Situation
Shattered Glass tells the shocking true story of former journalist Stephen Glass’ scandal at The New Republic, where 27 of his 41 smash-hit stories were discovered to be partially or fully fabricated. Glass spent years concocting false narratives for his reports until a 1998 Forbes article questioned the validity of Glass’ statements, sparking a thorough investigation into his past work at the magazine.
Stephen Glass’ actions during his time at The New Republic present a fascinating case study into one of the most abhorrent and unethical acts of journalistic misconduct in history. Not only did Glass grossly fabricate a large number of stories, jeopardizing the entire reputation of The New Republic, but he also repeatedly lied to and deceived his trusting colleagues even after getting caught.
Analysis
Stephen Glass’ unethical history of fabrication and lying is a result of one of Glass’ major character flaws: his obsessive desire to be liked and accepted by his peers and supervisors. Foreman (2016) states, “Plagiarism and fabrication tend to be committed by journalists who find themselves under pressure to meet high expectations, either their bosses’ or their own,” (p. 135). In Glass’ case, he felt that fabricating his stories was the only way for his writing to be praised by his colleagues, bosses, and readership of The New Republic. In a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft (2003), Stephen stated, “I loved the electricity of people liking my stories… I wanted every story to be a home run,” (p. 1). Once Glass first succeeded in fabricating a story, that success sparked a never ending chain of lies from which he couldn’t allow himself to escape.
Not only did Glass commit the journalistic sin of fabrication, but he also deceived his coworkers and put the reputation of The New Republic on the line. Even after being accused of fabrication, Glass repeatedly denied the allegations to his trusting colleagues. Shapiro (2006) identifies this time in the Glass scandal as his “turning point,” a time when Glass “failed to measure [his] decisions and actions against [his] mission as a public trust,” (p. 265). As a result of Glass’ persistent lying, the entirety of The New Republic was placed under attack by the media and general public. Carlson (2014), states, “In a complicated way, the legacies of journalistic misconduct envelop not only the individual offender, but also the institutional reaction to their offenses,” (p. 45). Through this entire scandal, Glass was only thinking about himself and how he could save his career through deceiving his colleagues.
Conclusion
I believe that Stephen Glass’ actions against The New Republic can be used as a teaching tool for how to recover and learn from unethical journalism. In the future, I think fact-checking practices need to be taken extremely seriously – even if the journalist is deemed as very trustworthy. I believe that The New Republic was right in firing Glass from his position, as that is the only way to protect the reputation of the magazine in the wake of such a giant scandal. In the end, Stephen Glass’ case shows the importance of staying truthful and honest.
References
Carlson, M. (2014). Gone, but not forgotten. Journalism Studies, 15(1), 33–47.
Foreman, G. (2016). The ethical journalist: Making responsible decisions in the digital age (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kroft, S. (2003, May 7). Stephen Glass: I lied for esteem. CBS’s 60 Minutes. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephen-glass-i-lied-for-esteem-07-05-2003/.
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why they lie: Probing the explanations for journalistic cheating. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31(1), 261–266.
