The goals of journalism include highlighting current news, informing citizens, and covering recent events. People want to believe that they access interesting and, what is more important, credible material in the local media. In their turn, writers, editors, and other experts create institutions that study the world and decide on the perspectives from which data should be offered. However, there are situations when the quality of journalism can be challenged. Shattered Glass describes the progress of lies and trust in the chosen sphere. Unfortunately, Stephen Glass is not the only reporter who fabricated his stories and provoked scandals. Jack Kelley, Ruth Shalit, and Janet Cooke remind Americans that unreliable journalists work anywhere: USA Today, The Washington Post, or The New Republic. Billy Ray’s movie is an opportunity to see how a person was caught and disclosed of deceit and how the relationships between editors and writers were developed. A variety of editorial standards, editor-writer tensions, and credibility issues through the prism of Shattered Glass reveal the consequences affecting the essence of the journalistic profession and define the relationships between institutions and people.
Evaluating editorial standards is one of the main aspects of Shattered Glass. Stephen worked under two editors, Michael Kelly and Chuck Lane. He explained, “there are good editors, there are bad editors… a great editor defends his writers against anyone… he stands up and fights for you. Michael Kelly was that kind of editor” (Ray, 2003). Still, it is wrong to believe that Chuck was not a great editor because looking at the episodes proves that editorial support varies, depending on people and the situation. When Kelly gets a letter charging Glass for fabricating an article about young conservatives, he trusts his writer and suffers from his manipulation that “hung him” (Ray, 2003). I disagree with Kelly’s approach to checking the evidence by phone, and I would initiate more steps to clarify the situation. Lane’s reaction during the conference call with Forbes and the confrontation with The New Republic’s team seems more professional. He does not make fast conclusions and wants to reveal the truth first. His behavior might encourage future editors to examine situations and divide between the necessity to support writers and the obligation to publish real facts.
Editor-writer tensions may not directly affect the magazine’s reputation, but the atmosphere described in the movie proves that manipulation has its outcomes. It is expected an editor and a journalist cover each other’s backs. Glass was upset that Chuck believed Forbes, saying, “you’re supposed to support me, and you’re taking their word against mine” (Ray, 2003). Chuck underlined that “anyone can make a mistake” and even asked Forbes’s editor not to hurry up as “there’s a kid here who basically just plainly screwed up” (Ray, 2003). It is the line where an editor stops defending a writer who messes up the magazine’s reputation and starts searching for reliable evidence. Following the highest editorial standards is what a professional editor should do to ensure his resource is trustworthy. Glass talked to Kelly and described Chuck as the one who “doesn’t care about any of it,” striving not for high ethical standards but for support (Ray, 2003). Instead of discovering manipulation, Kelly preferred not to notice the facts in the situation with mini-bottles. Chuck turned off his emotions and personal attitudes toward Glass and asked other colleagues to do the same.
The issues of credibility and its consequences should not be discussed through the events described in Shattered Glass only because there are many provocative situations in American journalism. Jack Kelley was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize several times, but he was one of those who fabricated his stories for USA Today for ten years. A thorough investigation of Kelley’s articles defined multiple counterarguments and misunderstandings of the events. The newspaper published apologies and facts to show its regret about the betrayal on the front page. The plagiarism and inaccuracy scandal happened in Ruth Shalit’s career at The New Republic when she tried to disclose racial inequality problems at the workplace. Although after more than 20 years, she justified her reputation, The Atlantic’s defamation affected woman’s opportunities in journalism. Janet Cooke was fired from The Washington Post and returned her Pulitzer after publishing a story of a young heroin addict who had never existed. She was not the best journalist who deserved the award in journalism, but her story could get better recognition in literature.
All these examples of journalist credibility prove that many reporters were able to fabricate their stories similar to Stephen Glass. Some cases were investigated and publicly discussed by editors and other influential stakeholders. Still, people have no idea how many similar situations continue to challenge journalism. It does not take much time to find a story and write about it from the “most attractive” perspective to gain fame and recognition. One should understand that such organizations as The New Republic, USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are not institutions. They cannot work under the highest editorial and writing standards but depend on how ordinary people, namely journalists or editors, interpret all their obligations. Glass, as well as Shalit, Cooke, and Kelley, took advantage of their bad judgments and relied on public trust and their good nature. The movie contributes to a better understanding of the journalism craft and proves that all stories have several perspectives. It is high time to start recognizing the real truth from the one imposed by others.
After watching Shattered Glass, I can definitely say that this movie has changed my perspective on the journalistic profession and helped me better understand the relationships between institutions and people. This story is not only a single case of journalist fraud but an ability to observe how magazine articles are created and introduced to people who expect to learn something new. The list of reporters who followed the same path Glass did in his career is long, and it is hard to reveal all liars in a short period. At the same time, the presence of such editors as Charles Lane gives me hope that my trust in journalism is not in vain. There are many individuals who treat their job properly and try to convince their colleagues to follow the same right principles and high standards. Shattered Glass was created not just to blame one person and destroy his life but to demonstrate how an institution should work to deal with achievements and failures. Instead of being de-motivated and damaged by one mistake, professionals should gather and support each other to restore the reputation and make correct decisions.
In conclusion, I am happy about adding Shattered Glass to my collection. This analysis allows me to examine journalism from several perspectives and learn there are always several sides to be considered in human life. Responsibilities cannot be ignored despite specific editorial standards and beliefs about editor-reporter relationships. When journalists expect to obtain support and understanding from their team, they need to give something fair in return. Glass broke the principles of trust and credibility and paid for his mistake. His story becomes a good example for others of how to respect, cooperate, and check all facts people take for granted.
Reference
Ray, B. (2003). Shattered glass [Film]. Lions Gate Films.