Journalism and Picking up the Glass

"Shattered Glass" (2003)

We’ve established in my previous entries about “The Paper” (1994) that Journalism isn’t as glamorous as Hollywood makes it out to be. The tasks of finding news, writing, editing and fact-checking are grueling and painstaking, but they are also necessary. Journalists uphold a duty to inform and to remain unbiased in their stories, because these are the same stories that will be consumed and believed by thousands and millions of people.

This is exactly why it’s important for journalists to uphold their ethical integrity. The people trust the press, and the press has the burden and privilege to maintain that public trust. However in light of a new generation of digitization and globalization, it’s become more and more difficult to keep the readers’ attention, which is why sometimes writers look to “over-sensationalize” or even outright make up their stories.

This is the topic in the 2003 film “Shattering Glass,” in which a popular and well-loved writer gets caught fabricating his stories for “The New Republic.: The movie deals heavily with what someone can do and get away with in a news organization. Overall the film presents what can happen when editors and staffers allow personal connections to cloud their judgment.

Stephen Glass, the main character, is almost a fixture in the organization. He got himself a long way through flattery and kindness. His lovable nature was no stranger to his previous editor, Michael Kelly, and the rest of his co-workers. However, when Kelly gets replaced by Charles Lane, the organization shifts and almost turns their back on their new leader.

It’s obvious here that relationships between editors and staffers play a role in the production of a story, Glass admitted that once Lane was Editor, his job started feeling like a job. It’s important for any field that co-workers keep a professional attitude towards each other. This is Glass’ first mistake: thinking that his Editor should always be on his side. This shouldn’t necessarily be the case, because the editor should always side with the truth and not individual entities.

Lane’s investigation of Glass’ article also led him to be antagonized by his own staff. He wasn’t the most popular character, especially after Kelly’s departure, but he was even more disliked after ‘badgering’ Glass. This is a good example of how an editor’s leniency can make or break a paper, and reiterates the role of the job in a good publication. Kelly was well-loved, but he also sided too often with his own staff. Although small, Glass’ mistake with his article on the ‘conservative convention’ shouldn’t have been overlooked at all. If tiny mistakes can pass through a prestigious paper, then it ups the chance that bigger flaws will be found. Meanwhile, Lane was disliked but he knew when and when not to appeal for his staff. When one of Lane’s higher-ups recommended that they merely suspend Glass, Lane kept his foot down; eventually firing the reporter after finding fabrication after fabrication. A good editor therefore has boundaries, and protects journalistic integrity over personalistic politics.

It’s also worth noting that Glass played to the affection and pity of his co-workers so that they side with him. He not only found loopholes in the fact checking systems, but also in the organization. He knew exactly what to say to antagonize Lane, and he knew exactly how to act to be pitied. When he asks “Are you mad at me?” it isn’t a genuine inquiry, but rather an act of innocence. He perhaps figured that as long as he doesn’t get caught, he could keep doing it. It’s inexcusable as an isolated incident, but even more offensive as a chronic occurrence.

The issue with journalism and money always become a main conflict in fiction and even in real life. After all, it’s difficult to keep a paper afloat when nobody reads it. But no writer, editor or news organization should ever find the excuse to fabricate stories. News doesn’t always have to be interesting; however it always has to be factual. Editorial conferences exist so that the biggest story is always up front, and investigative journalists work to get scoops and insider info. Real life can be more than interesting because news happens every second.

There’s no excuse to committing any of the deadly sins of journalism ethics, and there’s even less of a reason for any writer that does to continue being a journalist. We all understand what we are signing up for when we decide to enter the field, and we all know what is at stake when we publish an article. Journalism may not be glamorous, but it’s not a job just anyone can do.