The rise and fall of a young journalist named Stephen Glass are shown in the true-life story-based movie Shattered Glass. Glass became well-known for creating fantastic articles. The producer presents the consumers with several thought-provoking issues, including journalistic ethics, media accountability, and the effects of false reporting as we continue reading the story. This article will examine The movie’s narrative and any implications it may have for journalism. The audience can learn important lessons for journalists and appreciate the significance of upholding ethical standards in the profession by tackling important issues like the unique nature of Glass’s deception, the function of management, the reasons behind Glass’s actions, and the various leadership styles.
The movie emphasizes how management botched the handling of the Glass affair right away. Due to Glass’s reputation as a good writer, the administration, especially editor Michael Kelly, initially refrained from carefully reviewing his work. They forgot to verify the sources and information in his pieces and did not exercise sufficient oversight. This carelessness allowed Glass’ dishonest tactics to continue (Ningsih et al., 2023). It highlights how important it is for management to promote an ethical workplace, encourage fact-checking, and set up effective editorial procedures to stop such ethical lapses.
In the movie, Michael Kelly and Chuck Lane, his successor as editor, are shown to have quite different leadership and communication philosophies. A Glass supporter at first, Kelly later adopted a more detached demeanor and avoided having direct conversations with the personnel. In contrast, Lane demonstrated a more proactive and confrontational leadership style, openly questioning Glass’s legitimacy and promoting careful fact-checking (Sklar et al., 2003). This comparison draws attention to the importance of good leadership that promotes responsibility, candid communication, and openness inside the company.
There were several reasons why Glass made up stories. Driven by a deep-seated yearning to be loved and respected, he sought acknowledgment and approval. A further factor in his dishonest behavior was the pressure he felt to fulfill deadlines, win the approval of his superiors, and surpass his peers. This highlights the necessity for organizations to develop an atmosphere that promotes ethical conduct and supports journalists, limiting the temptation of compromising integrity for personal gain. It also highlights the pressure journalists may experience in a highly competitive field.
Long-term consequences would have been severe if the organization had not addressed the issue. Reader trust would have been undermined, and The New Republic’s integrity and reputation might have been permanently tarnished. In addition to possible legal repercussions, this would have led to declining subscriptions and losing advertising. However, dealing with the issue came at a price, including the money spent on the inquiries and the bad press the company received. The advantages of acting, such as upholding the organization’s integrity and ethical standards, exceeded these costs.
Due to a combination of his outstanding narrative abilities, a lack of rigorous editorial monitoring, and a culture that prioritized individual accomplishments over journalistic integrity, Stephen Glass was able to develop his career and publish many phony articles. For a long time, Glass avoided suspicion thanks to his skill at manipulating sources, creating false proof, and charming his coworkers. It highlights the necessity for journalism organizations to prioritize truth, comprehensive fact-checking, and an atmosphere that promotes teamwork and transparency.
Charles “Chuck” Lane, the new editor, had a sense of accountability and tenacity in confronting Glass’ dishonest tactics. He placed a high value on what was true and made Glass answerable for his deeds. Lane demonstrated his devotion to the fundamental values of journalism through his ethical stance and commitment to upholding the publication’s integrity (Sklar et al., 2003). Lane is a good illustration of the kind of editor who knows how important it is to uphold journalistic ethics, even if it involves confronting and punishing bright people.
Ensuring that journalists behave ethically is crucially dependent on editors and news organizations. Setting precise rules and codes of behavior, encouraging fact-checking procedures, and creating an atmosphere where ethical issues may be discussed openly is crucial. The value of integrity can be emphasized through regular training sessions and conversations, giving journalists the skills they need to resolve moral conundrums (Sari, 2022). Essential editorial practices to implement include extensive fact-checking and source validation.
To summarize, Shattered Glass serves as a warning story for the journalistic industry to highlight the adverse effects of unethical behavior. The film emphasizes the value of journalistic integrity, accountability, and leadership by depicting Stephen Glass’s deceptions, management’s errors, and the organization’s ensuing responses. By critically evaluating the movie and its ramifications, we can learn a lot about the significance of journalism in society and the ethical dilemmas that journalists face. It highlights the importance of journalists upholding the highest ethical standards, exercising skepticism, and prioritizing accurate and true reporting in an age of widespread disinformation and declining public confidence.
References
Ningsih, S. P., Nasution, N. H., & Jufrizal. (2023). Representasi Etika Jurnalistik Investigasi Dalam Film Shattered Glass Karya Billy Ray (Analisis Semiotika Roland Barthes). Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi Dan Media Sosial (JKOMDIS), 3(1), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.47233/jkomdis.v3i1.627
Sari, R. P. (2022). An Analysis of Code Ethics in Billy Ray’s” Shattered Glass.” Rizki Purnama Sari: 187010025 (Doctoral dissertation, Sastra Inggris).
Sklar, R., Baumgarten, C., Merims, A., Hirsch, G., Christensen, T., & Ray, B. (2003). Review of Shattered Glass. Cinéaste, 29(1), 23–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41689669
write