Shattered Glass

Integrity starts with honesty. I hadn't ever seen Shattered Glass, but it's in my top three experiences here at the Institute. Journalists have a responsibility to the public to report the truth. Clearly, Steven Glass is a man who cared more about his own self-worth than about his profession. He fabricated numerous stories for nothing more than the feeling that his audience enjoyed his stories. Where do you draw the line between a fib to create more tension and an imagined story?

I was speaking today with someone else at the institute who said she wished should just tweak some of the quotes she received in interviews to better suit her stories. Is there a difference between Glass and a journalist who chooses to replace a word in a quote for the fluidity of their writing? This is the type of question that is up for endless debate.

Writers have a responsibility to be honest with their audience. A misquotation or a fabricated detail in a story may have been where Glass got his start. It's like a gateway drug; tell a fib in a story that gains a lot of popularity and before you know it, the entire story is a fib.

I can only imagine the number of times that small details have been fabricated for the sake of writing a more interesting story. It's probably happened hundreds of thousands of times in the profession. Should every journalist caught creating misleading material be suspended, fined or fired? When the result is the story of someone like Steven Glass, then the answer is yes.

But is it worth it? Glass had ways around all of the fact checks. People enjoyed his company and they enjoyed him. A fact check is no deterrent for the feeling of acceptance. Glass was, no doubt, messed up in the head. The lesson remains: Don't believe everything you read. Especially in the age of the Web. Anyone can publish. What responsibilities do audiences have to evaluate the stories they read, if any? Lots of questions, and very few solid answers.

Zachary McNulty
Winnetonka High School
Kansas City, Mo.