- Situation Definition
Stephen Glass brings about so many ethical dilemmas and issues as depicted in “Shattered Glass”. For one, Glass’ choice to tell stories that aren’t true, including characters and settings that don’t exist is so ethically wrong. His choice to make all these things up just to give himself the pleasure of feeling successful is inherently selfish.
Secondly, Glass deceives his co-workers, bosses, and the entire public with his stories. This is also very wrong, as Glass is taking advantage of the trust of everyone around him and benefiting from it. While the public has every reason to believe that Glass is a trustworthy and quality journalist, he deceives them all with his lies and inability to see his own wrongdoings.
- Analysis
Stephen Glass was very short-sighted in his actions at the New Republic. He very clearly did not see the harm he was doing with his falsified stories and deception of his peers, he didn’t think it would come back to him in the end. Glass made up the stories because it was easier to do so. He wanted to be a famous journalist and gain the respect of his peers, but he thought that he needed to have by far the most unique and crazy stories in the world. He chose to fabricate the stories because it was the only way he could be sure he would get such great stories, he really didn’t believe in his own ability to succeed and meet his own standards.
Glass wanted to be so well regarded, it seems like he wanted his own little slice in the world of pop culture, which is so very intertwined with the world of journalism. In the book Heroes and Scoundrels, the relationship between the world of popular culture and journalists is examined. It states that “some scholars have argued that hard-and-fast distinctions should not be made between journalism and pop culture; one is integral to the other, and there always has been a hazy line between what constitutes journalism and what constitutes fiction” (Ehrlich 5). Glass crossed that hazy line so blatantly with his coverage for the New Republic, which brings up lots of ethical issues.
Another major ethical issue is that Glass’ actions had repercussions for himself, as he lost his job and was never respected in the industry again. But his choice to fabricate stories as a journalist has negative effects for the rest of the industry. If one journalist can’t be trusted, that brings about many more trust issues for the public when it comes to journalism. It is a journalist’s duty to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and Glass did not live up to that duty. Readers who are exposed to falsified journalism are harmed by it. From the scholarly journal Persistence of Belief Change in the Face of Deception: The Effect of Factual Stories Revealed to Be False, it examines how innocent readers interact with journalism as compared to fiction. It states that “A psychological perspective on persuasion via fiction rejects the literary assumption of a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ and, instead, presumes that readers automatically believe every assertion they read” (Green). With readers assuming that everything they read is true, it makes it that much easier for Glass to deceive them, as they are not suspecting.
Glass received fair punishment for his actions, but it took far too long in my opinion. Glass was so loved by his co-workers that they never questioned any of his stories, and no one ever looked deeper into fact checking his outlandish tales. Even when his editor was very skeptical and pretty much caught him in the act of lying, his co-workers still had his back and vouched for him. It was good that Glass was fired from his job without suspension when it was found out what he did. He was such a pathological liar that he would likely have done it again, and the stakes for the industry of journalism, the public, and the New Republic were far too high to bring him back.
There are a number of different things Glass could have done to avoid this situation. First of all, he never should have fabricated anything and he should have put all the effort he did into making up these stories into actually going out and finding stories on his own. But he admits in the movie that the feeling of everyone liking his work and writing such impressive stories became addictive. Glass was also overworked with his law school classes, which he should not have done if it was causing him to struggle to meet deadlines and write good stories. Fabricating information is not an excuse for being busy and late.
- Conclusion
All in all, Glass really messed up, and it affected far more people than he probably knew. But if I were in the same circumstance, I would send out a very sincere apology for all of the wrong things I had done, and vow to get help on my own to change my behavior. Glass waited a long time to apologize, and it eventually seemed like it wasn’t very sincere and he was just doing it for more public spotlight.
An important lesson to be learned from all this is to always be completely truthful. The journalism industry has no place for lies whatsoever, especially not to this extent. This film showed exactly what can happen to you if you fabricate stories in the professional world. It worked for some time, but in the end it was disastrous.
- References
Green, M. C., & Donahue, J. K. (2011). Persistence of Belief Change in the Face of Deception: The Effect of Factual Stories Revealed to Be False. Media Psychology, 14(3), 312–331. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2011.598050
Ehrlich, M. C., & Saltzman, J. (2015). Heroes and Scoundrels. doi: 10.5406/illinois/9780252039027.001.0001