the process.
The ethical issues are evident. You want to make a good story, but there are many ways to do this while also being a reasonable human being. Glass put not only himself and his reputation on the line, but also that of many around him and also deceived the public in writing the lies he did. If faced with similar issues or challenges I would emphasize the usage of fact checking and doing so multiple times. “Like most highbrow American magazines, the New Republic employed a team of fact-checkers whose job it was to call up reporters’ sources and double-check names, details and quotes. But this was no obstacle for Glass, who had himself started out at the magazine as a fact-checker and so knew exactly how they worked. He forged notes and memos, fabricated documents and produced fake press releases, all to give his fictions the semblance of truth. And it worked.” (The London Times) As we can tell from this quote, simply fact checking alone is not enough. I also think the editors need to try to have a bigger hand in some of these stories by looking firsthand at the journalist’s notes and working with fact checkers as well. If more people are on the same page, it will be easier to catch such problems before they go further through the system.
Another idea is that by putting more than one journalist on a story, it makes it easier to see what correlates as factual and what may not. Of course not everyone sees these stories in the same light, however it would eliminate any major fact that was made up and you be able to cross reference both writers. This would improve the job of both the fact checkers and editors and deter someone form acting unethically if they must do so in front of a peer. This prevents people like Stephen Glass who have the outright intention to deceive to do so, but also can prevent accidental slipups or confusion when it is unintentional. It would be unrealistic to believe that this account is the only one that has occurred. It is my assumption that there are umpteenth similar situations where people have fabricated and some have been exposed and some have not and there are still many more to come. As was discussed in an article from The (London) Times “Glass was hardly the first journalist to have embellished the truth for the sake of a story. What is so remarkable about him is the audacity of his fictions and the lengths he went to to cover them up. ” (The London Times) In a perfect world we would see that all facts turned out to be true, but not all people are good and ethical. Without an efficient system insuring this, we leave more opportunity for such pieces to get published.
With so many different forms of news media today and a large push towards technology, fact checking is easier and quicker than ever. This may elongate the process of writing news stories however I think it is definitely worth it to be truthful and honest over writing a good story without giving it a second glance. This could definitely prevent future incidents. At the first suspicion of wrongdoing, a journalist should have to give all contacts from the story, give all notes, and be able to answer questions. Although this may seem extreme, so is breaching the ethical standards they were so quick to throw away.
Although harsh, it may appear unfair. We cannot go about every article as though they are ethically flawed because it simply takes up too much valuable time. It also would ruin the trusting relationship between the editors and writers. We cannot assume wrongdoing because it could potentially be as bad as always assuming no wrongdoing. I think the key is in finding a balance and insuring that news companies are being proactive about such situations. The benefits are clear if taking these actions would keep a newspaper’s reputation in tact, prevent lying to the public, and give more incentives to write ethically.
The film “Shattered Glass” truly opened my eyes to the ethical issues in journalism. Essentially honesty is the best policy because the truth will find a way out one way or another. It is clear that the obvious lesson is although shortcuts may seem like an easy break, there are endless consequences to you, everyone around you, your audience, and your peers. One moment of glory is not worth the deception. To put oneself on the line and make up lie after numerous lie, creating fake contacts, made up events, and providing faulty notes is a huge effort of a man that was just trying to find his way to the top. His work appeared legitimate, but it didn’t take long for just one person to see flaw in his stories. He thought he was making a name for himself, and he sure did. Stephen Glass will be remembered, but it is NOT for the way he originally envisioned.
Works Cited
Shattered Glass [Motion picture]. (2003). Alliance Films Inc.
Lies, damned lies. The Times (London), Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
HILL, T. (2003, Dec 13). ‘Shattered Glass’ cuts deep – TODD HILL/On film – Film is based on the true story of disgraced journalist Stephen Glass – MOVIE REVIEW – SHATTERED GLASS. Staten Island Advance (NY), p. A16.. Retrieved from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/1121C24E5ED1B4FA?p=AWNB