Week 10 Newswriting

Shattered Glass: The Definition of Fake News

Before being assigned to watch the film “Shattered Glass”, I had never heard of the infamous Stephen Glass. This seems a bit surprising reflecting on how much “fake news” seems to be circulating the media. I am a bit embarrassed that I had never heard of the man who some might say invented fake news before it was called just that. In case you also have no knowledge of this man or need a refresher: here is a bit of background information.

The film begins with Stephen Glass, a growing journalist, at the beginning of the peak of his career. Throughout the movie, you see his writing and popularity among his coworkers and readers expand. Different great stories go by, and Glass’ contacts with huge magazines grow. All of his coworkers strive to write like he does. That is until Penenberg, editor of the online publication of Forbes, finds gaps in his story, Hack Heaven, that just do not add up. 

With exhausting interrogation done by executive editor at Forbes, Foroohar, Peneberg, and Glass’ editor Lane, the story was deemed to be entirely fabricated. From here, Glass was put on suspension for two years, however, Lane did more digging to reveal nearly all of Glass’ stories were either completely or partially fabricated. Glass was then fired. At the end of the film, Glass and his lawyer seem to be in a legal situation with Lane and The New Republic’slawyer. They then begin to go over a list of stories Glass has written, and he is admitting that he had fabricated a great majority of them. 

Overall, I thought this film was well done and accurate. I was very entertained the entire time, and the setting was very fitting. I thought Hayden Christensen did an excellent job at capturing Glass’s charm and slyness. Again, having not known about Stephen Glass or his stories, I decided not to research the scandal before watching the film. What can I say, I don’t like to ruin a good ending. That being said, I thought it was smart to play out the fabricated stories throughout the whole film. Slowly finding out that these stories you have watched happen are actually just playing out in Glass’s head adds to the suspense of the ending. As a viewer, you slowly begin connecting the dots just like Lane did. You are fooled just as much as the staff at The New Republicand Glass’s readers. 

In my opinion, the film did a great job at portraying journalists especially at that time. The setting showed just how competitive journalism is, and what people will do for popularity. Glass wanted people to read his work so badly he got caught up in creating stories that were too good to be true. All of the other writers were striving to create work that people wanted to read. The film also portrayed how competitive each magazine is towards each other. Glass’s mistakes were bigger than himself; The New Republic’s reputation was on the line too. 

I feel as though this translates to journalism in the present. This scandal foreshadowed what journalism can turn into. This line of work has only become more cut-throat. Added competitors, media outlets, and writers has created a bigger world of news. I believe that Glass got carried away with how badly he wanted to succeed, and at times believed his own lies. It is difficult to ignore the fact that this could happen again. With the competitive nature of journalism, you would think that a writer might do anything they could to get their work looked at – and that is ultimately what Glass did. Also, when Lane was uncovering Glass’s secrets, the whole staff was against punishing him. They begged him not get fired, and threatened to quit themselves. Not only did they stick up for Glass because of his charm and insane ability to lie, but they knew his stories were selling; and that’s all that matters, right? What would have happened if Lane would have listened to his staff and let this go? It took until the very last minutes of the movie for the staff to back Lane up. 

After watching this film, I was intrigued to know where Glass is now that his career was ruined at a mere 25. According to the Los Angeles Times, Glass is now a “director of special projects” at a Beverly Hills law firm. However, he was turned down by the Supreme Court to practice as an attorney in California due to him “continuing his deceptions right up through the applications process” – go figure. Stephen Glass has made a fool of himself and I now find his “charm” to be appalling. The public now knows Glass has fabricated 27 of 41 stories in a two year time span (Bissinger, B.). According toCNN Business, he is now suffering the consequences; one of those being a $10,000 check to Harper’s magazine for just one story. 

Although this film seems to create the definition of fake news, the term seems to have gotten lost in the present day of journalism. Fake news is now deemed as content that we don’t agree with. One should look to “Shattered Glass” to remind themselves where fake news started, and how to get back to the real meaning of fake news. 

Works Cited

Ahiza, G., & Mooney, M. (2015, October 16). Notorious journalist Stephen Glass repays magazine for 1998 story. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/media/stephen-glass-money-harpers-magazine/index.html

Bissinger, B. (2018, April 23). Shattered Glass. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/09/bissinger199809

Hiltzik, M. (2015, December 15). Stephen Glass is still retracting his fabricated stories - 18 years later. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-stephen-glass-is-still-retracting-20151215-column.html

Kirtley, J. E. (n.d.). Getting to the Truth: Fake News, Libel Laws, and "Enemies of the American People". Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/getting-to-the-truth/