Situation Definition
In order to establish one’s self as a respected journalist, it is crucial that a writer remain honest and reliable for not only their audience but also their co-workers and peers. A necessary attribute of a journalist is integrity. Without the truth, the news would just be a collection of stories and journalism would cease to serve a purpose apart from entertainment.
The movie Shattered Glass (2003) follows a young writer, Stephen Glass, who was working for the New Republic during the mid-1990s. Over the course of his journalism career, Glass fabricated stories either in part or entirely for publications like George, Rolling Stone, Harper’s, Policy Review, The New York Times Magazine and, of course, The New Republic. In addition to falsifying pieces and losing credibility with his readership, Glass engaged in mendacious behavior with all of his co-workers and peers, including his paper’s editor, Charles Lane. The combination of Stephen Glass’ unsettling ability to deceive his own peers and his lack of hesitation to dupe his audience for individual satisfaction establish him as a prime example of what a journalist should not be. Integrity and honesty are two pillars of journalism that must be upheld.
Analysis
In a rapidly advancing technological age, journalists like Glass can feel pressure to compete with other news sources for the jump on a piece. Rather than fight for the best coverage of a story, Glass took it upon himself to get creative. In an interview for 60 Minutes in 2003, Glass told reporter Steve Kroft that his lies “…started out with a few made-up details and quotes… then they progressed into stories that were completely fabricated. Just completely made up out of whole cloth” (Leung, 2013).
What can be described as the decline of Stephen Glass’ career encompassed more than just producing fake news for an incredibly reputable newspaper like The New Republic. He was able to expertly manipulate his peers into believing his innocence without hearing the facts. It was as if he was grooming his coworkers into loyal character witnesses. Without knowledge of his past fabrications, coworker and close friend of Glass, Hanna Rosin, immediately came to his defense when his publications were first questioned in 1998.
In her article for The New Republic titled “Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry”, Rosin recounts her relationship with Glass as well as her feelings towards the scandal nearly 16 years after it broke. “People often ask me if I felt “betrayed,” Rosin said, “but really I was deeply unsettled, like I’d woken up in the wrong room. I wondered whether Steve had lied to me about personal things, too. I wondered how, even after he’d been caught, he could bring himself to recruit me to defend him, knowing I’d be risking my job to do so” (Rosin, 2014). For someone in Rosin’s position, it would be extremely difficult not to believe a trusted friend.
It is likely that Glass possessed an overwhelming aspiration for fame or attention and therefore used his platform of journalism to not only excel amongst his coworkers but also establish himself as a desirable writer. Michael Johnson from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics wrote that “few people do something so noteworthy with their lives that it results in a Hollywood feature film” (Johnson, 2013, p. 794-795). One could argue that Glass is merely a victim of a society where it is better to be known for anything than not known at all. For someone to abandon their moral compass and chase fame in this manner, “self-esteem and social acceptance are two factors” (Spurlock, 2016). His need for personal validation overtook his ability to differentiate between right and wrong. For a journalist, this is never acceptable.
As a journalist, it is incumbent to remain honest and provide your audience with reliable news. As a human, there is an unspoken obligation to respect your friends and colleagues enough to avoid cozenage and deception. Even after it was evident that Glass had lied about his piece in question, he continued to stick “…to his lie until the bitter end, going as far as to take his editor to a hotel where Glass insisted he had met with the sources for his Jukt Micronics story” (Johnson, 2013, p. 789). The lengths at which Glass went to lie to his colleagues, as well as his employers, included “…fake notes, fake voicemails, fake faxes, even a fake Web site-whatever it took to deceive his editors, not to mention hundreds of thousands of readers” (Spurlock, 2016). In his efforts to become a star reporter and coveted journalist, there appeared to be no moral limit for Stephen Glass.
Conclusion
Stephen Glass was a journalist in an era without social media, smartphones, and Google. Fact-checkers did not have the readily available resources that journalists and readers have today. Back then, there was little to be questioned when a journalist presented his personal notes as a source. Today, Glass would not have been able to forge the many articles he wrote as every word could be searched in a second. I do not believe Glass would have done what he did or at least been able to carry on the rouse if it were not as easy as it appeared. Glass was able to fabricate 27 out of 41 articles for The New Republic, all of which would not have been published today because they would have been caught before printing. It is understandable that the life of a journalist can be highly stressful and the desire for a byline under a popular story could motivate someone to lose their morals. However, it is not defensible to lie to your friends, coworkers, employers, and audience on the basis of wanting fame.
For journalists to prosper and succeed in their field, it is important to remember that there is no easy path to the top. Stephen Glass’ story has ultimately taught me the significance of dedication and honesty in the field I plan to work in. As a writer, I can sympathize with Glass’ need for validation, however, I now understand that my credibility is everything. His story illuminates a message of morality and why it is never okay to lose your values in order to succeed. Stories are not going to fall into laps and good journalism takes time and serious effort to produce. The consequences of lying for a journalist can not only result in termination but also a tarnished reputation. Without credibility, a journalist has little luck in succeeding.
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), pg 789. Retrieved from: https://heinonline-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geojlege26&id=825&men_tab=srchresults
Leung, R. (2003, May 7). Stephen Glass: I Lied For Esteem. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephen-glass-i-lied-for-esteem-07-05-2003/
Rosin, H. (2014, November 11). Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry. Retrieved from: https://newrepublic.com/article/120145/stephen-glass-new-republic-scandal-still-haunts-his-law-career
Spurlock, J. (2016). Why Journalists Lie: The Troublesome Times for Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Brian Williams. Retrieved from: http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/2028122407?accountid=13158