Situation Definition
The movie Shattered Glass showcases a man in his quest for fame at his job. Stephen Glass was a young, hungry, and gifted writer at a top-notch news magazine, The New Republic. Glass had the ability to write vivid and engaging articles, so much so that he was praised often at his job. When he would speak at the writer’s meetings, his coworkers and editors would hang on his every word, getting lost in the colorful tale he was weaving. He was a favorite with his coworkers and had plenty of friends at his job. They thought that he simply had a knack for finding the most outrageous stories, but unfortunately for them and the readers of The New Republic, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
In short, Stephen Glass was a liar. He partially or completely fabricated 27 of the 41 articles he wrote for the widespread magazine. He wanted to spice up the occasionally humdrum articles about the news, so he took it upon himself to add in his own personal flair. He started small, changing a detail here or there, and when he wasn’t found out by his editors, he went bigger and more grandiose, and eventually began to construct entire fake stories. He knew how to get around the fact-checkers at the magazine, so he continually exploited the system so he could write whatever his imagination could dream up. One of the main ethical issues discussed in the movie is the fact that he willingly lied to the readers, breaching their trust. Another ethical issue is that he continued to lie, with no remorse or worry that he was going to get caught. Glass knowingly used and abused the system for his own personal gain for years, to the point where there was no choice but to fire him. His case presents quite the medley of ethical issues, two of which I will be discussing in detail below.
Analysis
As stated above, Stephen Glass was a young writer who thought he could climb the ranks fastest by fabricating stories to be put in the magazine he worked for. He came up with vivid and outrageous stories, and quickly became renowned as his workplace. Of course, the more popular he became, the more pressure he felt to come up with even more entertaining stories, which is why his lies became more detailed overtime. He would spend hours coming up with fake names, conversations, scenarios, and places, instead of actually going out and finding a true news story. The amount of effort he spent coming up with these stories could have been used to report the news in a legitimate way, but he never saw the need of doing that. He continued to lie and lie for different reasons, and didn’t see an end in sight, until he eventually was caught and forced to confess his dishonesty.
One of the reasons Glass lied was to move up in his job, so he could become one of the top reporters. In the article titled “Why journalists lie: The Troublesome times for Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Brian Williams”, the author Jeffrey Spurlock discusses why people feel the need to lie; “But why do people lie? Self-esteem and social acceptance are two factors. Saltz (2004) observes that liars ‘lie to protect themselves, look good, gain financially or socially and avoid punishment’ (p. 1)” (Spurlock, 2016). Glass was young and hungry to be the best; he wanted to become the top guy and be recognized as a reputable reporter at his magazine by his editors and readers alike. He craved that social acceptance, that need to look good, so much that he took fabricating his stories to the extreme. In his 60 Minutes interview, he described how it “felt electric” knowing that people loved his stories, so he chased that feeling every time he made up a new article.
One reason that journalists are not supposed to lie is because it destroys their credibility. As a journalist, you are supposed to be delivering the truth to your readers, and your integrity and credibility should be of the utmost importance. A stated by Spurlock; “Journalists are typically thought of as being credible men and women who disseminate factual information to curious news consumers” (Spurlock, 2016). Purposely misleading your readers is a complete breach of the readers trust, which is something a journalist should never do. What Glass did, purposely lying to his readers for years, breaks one of the fundamental truths of journalism, and crushes his credibility beyond repair. Even when he started his journey of lying, by changing miniscule details in his stories to make them more exciting, he was already going down the slippery slope of deceiving his readers, making him untrustworthy. As explained eloquently by Spurlock; “Sometimes reporters decide to push the envelope a bit and let the world know of events that actually did not happen without informing the public of their fabrications. It is here where newspaper and magazine readers and broadcast viewers and listeners tend to regard these journalists as less credible and trustworthy.” (Spurlock, 2016), even the smallest of lies lead the readers to deem you as untrustworthy, which jeopardizes your career and the publication where you spread your lies. Glass broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism, which is to always tell the truth, which is why him knowingly deceiving his readers is such a major ethical issue presented in the film.
Another ethical issue brought up in the movie was that he felt little remorse for lying to his editors, coworkers, and readers. When confronted by his lies, he continued to lie more, creating more fake conversations and reasoning behind the stories. Even when he eventually somewhat admitted his faults, he never truly apologized, only blamed other circumstances as the reason he had to lie, such as being so busy with his classes. The journal article titled “Sackcloth and Ashes: Stephen Glass and the Good Moral Character Requirement’s Problem with Remorse” by Michael Johnson dives deeper into how little remorse Glass had for his actions. Johnson writes about applying for the bar, and he states; “When an applicant’s good moral character is called into question, a court analyzes the past actions of the applicant as a proxy for intrinsic moral qualities… Though time since the conduct and the severity of the original crime are easy enough to organize and analyze, the question of remorse has caused great confusion and produced inconsistent and unhelpful judgments. Stephen Glass represents the type of person who loses because of the ambiguity of the remorse inquiry” (Johnson, 2013). Johnson explains that one qualification for being a good applicant for the bar is to have a good moral compass, something that clearly has to be questioned in Glass. Though the question of remorse is obviously vague, there is no denying how little remorse Glass felt about fabricating his stories, as he did it for years and only truly apologized for it when he was featured on a television show. If having no remorse was enough of an ethical issue for Glass to be denied from taking the bar in California (though he made an appeal), it is clearly an ethical issue big enough to be discussed further, as it has in multiple scholarly articles and publications.
What Glass did was horrible and raises serious ethical issues, even if he didn’t do it with malicious intentions. He wanted to badly to be socially accepted and become a renowned reporter at his magazine that he thought it would be easier to fabricate every story than to put in the work to make the real news enticing to the reader. The fact that he had so little remorse for his purposeful deceit of his readers and coworkers show that his moral character rightfully has to be questioned. If I was faced with a similar challenge of wanting so badly to move up in my workplace, I know for a fact I wouldn’t go to his extent of lying. I am far to worrisome of a person to lie to that extent and not be afraid of getting caught. Nonetheless, I am not a perfect person, so I can fully understand the temptation of wanting to spice up the news. I could never go as far as to say I would never change a little detail of an article I had written to make it more exciting to the reader, but I can say confidently that I would not fully fabricate an article, with notes and emails and voicemails to match. Stephen Glass took manufacturing the news to a new level, a level that I am sure will not be matched in this modern age of journalism, and the ethical issued risen in his case are ones that deserve to be analyzed, so we can teach young journalists the rights and wrongs of reporting.
Conclusion
My solution to avoiding a situation like Stephen Glass’ fabrication of the news is to create an environment that lends itself to be a safe, collaborative place where people can advance. One of his reasons for concocting his articles was to move up in his workplace, something he must have thought would be hard to do. He was clearly in a stressful environment, so if the editors at magazines or newspapers or any print journalism outlet create an atmosphere where writers have the ability to advance, journalists wouldn’t feel obligated to create such outlandish stories just to capture the attention of their superiors. But, if I was an editor who discovered the depth of Stephen Glass’ lies, I would have done the same thing and fired him on the spot. Clearly someone who has knowingly fabricated over half of the stories they have written for the magazine is someone who has shaky moral character and can’t be trusted, and certainly isn’t somebody I would want to work for me. Their solution to that dilemma of what to do when Glass is exposed, to fire him and apologize to the readers, is one I wholeheartedly agreed with, and I am glad that the editors and writers had the courage to do such a difficult thing.
There is a medley of lessons I learned from this movie and learning more about the Stephen Glass case. I have learned that no matter what temptations get in my way, telling the truth is always the right thing to do, because the lie will be exposed eventually. My dad always says to me, “what is done in the dark will come to the light”, and that is one rule that I have continued to live my life by. I have also learned that shortcuts are never the answer to get ahead in life; if you work hard, take your time, and are passionate about what you do, you will eventually reach the goal you are aiming for. One last lesson I learned is to continue having a strong moral compass, and to never let anything shake that. Stephen Glass, at his core, was a people pleaser, and would have done anything to please the masses (the masses being his editors and readers). He clearly didn’t have a strong moral compass, which is the reason he got into all of the trouble he did. If I continue holding strong to my core values and beliefs, I will go far in life, and will (hopefully) never face a dilemma at the magnitude of what Glass had to face. Telling the truth, not taking shortcuts, and having a strong moral compass are all important lessons to learn and rules to follow, and I am happy to have re-affirmed such values while discussing a movie and case as fascinating as this. Stephen Glass might have put himself in a terrible situation by continually lying to his coworkers and magazine readers, placing his integrity into jeopardy, but I am confident that by following these lessons and core values, I never will be.
References
Johnson, M. (2013). Sackcloth and ashes: Stephen glass and the good moral character requirement’s problem with remorse. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 26(4), 789-804.
Spurlock, J. (2016). Why Journalists Lie: The Troublesome Times for Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Brian Williams. Et Cetera, 73(1), 71-76. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/2028122407?accountid=13158