After an extended period of time (my apologies Dr. Stone), I have come to a few conclusions about the film “Shattered Glass.”
A multitude of themes permeate the movie: truth, loyalty, humility, hypocrisy, etc. I’ll try to address a few and how they pertain to
to media ethics. I’ll also address one of my unanswered questions. Maybe someone can provide me with an answer.
Let’s begin with…the beginning.
The film opens to Stephen Glass giving a voice-over wherein he rants about his distaste for flashy journalists whose motives are to simply
get ahead. We learn throughout the course of the movie that it is, in fact, that very issue that sustains him as a writer. Glass actually enjoys
bringing his fictitious tales to tell life by standing on tables and shouting out his make-believe antics. He even seems to develop a dependency on the attention he starts to receive. Later we learn it is actually this particular quality that leads to his downfall. The notion of hyprocrisy in Glass’s work not only speaks to the world of journalists, rather the world as a whole. Perhaps Glass at some point did have an idealistic viewpoint that there was some middle ground where you can be well-liked and successful in an industry that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to friendships. Journalism has become a “dog-eat-dog” world where writers are pressured to “FIND THE BREAKING NEWS!” and “GIVE THE READERS WHAT THEY WANT!” It isn’t fair to burden them with such high expectations on every piece they publish, nonetheless these are the guidelines by which they operate. Maybe Glass’s demise was unintentional. He might have become what he despised without even realizing a transformation was taking place. Or, he could have had more sinister intentions from the start. Some people just live for success and damn the consequences. Publishing a novel based on his very actions does raise eyebrows, no?
Aisha eloquently noted on the discussion board the willingness of Glass’s peers to continually offer assistance on his various columns. However, I still haven’t ascertained an entire understanding as to why they were so amenable in this area. The easy answer is one present in bold throughout the film; a show of humility. But something else caught my eye. Glass was referred to many times as a “kid” or a “child.” His actions often dictated that of an infant – innocent compliments, gifts and asking his editors “Are you mad at me?” or “I’m not in trouble, am I?” It is the nature of most people to either identify with or accommodate to people who display this characteristic. However, I still find myself asking “What purpose did this have in the film?”
My final thought is one I’m sure most of you had. How do nearly 30 false stories get published in a reputable and admired magazine like The New Republic?Although I’ve already mentioned this on blackboard, I’ll state it again, especially because I think it’s a prevalent topic during these times. When a company is faced with financial support issues it becomes far easier to let standards drop. The New Republic didn’t have a particularly high number of subscribers and Glass’s pieces were entertaining and flamboyant. When someone, or something, is helping to keep a business viable, the prevelancy to look the other way on minor discrepancies starts increasing. Much like the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis, a few minor problems became one huge problem. The movie, while not necessarily an indictment on journalism as whole, did shed a little light as to how issues like Glass’s are born in the journalistic world.
