Billy Ray’s film Shattered Glass dramatizes the scandalous actions of Stephen Glass, a young reporter with the acclaimed political magazine, The New Republic. At the start of the film, Glass is enjoying a successful career with a promising future ahead; his stories are filled with action and intrigue, and he has earned the respect of both his coworkers and his readers. It does not seem as though anything could topple Stephen Glass, until some begin to suspect that his stories may not be all that they seem.
As the film progresses, it is revealed that Glass had presented many works of fiction as acts of journalism. Although his stories had been fact-checked by those at The New Republic, Glass had worked around the system in order to let his stories slip through unquestioned. He manipulated those around him and fooled his readers into believing stories that were entirely untrue. The Stephen Glass case raises many issues regarding ethics in journalism, arguably the two largest of these being that of deception and credibility.
Glass fabricated over half of his stories, crafting people, places, and events that did not exist in order to tell a compelling story. Once he had done this, Glass created fake websites, voicemail boxes, and email addresses in order to convince his coworkers that his sources were real but simply unreachable. His audience and coworkers put their trust in him, and he instead showed them a ruse. Stephen Glass and his actions represents a breach of the values and standards that journalists hold dear.
Fabrication itself is not an action debated among journalists; it is commonly accepted as wrong. However, it is worth examining the reasoning behind the choice to decieve. In an interview with the program 60 Minutes in 2003, Glass claimed that he had “loved the electricity” that came with the success of his pieces. He was excited by the approval he got from others, and wished to continue the trend of “home run” stories (Spurlock 73). Glass did not appear to care about the truth; he wanted as much fame and recognition as he could achieve. Though our textbook states that there is commercial success to be found in journalism, it also specifies that this can only be done by building the credibility of the individual as well as the organization (Foreman 5). Glass’s actions violate both the moral and practical incentive of ethical behavior.
Accuracy and truthfulness are some of the most important aspects of journalism. Journalists are expected to be a credible, grounded source of information, and are trusted to provide it in the correct context. Fabrication and deception represent the polar opposite of these ideals, and Stephen Glass personifies them. When creating fictional pieces instead of reporting on real stories, Glass showed a lack of respect for these ethical principles. He did not seem to adhere to any code of ethics, and he lacked the proper reasoning behind his actions. We have determined in class that winning a prize is not a justification for deception, but it seems as though this is what Glass sought. His prize was popularity, and he deceived his readers and coworkers in order to win it.
In class, we also discussed the importance of considering your audience when deciding to engage in deceit. Journalists must be trusted in order to be successful, and Glass had effectively won his audience’s support with his engaging stories. When presented fabricated pieces, Glass disregarded a major journalistic consensus: never decieve the audience or your colleges. Stephen Glass targeted not only the readers of The New Republic, but The New Republic itself in his con. His coworkers knew they could never trust him again, and therefore will never allow Glass to return to journalism. He lost all sense of credibility and trustworthiness that he may have earned before, and tarnished the image of the publication in the process. However, he is not the first reporter to do so.
In his piece, “A neo-Aristotelian critique of “Jimmy’s World”: New ideas in a long-debated journalism fabrication,” Steve Urbanski analyzes the Janet Cooke case, in which a reporter for The Washington Post wrote a story surrounding an eight-year-old heroin addict. While her story was based partly in fact, most of Cooke’s piece was a fabrication. While Glass has given a verbal explanation for his actions, Cooke has only suggested that a “strict upbrining” and “an overwhelming urge to be a part of the Post’s grand narrative for investigative reporter” may have been behind her choice (Urbanski 2). Much like Stephen Glass’s case, Cooke’s ruse fell apart when other journalists and citizens wanted to follow-up on her story.
When questioned, Cooke was unable to provide any notes or evidence to support her story (Urbaniski 4). Urbaniski notes that “a clear use of pathos on [Cooke’s] part” may have meant that those at The Washington Post did not examine the story as closely (Urbanski 8), and this seems to relate very closely to the Stephen Glass case. Glass was charismatic and charming, and got along with those he worked with. Combined with his credibility, this meant that no one within The New Republic had any reason to question him.
If faced with the challenge of deciding whether or not to decieve, I believe that I would take elements from the Bob Steele checklist into account. If the deception would do more harm that good, or if it is not vital to public interest, then I do not feel that deception for the sake of seeking approval would be the best course of action. I have to wonder if Stephen Glass considered any of these aspects of decision-making when writing his stories, or if he was simply concerned with his own satisfaction.
Finally, we can benefit from considering alternate solutions to the Stephen Glass case. I feel that The New Republic handled the situation very well: they fired Glass, and issued a public apology. This showed that these journalists do in fact value credibility and condemn deception, and will not tolerate those who do not. I believe that another solution would have been to allow Glass to stay with The New Republic, require him to write an apology, strip him of his title, and force him to work his way back up from the bottom. This may have allowed him to redeem himself in the eyes of his coworkers and his audience. However, a possible consequence would be that Glass would not have taken advantage of this chance at redemption, and instead would have continued to deceive.
If I were in Glass’s situation, I believe that I would have confessed to my actions when the thread of lies started to unravel. Rather than continuing to defend myself while knowing I was in the wrong, I would admit to what I had done and ask what I could do to make the situation right. While this would not absolve me by any means, I feel that being forthright would perhaps lessen the severity of the consequences. If I admitted that I created the story instead of providing fake sources, this would at least show that I might have some integrity left, and may result in keeping my job.
I believe that the overarching lesson to be learned from the Stephen Glass case is that your stories do not have to be grand or overly exciting to achieve success. If Glass had used honest practices and journalism skills in his investigating, he would have retrained credibility with the audience and with his coworkers. He very well could have risen to the top by adhering to ethical principles. I feel that it is important to remember that no matter what we are writing about as journalists, accuracy and trustworthiness should always be at the forefront of our minds. Otherwise, we run the risk of not only runining our careers, but our chance at ever being trusted by those around us again.
References:
Foreman, G. (2016). The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
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. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=125698524&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Urbanski, S. (2016). A neo-Aristotelian critique of “Jimmy’s World”: New ideas in a long-debated journalism fabrication. American Communication Journal, 18(1), 1–14. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=116161864&site=ehost-live&scope=site