Stephen Glass was known to pen news articles that drew people in because of their “wow-factor” and unbelievability. And people ended up having a right to not believe his stories. He was fired from his gig and has been disgraced in the media community ever since it was revealed following the publication of his May 18th story “Hack Heaven” that he falsified sources and even full stories with the intent of sensationalizing and increasing the appeal of his tales.
The term “Snow-ball effect” neatly sums up the two main ethical issues I have with Glass. First, The sensationalist factor. As Glass grew and grew in popularity, it likely became easier and easier to justify his lies; to see how far he could push them.
Second, the “Hack Attack” story led to the increased scrutiny of his other works. It was as if he had rolled a snowball down a snowy-hill and then tried to run down and catch it at the bottom. He was buried in his own wrongdoing.
In Ann Riley Dowd’s August 1998 Columbia Journalism piece, she cites Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, who explains, “It’s fair to say there are more rewards today in journalism for work that’s provocative and gets attention than has been true in the recent past.” He goes on to explain that since magazines nowadays are filling their staffs with younger writers, those writers don’t have the ability to learn under older, more seasoned, and theoretically, more moral, journalists that they once did. Like Glass (the youngest journalist in New Republic history), this next generation may be thrown into the fire quicker then they’re prepared for. (Dowd, 1998)
This leads to the fact that as Glass saw the positive feedback from those forged stories build up and up and up, he may not have had the experience to step back and take action. He just kept throwing more decks on to the house of cards he was building. And what House of Cards is a permanent proposition? They all tumble eventually.
And this one came crashing down with a Thud! I draw a parallel to the Brian Williams Story. Williams inserted himself into stories that he wasn’t actually involved in to add a little juice to them. Dana Neuts, President of the Society of Professional journalists saw a case of an accumulation of lies in her April piece on Williams. She mentions that when Williams was first ousted as a liar, all of his previous stories, in particular his report from New Orleans after Katrina (which was later revealed to contain forgery), saw more increased scrutiny. The same can be applied to Glass. His Hacking story may have been the one that tipped him off, but after that, people started to realized that many of his stories had been falsified. (Neuts, 2015)
I’ve learned that the appeal of forging a story is inevitable, but that all houses of cards eventually topple. As Rosenthiel mentioned, it’s best to pair yourself with an experienced journalist to ease your transition into professional journalism.
Lastly, as Stephen Glass and Brian Williams realized, it’s never a good idea to cover lies with lies.
References
Dowd, A. R. (1998). THE GREAT PRETENDER. Columbia Journalism Review, 37(2), 14-15.
NEUTS, D. (2015). Brian Williams’ ehtical lapse hurts us all. Quill, 103(2), 3