To me, Shattered Glass brings up two main ethical issues: Deception in journalism, and the conflict of interests as a newsroom editor. Glass fabricated and made up stories to, even not truly intentional, deceive his readers. His action challenges the ethical value of honesty, and more importantly the duty and responsibility as a journalist.
The second issue is from the perspective of Chuck Lane. Chuck became suspicious about Glass’s writings so he investigated to find out that Glass was lying. As an editor, should Chuck show benevolence from backing his journalists and therefore to be a beloved colleague in the workplace? Or should he fulfill his responsibility as a magazine gatekeeper and fire Glass without giving him any chance? It here brings up the conflict of two ethical values.
Journalist is a professional field of work. I believe most of the journalists are well trained at school before actually working in a newsroom. Therefore, I perceive as most of them already know the principles that journalists must provide accurate, truthful, fair, balanced, and objective news stories, and therefore to be loyal to their audience. However, this acknowledgement does not mean it is coherent with individuals’ ethical values.
Work pressure, personal past experience, and the pursuit of emotional satisfaction can all be the triggers of Glass’s fabrication. He might be pressured from the “always on” work mode in a newsroom, so making up fake news is an easy way for him to escape from this pressure. As taught in class, this already violates one of the criteria (saving time and resource) not to justify deception in journalism. Glass might also have been growing up from the habit of lying or making up imaginative stories and he never got caught, and therefore the value of “lying is acceptable” and “my fake stories are just so great” could have been deeply developed since he was young. By lying, it destroys the important journalistic principles of integrity and credibility, not to mention public’s trust in the company. The pursuit of emotional satisfaction is perhaps the most powerful among the three. Since the public depends on the information delivered from journalists to know the world, their writings are basically the tools to control the mass. Who do not like being a king of the world? People enjoy seeing others’ reactions when they present something amazing, even if it is fake, because it feels like a “conquest” which brings you emotional satisfaction. Glass is probably one of them as well.
Scholars share a similar and more professional view in Glass’s behavior as well. They refer to Glass’s psychological disability. While seeing Glass as a psychologically corrupted kid, the factor also includes Glass’s longing “to be admired and loved” and to “avoid rejection” (Shapiro, 2006, p. 262). I agree that these desires come in play because humans always long for Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and for this case, the love and belonging need and the esteem need are strongly pursued by Glass. However, not all the blame goes to Glass himself, some goes to the workplace pressure. Apparently, Glass “fails to find reportable facts that live up to what was promised, then faces pressure from editors to provide more details” and here was how he started fabrication and see what journalism really is (Shapiro, 2006, p. 262). Another scholar journal takes Jayson Blaire’s and Janet Cooke’s case for investigation. What strengthens previous points mentioned is that people start to place new values into journalistic mission, which in basic is the mission of words and storytelling. These values are the competitive mind from people who want to be the best, write the best, and eventually defeat others (Patterson & Urbanski, 2006). Patterson and Urbanski also point out that part of the blame goes to the news company since they discover the pattern of these fabrication cases having “young, ambitious reporters; they raise similar issues about diversity; and they happened at newspapers similar enough in size, ownership, and reputation to bear comparison” (Patterson & Urbanski, 2006, p. 831-832). Since the news companies do not act to stop these actions (can be on purpose), the opportunities emerge for these young reporters to challenge the ethical bottom line in journalism. But then, this will raise another ethical issue for news company operation.
Regarding the second issue, it is more like whether or not bringing your personal empathetic emotion into business. Chuck shares two identities in the movie: as an acquaintance and colleague who has been working in the same place with Glass; and as a news editor in the newsroom. For the former, humans’ empathy and benevolence can come in play because we tend to be kinder to whom we know and have been getting along with. Chuck could have given Glass a chance instead of ordering him out of the company. However, for the latter identity, Chuck should fulfill the responsibility of an editor and respect the journalistic principles. In a professional workplace setting with Glass violating the journalistic principles, he is not allowed to stay. Similar question will go to whether a doctor should be blamed and fired when he failed in conducting a surgery and killed the patient. The decision here can be very different and hard to different people since we all have discrete sets of ethical values and we consider the consequences.
If I were to become a journalist, I could have the thought of fabricating news because of its attractive effect in misleading the public, but I would never put it in action. I am a timid person so I always try not to break any rules and laws, even if is it just code of conducts. Law abiding is one of my important personal values. If the rules or laws seem to be unethical, I would usually take the middle ground by applying Golden Mean, if applicable, to not breaking the law and not doing any harm to the public at the same time. I see journalists as a profession career so I want to respect all of their hard work in news gathering and reporting, if done ethically. With this respect in mind, I would not risk my readers’ and colleagues’ trust to violate it myself.
On the other hand, as an editor, if I face similar challenge as Chuck, I would probably take the same approach. If this was Glass’s first offense, I would give him a chance to stay, but with warning, punishment, and tighter monitoring on his future writings. If this is same as the movie that Glass has been doing fabrications all the time, I will definitely fire him to fulfill my job responsibility. It may make the newsroom unhappy since the colleagues had been working and liking Glass for quite a period of time. However, I believe that if I am doing right with legitimate reasons, people will understand at some time since fabrication is a commonly accepted as wrong in a newsroom environment.
Reference
Jones Patterson, M., & Urbanski, S. (2006). WHAT JAYSON BLAIR AND JANET COOKE SAY ABOUT THE PRESS AND THE EROSION OF PUBLIC TRUST1. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 828-850.
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 31(1), 261-266.