Here is a photo of the real Stephen Glass. After he was fired from The New Republic, Glass went on to receive a law degree from Georgetown University. He then moved to New York City, where it is believed he is a paralegal. After his departure from the magazine, Glass stayed away from the journalism community. In 2003, he published an "auto-biography" titled, The Fabulist, which recounted his scandal.
Today we will be finishing up the movie, Shattered Glass. Since each class has reached a different point in the movie, we will all begin an activity tomorrow. Today, after the movie, you will write (or type) a 250-word response, in which you will answer the following...
-What were your initial reactions to the movie?
-Which elements of the Code of Ethics were present? Which were broken? What ethical decisions had to be made? Explain.
-What would you have done if you were Chuck Lane (the editor)?
-Why is it important to have a Code of Ethics?
Turn these into me by the end of class.
Happy Wednesday!
The journalism code of ethics says to report facts, and only facts. They had to swear and oath to heed this code, and Stephen Glass failed miserably.
ReplyDeleteFabricated 27 of the 41 stories he wrote. I feel that after watching the film glass must have been a skitzo. The way he completely lied and lied and lied and lied again made him a wonderful character, but also made me question the pieces I read that he DIDN’t write. The code of ethics is put in place to help journalists to keep true to what they’re trying to say, and if you agreed to those code of ethics, there is no reason for anyone else to assume that you would break them. Chuck made the absolute right decision, and really I feel he should have come to the conclusion sooner.
My initial reaction to the movie is shock. It makes me wonder more about whether the articles that are put in magazines and newspapers today are fabricated, or if there is someone like Stephen Glass today. He is a compulsive liar apparently, and they should have been realized that he was a phony when he always gave them excuses for everything. All of the elements of the code of ethics were broken throughout the course of the movie. The main part of the code of ethics that was broken though is the seek truth and report it part, because the articles were basically lies that he made up. The decision to recheck Stephens work and to ultimately fire him are ethical decisions that had to be made in the end. They had to be made because his sources never responded and he always had excuses when it was time for his work to be checked. The lies he told could have caused the collapse of the magazine, therefore him being fired was necessary. If I were Chuck Lane, I would have done the same thing, except i wouldn't have tried to just suspend him the first time to keep the other writers. There are always writers who want to be paid for their work. Stephen Glass acted irresponsibly and deserved to be fired. It is important to have the code of ethics so that people will get the respect they need, people won't print false things like Stephen, and so that boundaries will be set for journalists to follow to make sure everything runs smoothly.
ReplyDeleteGlass broke every basic section of the Code of Ethic (Seeking truth, minimizing harm, acting independently, being accountable). He fabricated entire stories, people, places, phone numbers (also getting his brother involved), and other records, trying to work through a hole in the system. As the editor, I would have fired Glass just the same. Halfway through the film, I didn't think that it was such a big deal, and the movie still sold the events just as well as a murder story. By the end, though, I did feel less and less sympathy for Glass, even when we saw that he was borderline crazy. The code of ethics is important simply because it keeps what’s being published as fact actual fact. Without it, readers would not be able to distinguish between what’s really going on in the world from fiction, which can be joyously entertaining, but informatively useless. Having said all this, what Glass did still isn’t murder.
ReplyDeleteJack DS
Shanay Baxter
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the movie is that I never really thought about how easily it would be for a journalist to lie about the things they write, without getting caught in the act.This film was interesting to watch because all of the lies Stephen tole were revealed in the end. Through out the entire movie he lied compulsively about everything, which made it hard to believe anything he said after the truth about his writing was out. All of the Codes of Ethnic were broken because he lied to the public and everyone he worked with about the stories in which he made up and posed as truth. There were no sources to his "facts", and he used his brothers address as if he were a source of for the article. There was no truth to his stories what so ever. If i were Chuck Lane I would have done the same thing, and fired him for all of the lies he created just to entertain everyone instead of stating facts that could have been found. Stephen lied about everything, and it was disrespectful for him to lie in his face as if nothing was wrong about what he was doing. It is important to have a Code of Ethnic so that every journalist has the same rules and regulations to follow. The truth should always come first in a journalist stories especially if the story is being distributed to the public.
Willie Jones III
ReplyDeleteThe movie was good, but it made me react surprised because I didn't think that the guy was lying about all his articles. LIke it would be a shame if a journalist group had this Happen to them. I can only imagine what hard work it would take to over come this down fall to their program. The movie didn't used any code of ethics the reporter stephen glass violated all of the rules with his actions. He didn't used truth at all, he wasn't accountable for anything he did. Lied multiple times even when caught in one lie lied about others. he wasn't worthy at all. If i was Chuck Lane i would have fired that guy because he lied a lot and lied so much I wouldn't be able to trust anything out of his mouth at all. It is important to have a code of ethic because the journalist need guided lines to direct them to create articles of truth and not put forth fraud and think its ok to do it.
when the movie started my first thoughts were that this movies is somewhat boring & really didn't catch my attention, but as the movies continued it really suprised me how steven really wrote these lies and actually went out his way to make others do so. as a writer your never supposed to lie or make up any story so that his could be colorful,and by steven doing that he broke a lot of peoples trust and shamed his company. personally if i were in chucks shoes it wouldn't have got that far since , i am a strong believer of pictures. but i feel as though he made the right choices and handled it very well.thats why its important to have a code of ethics to keep the writters in line and prevent things like this from happening
ReplyDeleteThis movie was both shocking and eye opening. Glass swore to an oath that he would write only facts, and did the complete opposite of the code of ethics. To write one fictional story is one thing, but to do it for half of your career is outrageous. He got by so many times with fake stories, because they only checked his notes, and it was his word against theirs. To think that he got away with it that many times is mind blowing, and if i was in chuck's shoes i would have fired him as well.
ReplyDeleteI really dislike the actor who plays Stephen, but I will say this is his best performance. I thought the film was put together well. They made Stephen seem like a crazy person, which I don't think he was or is. Stephen broke basically all the code of ethics, he made up sources, and lied his way through a story. I would have done the same thing if I were Chuck Lane. It is important because if there wasn't, people wouldn't know what in the press was factual or lies.
ReplyDeleteWhen the scandal first began to be uncovered in the movie, I wasn't too surprised about it. But as it kept getting deeper and Glass dove more into denial, I couldn't believe what was going on. The fact that it was a true story made it even more compelling. I also thought it was ridiculous that he assumed the public was dumb enough to fall for the lies.
ReplyDeleteThe main code of ethics that was broken was "Seek Truth and Report It", which is self-explanitory. Instead of seeking truth, Glass made assumptions along with completely fabricating his own fantasies.
The thing that made Glass such a likable character in the beginning of the movie was his respect for his colleagues (minimizing harm). Because of this, the scandal seemed even more shocking.
Under the "Act Independently" code, it is said that journalists should have interest in the "public's right to know". In this case, that was the last thing on Glass' mind.
I would have done the same as Chuck Lane, but I may have not given Glass as many chances. Lane really tried to help Glass to get the facts straight by going to the specific places mentioned in the piece and trying to contact the subjects. I would have fired Glass much sooner to prove a point to the other employees/magazines.
It's important to have a code of ethics for this exact reason. Us readers rely on journalists to give us unbiased, factual information. A set of rules can only make their work more reliable.
Initial reaction was how could someone get away with something like that long ? Where did he end up after he got caught with this scandal ? Obviously his lies caught up with him eventually but it still boggles me how he wrote 27 false articles. Obviously the code of ethics in which it tells journalists to seek the truth and be honest about it was broken- big time. He did treat his colleagues with respect though and acted independently when he wrote. Lastly, he also broke the rule of being accountable for his actions when he provided false information to his readers in his articles.
ReplyDeleteIf I was Chuck, I think I would have done the same as he because he was motivated in what he believed in and not only was he looking out for himself, but for the entire staff and magazine.
It's important to have a code of ethics so that events like this would not happen again and give journalists a guideline to live their careers by.
My initial action was confusion. I was left wondering if he was just a liar and knew it or if he truly believed his own stories. I noticed his first violation of the SPJ Code of Ethics when his editor questioned him about the Conservative convention. Glass said that the Republican delegates at the convention had mini bars in their hotel rooms and that they were drinking and smoking pot on the 5th floor. His editor found out that there were no mini bars in the room at that hotel and that guests could not rent anything like that from the hotel. He violated thefirst ethic about finding the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great movie, way beyond interesting!! It showed how valued the concept of TRUTH is in journalisim and its writings. As far as the movie and the charachter Steven goes, i didn't neccesarily realize that he was lying at first. It took me until the second time he was questioned to get it. Although, one i did get it i could not seem to understand why he would lie. THen i remembered the idea was to get his name in print , and if that meant lying to take his carreer to the next level, then that is what needed to be done. Hence, his ficticious stories, magazine after magazine. I personally believe that what he was doing was wrong. IF you need to fabricate stories to get to where you want to be, it won't matter as much. In other words it won't be nor feel as fufiling as it would of he had taken the time to get and write true facts, thus writing real stories. If, I was Chucjk i believe i would have fired him as well. It's like if you lie once , ok shame on you. Lie twice , and i let you get away with it , shame on me. Trust plays a major part in Journalisim and industries/ companies such as this. Therefore , if you lie continuously , you have created a bad relationship between that person and yourself. This then leaving them with no trust in you. As, steven did with chuck and several others throughout the movie. Overall, it was a great movie, and i love the positive credits at the end of the movie about how ghe went on to write a book, enabling people to know the real truth.
ReplyDeleteJasmine France--
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a good movie. it was very interesting and funny. i was shocked to find out that all his stories were fabricated. it was actually pretty sad that he did such a thing because Stephen Glass seemed like a pretty good writer and he probably could have had a great career as a journalist. the elements of the code of ethics that were present were the fact that the journalists of the New Republic minimized harm and acted independently. Stephen Glass did not seek the truth and report it and he was not accountable. the only ethical decisions that could be made were to publicly apologize to the readers and give the perpetrator consequences, in this case firing Stephen. i would have done the same thing as the editor. i think he made the mature decision to protect the name of the New Republic. a code of ethics is important to make sure that the things we read in the media are true and written with integrity.
The movie Shattered Glass presented many things to think about during every scene. It felt like it was hard to trust the main character, Stephen Glass, if he was telling truth or not. The same thing applies to the editor, Chuck Lane, because he was presented as the antagonist. However, in the end, Lane looked like he was the hero of the New Republic magazine company, while making Stephen look like the antagonistic fraud, which he was. Every ethic of journalism was presented the characters, but in the end Stephen actually broke all those rules by plainly making up stories and telling lies to his fellow reporters and the people. It's important to have a Code of Ethics because it's supposed to keep order when articles are being created, and to keep telling the truth to the public.
ReplyDeleteI was absent the first day we watched the movie, so my initial reaction to the movie was confusion. It took me a little while to figure out what exactly was going on. Once I caught on I found it really interesting. It amazes me how someone could have made up so many of his or her stories without anyone finding out. Stephen Glass broke many of the rules in the Code of Ethics by doing this. By fabricating his stories, he didn't "seek truth and report it". This broke the respect that his colleagues deserved by discrediting the magazine he wrote for. He also wasn't accountable to his readers, listeners, and viewers by giving them false information. If I were the editor I probably would have done the same thing that Chuck Lane did. What Stephen Glass did was wrong and the magazine was held accountable for it. It’s important to have a Code of Ethics so that the public doesn’t receive false information that they believed was true. No one likes being lied to.
ReplyDeleteI found the movie very interesting and thought provoking. The idea of a journalist fabricating most of his stories is quite disturbing for a reader because it means that what you're reading is completely a falsehood. Stephen Glass broke many of the rules outlined in the code of ethics. He definitely did not seek truth and report it. Even when he was asked to state whether his articles had relevant information he kept silent, meaning he recognized most of what he had written for the journal was false. He also broke the rule of being accountable. Spreading all that falsehood shows he was not being accountable to not only his fellow reporters but also the thousands of readers who loved his stories. As the movie progressed I started to sympathize with his situation because he was so distraught in explaining to Chuck Lane how he found his information. But when the scene where Chuck Lane found that most, if not all, of Glass’s articles were false that sympathy vanished. If I were Chuck Lane I definitely would have fired Steven if I had discovered all the fabrication and lies Glass spread.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the movie was surprised. Stephen glass kept this lie up for a while and lied in many articles. If I were Chuck Lane I would of just fired him without hesitation. He would have been out of the office that day because he lied in 27 out of his 41 articles. I wouldn’t be able to trust him at all. All of the code of ethics were broken. He was making things up as he went on. He made websites, magazines, quotes and everything.
ReplyDeleteWhat were your initial reactions to the movie?
ReplyDeleteI was at first unsure if Stephen Glass really was lying. Once it came clear that his writings indeed were fictional I then was startled by the ability of Glass to get past all the editors and fact checkers- that takes skill.
Once he got caught though I was disgusted by his need to keep himself in the clear, and keep trying to cover his lies instead of admitting to his faults. Glass should have written for a fictional group if he really wanted to write in this way, though perhaps his fan club would not have grown so large if he had done this.
-Which elements of the Code of Ethics were present? Which were broken? What ethical decisions had to be made? Explain.
Glass broke every journalist code of ethics in the book. He had to make the decision to lie to his coworkers and the public in his fictional writings, passing them as real.
The boss, Chuck Lane also had to make ethical choices in firing Glass from the company.
-What would you have done if you were Chuck Lane (the editor)?
I would have done the same exact thing that Chuck Lane did and fire Glass. It was right for Glass to have to be accountable for his unethical choices, despite the negativity from other workers that Lane was greeted with.
-Why is it important to have a Code of Ethics?
A Code of Ethics is essential for any respectable job. Codes of Ethics ensure that people know what is expected from them from those who receive their services. By knowing their expectations people can understand how to act and are more likely to check their behavior and stay truthful in order to keep their jobs.
As we watched the movie I had a number of reactions. At first I was surprised on how much the hierarchy was present in the reporting world. As the movie continued I realized prestigious the New Republic was I understood how important it was to be thorough. The system in which an article was edited is truly amazing. When you see an article in a magazine such as the New Republic the layout is so simple that you don’t really think about the intricacy of the story. As for the code of ethics there were a number of instances where it was brought up. When the editor of the online electronic magazine was talking to the editor of the New Republic they talked off record and about what exactly the online magazine would publish. Stephen Glass did not report the truth and the fabrication of his stories most likely influenced a lot of people. This was very wrong of him. The code of ethics is important because writers and journalists have a lot of power and influence and the decisions they make in what they write has many effects. If something that readers believe to be true is in fact fiction they have become irresponsible with the power that they have.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to this movie was shock and disbelief. I could not believe how this character just kept lying and lying and was able to get away with it due to his charismatic personality. The main character, Glass, broke the journalists code of ethics by continuously making fictional reports and giving the impression that they were fact. This put his colleagues and especially his editor in a great deal of ethical dilemma. His editor, Chuck had his reputation and the magazines reputation on the line when he found out that Glass had been lying and fabricating facts in his article. I agree with the way Chuck Lane handled the situation. It seemed like he didn’t just outwardly accuse Glass but he got to the bottom of the situation. He also had to be very careful because he knew Glass had many friends within the people they work with and many of The New Republic employees were not a fan of Chuck. When Chuck explained it to his colleague who really liked Chuck she seemed to get it and the whole paper stood behind Chuck in the Ends because it was clear Glass was a serial liar. I believe it is very important to have a code of ethics. When journalists have a code of ethics their bosses and readers know that what they are reading is the absolute truth and can have trust for the news.
ReplyDeleteWatching the movie I was astounded at how insane Glass seemed, is. Its amazing to consider what a huge scandal he pulled off and how much effort he put into covering up his lies. He broke three of the four codes of ethics. The only code he followed was the "act independently." He pulled off the hoax purely for self gain; in order to get to the top. If I was in Chuck Lane's position, I would have acted similarly as he did. Eventually, as it all became clear that Glass had fabricated all of his articles, Lane kicked him out, fired him and accepted what the New Republic would have to deal with. The code of ethics is vital for journalists. A journalists job is to report the truth, not tell stories, otherwise, they'd be writers of fiction, not fact.
ReplyDeleteI thought the movie was really interesting. I found it unbelievable when I finally figured out that Glass’s stories were all fiction. He sat and told his co-workers all these lies and made them believe them. He took the risk of ending the whole magazine with his false facts. Glass also broke all the ethic rules because he stayed with his false facts and didn’t think about telling the editor about his lies, instead he stuck with his stories. He didn’t bother to think about how other people may feel after they found out the real truth. It just seemed like he only was thinking about his self and slowly easing his way to the top. I thought it was amazing how he pulled off his big scandal. He stuck to his stories and lies and didn’t bother to tell the truth. I thought the editor made a great decision by firing Glass. He did not deserve any sympathy at all. Glass didn’t realize that trust is very important aspect when it comes down to being a great journalist because people have to believe and trust in you to make great and factual article. It was a great movie and it made me understand the way journalism is supposed to work.
ReplyDelete-SHANA HARRIS