Glass Lied and Laid Accountability on Staff
Part 1- Situation Definition
The actions of Stephen Glass at The New Republic in the late 1990s, portrayed in the 2003 film Shattered Glass, violated several seemingly obvious ethical standards that journalists should uphold. Journalists need to practice honesty and accountability, or else what they report cannot be taken seriously as news. As proof of the value of ethics in journalism, Glass’s fabrication of several news stories and sources, which the magazine published as true, destroyed his reputation. His further denial of accountability caused more damage to his fellow staff than necessary.
Of the ethical issues Shattered Glass centers around, Glass’s dishonesty and his denial of accountability bring up the most intense ethical messages for me. Both of these actions potentially cause so much damage for a journalist who commits them, his or her colleagues, and the publication’s readers.
Part 2- Analysis
Glass made the decision to fabricate news sources and then stories because he was teleologically focused. In the end, his goal was to be perceived as a good reporter and writer by his peers; his goal was not to actually be a good reporter in the process. Insight into Glass’s discarding of a journalist’s values is offered by the article “A Tabloid Mind? Professional Values and Organizational Pressures as Explanations of Tabloid Journalism” by Morton Skovsgaard, which defines “tabloidization” as a trend in journalism that focuses on sensationalism and personalization in news stories. The article offers an explanation for why a journalist who does not work for a tabloid might report in a dishonest way:
This also implies that the more influence audience figures have on journalistic work and the more a journalist is focused on profit rather than public service, the more he or she will apply a personalized journalistic style emphasizing emotions as well as sensationalist news values. (Skovsgaard, 205).
This means that the highly-praised status alone of The New Republic’s audience and therefore The New Republic’s staff likely intimidated Glass enough for him to fabricate stories that would sensationalize and personalize relevant topics, rather than report real news and receive no attention for it. This was unethical of him because journalists have a duty to inform the public of the truth.
Glass’s dishonest reporting resulted in repercussions for not only himself and his colleague’s at The New Republic, but for the entire media industry. The article “Reasons for Veiled Sources Spike After 2004 Scandal” by George Albert Gladney, Ivor Shapiro, and Regan Ray discusses the effect the fabricated reporting of Stephen Glass, Mike Barnicle, Patricia Smith, Jason Blair, and Jack Kelley had on the public’s trust in newspaper reporting. The article implies that stricter use of anonymous sources was a result of newspapers attempting to regain trust by being more transparent, saying:
Editors generally concede that by using unnamed sources as often and casually as they do, public trust is squandered. Indeed, even though many newspapers tightened policy concerning use of anonymous sources after the scandals, trust in the news media fell to a new low. (Gladney, Shapiro, Ray. 36).
On its own, Glass’s fabrications did not cause this public skepticism of newspapers, but it definitely contributed. The possibility of public distrust is why honesty is an ethical standard in reporting.
Another major way Stephen Glass defied journalistic ethics was by not taking accountability early enough to prevent much damage. To protect himself, Glass lied to his colleagues and allowed them to defend his lies, which they thought were honest, for him. This is wrong for two reasons: his colleagues are another audience for his dishonesty, and now his colleagues are potentially sinking their own reputations by defending him. If Glass had been thinking ethically, he might have followed Mill’s Principle of Utility as discussed in class. This would have caused him to tell the truth to his colleagues in order to prevent harming them. Luckily, once the truth came out, the staff at The New Republic worked hard to take accountability for the fabrications by firing Stephen Glass and publishing the truth about his dishonesty to their readers. If the newspaper had fired Stephen Glass quietly and never published corrections, it is likely another source would have exposed the cover up. That would have damaged The New Republic’s reputation irreparably and cost the entire staff their jobs regardless of complicity. Therefore, The New Republic’s response was utilitarian because it caused the least amount of damage and the staff was able to continue reporting at either The New Republic or other news media sources.
Part 3- Conclusion
The anecdote of Stephen Glass and The New Republic drives the importance of honesty and accountability for me. Personally, I value honesty too lie to almost anyone, especially an audience. Stephen Glass will never work in the serious news industry again, although his imagination and writing skills make him fit to be a tabloid or at least fiction writer. I think The New Republic staff handled the aftermath of Stephen Glass in a way that caused them the least harm: by being honest about how much they adored and trusted Stephen Glass. I would further advise that The New Republic fact-check much more thoroughly and never leave a source alone based on one reporter’s word. Another fabrication incident would surely destroy the magazine’s credibility for good because of the repeat offense.
Part 4- References
Gladney, A., Shapiro, I., & Regan, R. (2013). Reasons for Veiled Sources Spike After 2004 Scandals. Newspaper Research Journal, 34(2), 36-49.
Skovsgaard, M. (2014). A tabloid mind? Professional values and organizational pressures as explanations of tabloid journalism. Media, Culture, & Society. 36(2), 200-218.
http://mcs.sagepub.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/36/2/200.full.pdf+html
Christensen, T. (Producer), & Ray, B. (Director). (2003). Shattered Glass (Motion Picture). United States of America: Lions Gate Entertainment.