Stephen Glass is a former American journalist, most known for his fabrication of multiple stories published in The New Republic, during the late 1990s. Over a three-year period, Glass invented sources, quotes, and events in over half of his articles. His rise and fall at The New Republic, is portrayed in the 2003 film “Shattered Glass.” The movie focuses on the final article that unravels Glass’s numerous journalistic lies.
In May 1998, Glass wrote the article “Hack Heaven,” which describes how a supposed 15-year-old hacker, named Ian Restil, infiltrates the computer network of a tech company,“Jukt Micronics.” And according to Glass’ story, instead of reporting him to the police, the company hired the teen hacker as an information security consultant.
Once the story was published a Forbes magazine reporter, Adam Penenberg, researched the article trying to figure out how The New Republic managed to report this, while Forbes had never even heard of Jukt Micronics nor Ian Restil. Over the next days, Penenberg attempted to locate the sources mentioned in Glass’s story, and research the company mentioned. However, with the lack of successful search engine results, and an amateur AOL webpage for “Jukt Micronics,” a supposedly large computer company, Glass’ lies quickly became known. In a matter of days, Glass went from being a prominent journalist for The New Republic, to a notorious liar who had fabricated at least 27 out of the 41 published articles in the magazine. The fictional sources Glass invented as well as the lies he made up to cover his dishonesty shows aspiring reporters, as myself, the repercussions of ignoring the ethics of journalism
As discussed in class, the main two ethical issues this case examines are those of fabrication and integrity. In class, we’re always taught not to plagiarize, but less attention is paid on the fabrication of stories, whilst Glass’ lies show that this is an equal ethical concern. In CBS’ 60 minutes interview, Glass reveals that he fictionalized stories in an attempt to create the perfect story, even if this included lies.“I wanted a story that I thought would be the perfect story. And that the readers would most enjoy to read….. “I loved the electricity of people liking my stories. I loved going to story conference meetings and telling people what my story was going to be, and seeing the room excited. I wanted every story to be a home run.” (Stephen Glass, 2003) These statements, shows how Glass was ready to go above and beyond all to deliver the most dramatized story to attract the greatest amount of readers.
In “Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating,” Ivor Shapiro examines the reasoning behind dishonest journalists like Glass and Jayson Blair. According to Shapiro, “Glass’ stories were rich in the kind of vivid, unattributed details that his colleagues, bosses, and readers loved—details that were too good to be true.” He suggests that there is the possibility that Glass loved the admiration people has for his stories so much that he continued his lies in a desperate attempt to launch his dream job, when ultimately he only damaged this. Shapiro implies that Glass’ desire for pleasing people, made him lose sight of reality. He states that “although normal morality may prevail in private life, unfettered ambition drives decisions involving money or one’s career,” (Shapiro, 2006, p. 264).
No matter, what Glass’ reasoning was at the time, his actions go against every journalistic ethics code presented. The code reads as follows, “ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. And, take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.” (SPJ, 1996)
As a result of Glass’ fabricated stories and his lies, he was ultimately fired, lost his audience’s trust but also shattered the reputation of the The New Republic. After years of dedicated and truthful published articles, Glass and his dishonest reporting quickly tarnished the reputation of the institution. Readers felt betrayed by how Glass reported and by how a prominent institution, such as The New Republic published his fabricated stories, even if they were unaware of the situation. Because for a reader these lies represent the lack of integrity the institution followed in order for these fictional stories to be published. In the reader’s mind, one dishonest journalist and story could easily mean several other fabricated journalists and stories, which in the long term damages the institution’s name, as was the case with The New Republic.
Despite a sincere apology by the entire staff, the integrity it once shared with readers was tainted. In “Ethics: Its all that matters,” David Cuillier, Director of the University of Arizona School of Journalism, writes “If the best journalists in the world lack credibility then they are nothing. All we have is our credibility. We aren’t granted “journalist” status by earning a certain college degree or being issued a government license. We earn it by reporting responsibly.” And, the opposite happens when this “responsible reporting,” is ignored, and lies are being fabricated. Which, as examined doesn’t just harm the journalist writing these lies, it also shatters the relationship between the rest of the institution and the readers due to this lack of integrity.
In conclusion, The New Republic made the right decision by firing Glass and writing an apology to their readers, however I don’t think it fully restored its integrity. Though, the fact the attempt was made played an important factor. As an aspiring journalist myself, I find it difficult to understand why Glass did what he did. He broke multiple important rules of journalism; integrity by creating fabricated stories. Therefore, I think the way Glass’ editor responded to this by firing Glass, was deserved and appropriate. Especially since something so drastic as writing 27 fabricated articles out of 41, makes it difficult to form that trust and integrity again once someone like Glass was dishonest on so many accounts. However, I do think that the way in which Glass worked the system to his benefit is something that will no longer be as easily accomplished in these days of technology, since everything is easily traceable and located on the web. So hopefully the rise of technology, will assure that dishonest journalist will be caught in their web of lies at a much earlier point in their careers.
References
Cullier, D. (2014). Ethics: It’s all that matters. Quill, 102(2), 3.
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating.Canadian Journal Of Communication, 31(1), 260-268.
Society of Professional Journalists. SPJ Code of Ethics. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
60 Minutes [Stephen Glass]. (2003, 5).