Situation Definition
Stephen Glass became a victim of his own pathological lying and greed. In the journalism field, the rush of getting the biggest, most interesting story is what makes every journalist better. Stephen Glass became so concerned with being that “big name” journalist, that it compromised his ethics, his employer, and ultimately his job.
Ethics is defined as the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity. Stephen Glass violated the journalistic code of ethics, but the real question is why? In Felder (2006, p. 32) a survey was conducted where journalists admitted that they plagiarize because of “intense competition.” This is the predominantly the reason why Glass turned into what he was. The other driving reason in the study was not being cognizant of the plagiarism that was taking place. This does not apply to Glass simply because he made up his own stories. He did not steal another journalists’ work or miss a step here or there. He began to fabricate stories for the love of being known as a star.
Analysis
Glass falls into the “intense competition” spectrum when it comes to his plagiarism. So I decided to look into a study on the competition of journalism and why that hunger to be in the upper echelon of the field ultimately leads to plagiarism. The journalism field is one that does not pay very well at the entry level. The hunger to get to that high ceiling of high paying journalists may be the reason Glass was fueled to plagiarize. Glass became obsessed with plagiarizing to get the big story because of that first time. When he did it the first time and saw the reactions, earned the trust of his editor and colleagues, and ultimately gained his clout, he felt as though he could not stop there. If something is not broken, you do not break it. Glass, unfortunately learned the hard way that something as vile as his actions always comes back around.
Another facet to Glass’ plagiarism may be the most cut and dry aspect of them all: It was easy. In the book “Journalism and New Media”, John Pavlik simply says “…they make it increasingly simple and tempting.” (Pavlik 2001, p. 47). The collocation of the ease and greed make it impossible to deny Glass had a pathology problem. Once Glass saw that all he had to do was jot some notes down and show his editor, he could not stop himself from doing it over and over again. Which then led to him creating websites, emails, etc.
Conclusion
Overall, Glass’ consequences proved that his greed was not worth it, and neither is it for any journalist. Glass not only lost his job, but he lost his credibility. His actions went further than just journalism as it translated to his potential law career and him trying to be barred in the state of New York. The aforementioned “rush” for the big story as a journalist ultimately is not worth the credibility you lose, conscience you damage, and consequences you face.
References:
Fedler, F. (2006). Plagiarism persists in news despite changing attitudes. Newspaper Research Journal, 27(2), 24-37.
Pavlik, J. V. (2001). Journalism and new media. Columbia University Press.