Blog 2: “Shattered Glass” by Diloshan Manoharan

Situational Definition

In the film Shattered Glass, a young man by the name of Stephen Glass portrays himself as a writer for a magazine called The New Republic. However, during his time at The New Republic, Glass had the tendency of fabricating the stories he wrote for the magazine. Not only was he falsifying his stories to the public, but he was also deceiving his co-workers and supervisors into thinking these articles were real.

When I reflect on the two ethical messages that play a huge part in this film, I would have to say fabricating and deceiving the people he worked with. To me, there’s no other way around it because if one wants to succeed in the world of journalism or any other occupation, they need to be accurate and authentic about the work they submit. Fabricating 27 out of the 41 stories Glass writes is absurd, considering the fact the viewers claim that the articles are real. In addition, it only makes it worse to lie about the stories to his co-workers and editor.

 

Analysis

I’ve watched Shattered Glass several times in different parts of my life. After watching the film for the third time in Professor Zhong’s class, I still can’t get the fact of how Stephen Glass got away with making up 27 out of the 41 stories he wrote for The New Republic. I believe that the reason he fabricated most of his stories was due to the fact of how much attention and praise he was getting. I think ultimately Glass loved the recognition from his co-workers and didn’t want to lose the fame by confessing about the mistakes he made. According to a journal article titled  “Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating” by Ivor Shapiro from Ryerson University, he talks about the personal factors Stephen Glass had which was, “under the heading of psychological disability” (Shapiro, 2006). Shapiro also goes in depth about his “compulsively imaginative” mind, explaining how Glass loved to be “admired and loved” but cheats to avoid rejection.

In addition to inventing most of his stories up, Glass also deceived everybody he worked with. Therefore, he made up lies that eventually led to more lies that ruined his reputation as a journalist. When I looked back to the film, I don’t understand why he couldn’t confess about the fabrications or even just tell the truth to his co-workers and editor. According to an article called, “The Great Pretender” by Ann Reilly Dowd, Charles Lane said “his twenty-five-year-old star gave “the most detailed step-by-step account” of where he had sat, and with whom he had spoken…..Friends and colleagues describe Glass as an extraordinarily affable but insecure person who needs constant affirmation.” (Dowd,1998) The first quote relates to when Glass takes Charles Lane to Bethesda, MA for a conference meeting that Glass supposedly covered.  But as the scene played out Lane figured out that Glass lied about the meeting too and tried to cover up his mistakes with letting out his emotion. Generally speaking, I thought if Glass admitted his blunders and apologized for lying, the punishment he received wouldn’t have been so cruel and maybe the opportunity for a second chance.  

If I were in the same situation as Glass, I would probably think about my future and say to myself, do I really want to fabricate a story that I know is worth my job if it ever got out? The fame I receive for fabricated stories wouldn’t feel real unless if it was true.

 

Conclusion

I believe that Glass’ decisions were inexcusable and unforgivable. When I look at myself in the journalism society, the number one lesson I pride myself is never to falsify my work to gain glory. When we look at ethics in journalism, it mainly comes down to professional conduct, morality and the obviously the truth. Stephen Glass failed at all three of these principles and will never be forgiven for what he has done. With all things considered, I have learned that honesty is a huge part of life and possibly the best ethical value in an individual’s future.         

REFERENCES

– Shapiro, I. (2006). Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating. Canadian Journal Of Communication31(1), 261-266.

– Dowd, A. R. (1998). THE GREAT PRETENDER. Columbia Journalism Review37(2), 14-15.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply