Blog 2- “Shattered Glass…” by Andrew Mollenauer
In analyzing “Shattered Glass” as its own isolated case and through the lens of our course lectures, two primary issues that emerge relating to media ethics are perceived ambiguity as to what constitutes plagiarism, and attributing dishonesty to benign external factors such as the pressures of stress and time constraints.
Because Stephen Glass was guilty specifically of fabrication, a context in which intent is clear, the issues of supposed misunderstanding and being under pressure begin to lose their footing as genuine mistakes. In citing the latter factor as justification for his offenses, Glass’ character in the film illustrated what seems to be a common ethical dilemma in journalism, which I would describe as minimizing dishonesty in a profession that is particularly relied on to be truthful.
Keeping in mind Glass’ case in particular, I think that journalists who plead ignorance or reference the stressful nature of their job when confronted about dishonesty are oftentimes only sorry because they were caught. In other words, I believe that Glass did what he did because he was of the mindset that his actions would go unnoticed simply because of his charismatic presence and personal brand. His subsequent excuse of being under pressure, then, seems like a way to cover himself as an individual consistent with how others saw him and perhaps even how he had still seen himself. This example of the tendency to try to justify instead of take responsibility for a serious offense illustrates a mindset that dishonesty can be either completely or in part a somehow unintended outcome of panic and occupational pressure.
In their scholarly journal piece titled “Forgive Me Now, Fire Me Later: Mass Communication Students’ Ethics Gap Concerning School and Journalism,” Mike Conway and Jacob Groshek explain that much of this can be attributed to a lack of emphasis on the parts of colleges and universities, as they say “While higher education has increased the visibility of ethical issues through mentions in syllabi, student codes of conduct, and other approaches, the message is still somewhat opaque” (Conway & Groshek). With this in mind, it stands to reason that ignorance can be a factor in plagiarism, but it still doesn’t make it a valid excuse.
The biggest ethical issue at stake here is that dishonesty in journalism, specifically fabrication in Glass’ case, is detrimental to readers even if it were to be somehow unintentional. Such a scenario illustrates how whether a journalist’s intentions are positive is unimportant in the first place, as the outcome is harmful regardless.
For me as a student and future member of the workforce, I would take from this, moving forward, that the best solution when in a situation where pressure and stress make it easy to panic would be to be transparent and settle for a worst-case scenario of not achieving the outcome I want for a story, as opposed to acting dishonestly even if it meant seeing the desired outcome.
References
Conway , M., & Groshek, J. (2009, October). Forgive Me Now, Fire Me Later: Mass Communication Students’ Ethics Gap Concerning School and Journalism. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=70c9bcfd-3c01-44a4-a64e-84cba94cd46d%40sessionmgr101