Journalism and ethics are a pair that coincide just as naturally as peanut butter and jelly. You can have the two together, or separately depending on preference. The difference is that journalism partitioned from ethics generates a myriad of issues. It is a journalist’s job to present news to a mass audience, so it is crucial that they maintain moral standards. Journalists must have a firm understanding of ethics to a high degree due to their influence on the public. A journalist who chooses to compromise his or her integrity and credibility does not have the correct ethical interests at heart.
Fabrication, or falsifying ones work is a major ethical issue that journalists face constantly. This problem is detrimental not only to the writer’s reputation, but to readers as well. Making up parts of a story can occur for a number of reasons. In former journalist for the New Republic, Stephen Glasses case, the exact reason seemed unclear to me. The movie Shattered Glass depicted his motive as the need for success and likability by others, but I could not wrap my head around how he could keep up the act of deception for as long as he did. According to Shapiro (2006) Glass “longs to be admired and loved; he cheats to avoid rejection” (pg. 262). Shapiro’s review of different works that delve into Glasses predicament and similar situations, utilizes the term “serial fabricators” (pg. 262), which I found interesting and quite fitting in Glasses case. I believe Glass was fully aware of how wrong his actions were, but if you were receiving as much accolades as he was, and thought you wouldn’t get caught, would you do lie too?
Similarly, dishonesty is another unethical value that journalists face. Although dishonesty may seem closely related to fabrication, in Glasses case, it seems to take on a different and more personal meaning. Glass not only was dishonest to his readers but to his colleagues and editor, Charles Lane. His deceitful ways went unnoticed for an extended period of time gaining him the trust of these people.
Shattered Glass, illustrated that Glass possessed these two unethical qualities to the highest degree resulting in major repercussions. I believe there was no excuse for Glasses actions. If Glass had falsified his facts to a lesser extent or fabricated less articles, maybe people would be more lenient with their views and opinions of him. But his “serial” ways compel me to think little of him as a professional journalist and his understanding of ethical values. Fakazis (2006), discusses Janet Malcolm’s law suit for allegedly fabricating direct quotes she used in one of her stories in the New Yorker. In her writing, she states that during the trial, different aspects of journalism emerged. One quote that resonated with me and had great relevance to Glasses scenario was, “journalism’s authority as a profession committed in its standards and practices to truth” (pg. 19 ). A journalist must be dedicated to writing the truth and nothing but the truth.
Even if Glass had a deeper understanding of journalism’s Code of Ethics, would that have stopped him from doing what he did? I guess there is no way of knowing what Glass was thinking at the time, but it definitely was not ethical thoughts. Today, I feel like it is much more difficult to get away with fabricating stories due to major search engines like Google. Fact-checking is more precise today and it is much easier to be caught for dishonesty. Nonetheless, journalists should continue to understand the importance of ethics and be aware of the consequences if faced with a dilemma.
References
Shapiro, I Why they lie : Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating [Review].
(2006). 31(1), 261-266.
Fakazis, E. (2006). Janet Malcolm: Constructing boundaries of journalism. Journalism, 7(1),
5-24.