Situation
In Shattered Glass, reporter Stephen Glass deceives the readership and the editorial staff of The New Republic magazine. Based on a real-life story, Glass is caught making up quotes, people, locations, and entire stories. He is fired in disgrace, but not before severely damaging the reputation of the entire journalism industry.
Analysis
Glass is guilty of two journalistic sins: fabrication and lying to his editors. The fabrication of story details is abhorrent. Passing off anything other than verifiable information as fact to readers is morally wrong. Steven Glass made up stories because he enjoyed the attention he received from colleagues and readers. He even increased the popularity of The New Republic with his vivid pieces that no one else seemed to come across. But the stories didn’t exist, and he deliberately misleads the public.
“The image of the journalist as upstanding professional and devoted truth-seeker has often been undercut by journalists themselves,” argues Matthew C. Ehrlich in “Shattered Glass, Movies, and the Free Press Myth” (Ehrlich, 2005, p. 105). Ehrlich cited cases of Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Jack Kelley, and Glass to prove the devastating impact fabricators have on the entire journalism industry, not just themselves. Journalists have the power to give and take away meaning from their title, as evidenced by Glass. According to Ehrlich, some “saw the problem [of fabricating] as extending beyond Glass and The New Republic” (Ehrlich, 2005, p. 108).
Glass committed the additional sin of lying to his co-workers and editors. When accused of inventing the story “Hack Heaven,” he doubles down to editor Charles Lane, lying about the availability of sources, meeting locations, and even painting himself as the victim of a “duping.” When Lane turned on him, Glass reached out to colleagues, trying to portray Lane as the villain who just wanted to get back at him for supporting previous editor Michael Kelly. As if the initial fabrication wasn’t bad enough, lying to The New Republic staff was as equally immoral.
Glass lied because he wanted to be liked. According to Jefferson Spurlock, “Glass was an instant hit with his readers as well his fellow reporters” because of the sensational material he produced (Spurlock, 2016, p. 73). Glass confirmed his motivations in the interview he did for 60 Minutes. When his lies caught up with him, he sought to salvage his reputation. However, instead of coming clean, he dug his own hole deeper. Glass also violated the golden rule, treating others how one would expect to be treated by them. Instead of giving his co-workers the respect they deserved by telling them the truth, he treated them like they were unintelligent fools who couldn’t match his own abilities.
Conclusion
To avoid a similar fate to Stephen Glass, one has to avoid fabrication entirely. There is no Aristotle’s Golden Mean when it comes to fabrication. If even one detail is made up, readers will begin to question everything you write, and everything written by your employer. However, if faced with the consequences of fabrication, owning up to it is key. Depending on the severity of the fabrication, a journalistic career can be salvaged, but it starts with an admission of guilt and an apology (see: Brian Williams).
References
Ehrlich, M. C. (2005). Shattered Glass, Movies, and the Free Press Myth. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29(2), 103–118. https://doiorg.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1177/0196859904272741
SPURLOCK, J. (2016). Why Journalists Lie: The Troublesome Times for Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Brian Williams. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 73(1), 71–76.