The first problem I would like to discuss with the Stephen Glass case is the most obvious one – his fabrication on his pieces that led to his eventual demise. The New Republic claimed that 27 of the 41 pieces he wrote for the magazine contained fabricated material and he was exposed for his piece, “Hack Heaven”, on how Ian Restil, the 15-year-old prodigy hacker, hacked Jukt Micronics.
The second problem would be his pathological lying and exploitations toward his colleagues. Of course, I do not think it is fair for him to do that to anyone, but it is worse for him to be manipulative toward the people that trusted him and truly believed he was a good person based on their daily interactions. The movie did a really good job accentuating the manipulation by emphasizing his antics at work, most evidently with the repeated scenes where he pitched his story and said, “but I don’t know if it’s good enough.”
I understand more on why he fabricated his stories more so than the pathological lying and exploitation, partly because I am not a pathological liar. Most people have been in his situation, less dire maybe, but still understanding of his life as it was.
The main reason for him to fabricate his sources, among other things, for his articles is his frantic schedule. He was an up-and-comer in one of the more prestigious magazines and on top of that, he had a side degree he was pursuing. The perception in the writers’ world is generally that it is a cut-throat industry and you have to keep up the quality of your production for your career to last and progress up the ranks. By fabricating sources, he did not need to be on the scene and that saved him time in life.
Jefferson Spurlock in “Why Journalists Lie: The Troublesome Times for Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Brian Williams etc.” attempted to give us some insight. “But why do people lie? Self-esteem and social acceptance are two factors.” (72) He also quoted Saltz in saying liars “lie to protect themselves, look good, gain financially or socially and avoid punishment.” (73) He also cited the 60 Minutes interview, mentioning Glass “loved the electricity of people liking my stories,” “loved going to story conference meeting and telling people what my story was going to be, and seeing the room excited.” (73)
However, the problem would be that he lost all of his integrity and reputation in one huge scandal when he couldn’t uphold his house of cards of lies anymore. His reputation is so tainted that even after he graduated from law school, barely any companies would hire him because of his track record. On top of that, it was more evident that he cost The New Republic. He has built relationships with all of the staffers there, and some even fiercely defended him when he initially got caught. I could not imagine the disappointment they would have had on him. The magazine also took a huge toll on its reputation. The other problem would be that as entertaining as his stories were, the audience and readers deserve to know the truth no matter what, and he stripped their right to that.
The pathological lying part was more troubling for sure because it pointed toward some kind of moral defect on Glass’s part. The simplest explanation I can give for his actions is he wants to cover-up. With his history of producing pieces like this, specifically 27 of them, there is no doubt that he will feel good about his ability to keep things under wraps and continue what he was doing as it has served him well all along. He got complacent and probably thought he can get away with anything.
The other possible reason has something to do with his colleagues. In The New Republic, he was portrayed as this sweet person who cares about his co-workers and give them extra care. It could be seen from his constant attention toward the receptionist and the party scene, where he specifically saved cold beers for Amy. The biggest victim of his actions, though, has to be Caitlin Avey, who lent a shoulder for him to cry on and defended him until the very last second when Chuck Lane fired him. I think his treatment toward his co-workers is borderline creepy, but they certainly liked the feeling of being cared for. After gaining their trust, he could use them as a support system to fight against Chuck. One of the scenes that illustrated the rationale was when Chuck asked to speak with him privately and he insisted to have the conversation in the room with the likes of Caitlin and Amy, but was ultimately forced to obey commands from his boss.
In “Sensemaking and Relational Consequences of Peer Co-worker Deception” by Erin M. Bryant and Patricia M. Sias, they looked into co-worker deception from the angle of the deceived. It was a research conducted on 58 counts of co-worker deception and included various narratives, such as “outright lies” and “concealment, omission, back-stabbing…” (121). One significant reason that resonated with the Glass case is that there was systemic company flaws for co-workers’ deceptive behavior. Michael Kelly was at fault for a bit because of his trust toward the people-pleasing Glass, among the company not having a foolproof checking system and the editors like Caitlin were influenced by him.
Another point mentioned in this article also coincides with both of Glass’s problems. It was mentioned as the CYA (cover your ass) narrative. Glass certainly gets the high from his pieces being “electric”, but the CYA narrative also existed in his rationale. “In general, participants described CYA deception as a ‘natural’ coping response to a difficult situation. As such, sensemaking focused on the circumstances that ‘forced’ a co-worker to misrepresent the truth despite a lack of malice.” Glass might be pathological, but the malice part certainly lacked. This narrative suited him as he was a budding journalist in a tough industry with other things in life to tend to, and he decided to take the lazy way to conduct his writing.
The biggest problem with this is the morality challenges of such actions. I understand he had some psychological problems for sure, and it was admitted by him subsequently as he went through therapy after the incident. However, this level of pure manipulation is definitely premeditated, and this type of behavior is neither acceptable nor explicable to the normal person.
In conclusion, I certainly hope no one would end up in such situations anywhere in their careers, but I do think there are some counters to the problems someone like Stephen Glass presented in his case. For the fabricated information, the editors must conduct rigorous checking, especially in enterprise pieces like those Glass did. In this generation of technology, this will definitely be easier as there will be some form of documentation for almost every event there is on planet Earth it seems. Another check for that could be the forceful source reveal. Precautions could include mandatory taping and double or even triple-confirming with the sources before the piece goes out.
As for co-worker deception, though, the best way is to simply make sure work is work and keep it strictly professional. It was how the likes of Michael Kelly, his superior and Caitlin Avey, his colleague fell into the trap and assumed his innocence.
References
Bryant, E. M., & Sias, P. M. (2011). Sensemaking and Relational Consequences of Peer Co-worker Deception. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 115-137. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.542473
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.