Part 1. Situation definition: The movie Shattered Glass was about a reporter who worked for The New Republic. As Stephen Glass worked for them, he became one of the top reporters. Everyone was intrigued by him; always wanting to hear what news stories he had next in mind. “Stories” being the right choice in word because more than of his articles were entirely made up. He eventually got caught in his web of lies and got fired.
He was a manipulator and a compulsive liar. He knew how to work the system and get his stories through the fact checker. Even when he was questioned about his sources he had quick responses or would tell his editor that he would go get his notes from home. Stephen Glass knew how to manipulate and lie to get what he wanted. He broke a lot of ethical codes including deceiving his colleagues and readers which in result made him lose all credibility in anything he pursued afterwards.
Part 2. Analysis: One of the main reason he did what he did was for the attention. When he was writing the fables, he took the time out to make up fake sources, events and people. He knew what he was doing was wrong and risky, but he took the risk to get the approval and praise of his readers and colleagues. An attention seeker who wanted to please everybody to receive the attention he wanted. “I loved the electricity of people liking my stories. I loved going to story conference meeting and telling people what my story was going to be and seeing the room excited. (Glass, 2001, 60 Minutes)
During the time that he worked at the New Republic, he had gain the trust and loyalty of his coworkers by complementing, helping out when needed and putting on this innocent boy routine. It seem like he tried to be on everyone good side. In an article for The Journal of Communication Inquiry stated, “He proved adept at office politics, disarming potential criticism by plaintively asking, “Are you mad at me?’” (Ehrlich, 2005). I believe he did this to have people behind him when he got into a situation such as the situation that cost him his career.
In the end it wasn’t just him that was affected by his actions, but also his audience and colleagues. They relied on him to give factual stories, and he gave them mostly nothing, but lies. “The New Republic told its readers it had fallen victim to “the systematic and intentional deceptions of someone who actually has no business practicing journalism” (To Our Readers,” 1998, p.9)” (Ehrlich, p. 2005).
Part 3. Conclusion: I believe that this could have been prevented if the fact checkers looked more in depth with his sources. It showed that the editing team had failed the mission of public trust. “The mission of public trust, as we will try to show, is journalism’s guiding light by which it illuminates its primary values of truth, loyalty to citizens, and a duty to verify.” (Journal of Journalism Studies, Patterson & Urbanski, 2006). People’s moral standings are different. He is an example of people who looks and seems like a genuine person, but he wasn’t because of his greed for being liked.
I learned that even having a good moral standing there can be tempting situations. However, you do not have to indulge yourself into them. As you can see through Stephen Glass experience, taking the easy way or your way to get what you want is not always the correct way. You will lose in the end.
References:
Lies – Stephen Glass [Television broadcast]. (2001, January 1). In 60 Minutes. CBS.
Ehrlich, M. C. (2005). Shattered Glass, movies, and the free press myth. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29(2), 103-118.
Jones Patterson, M. Urbanski, S. (2006 December 1). What Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke say about the Press and the Erosion of Public Trust. Journalism Studies. Retrieved From: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bcf31764-e73f-413d-8c4b-cbe2b48bc503%40sessionmgr114&vid=23&hid=128