Posts

Stephen Glass was a prominent writer for New Republic magazine, mostly. He specialized in human interest stories with national prowess in which he seemed to nail a great, unusual story every time. However he was the mastermind behind the largest fraud scandal in journalistic history. He was the head of the fact-checking department so Glass could seamlessly bypass his editor the majority of the time. In his carelessness, he practically brought New Republic to the ground.

According to the movie, Shattered Glass, Steve cooked, or formulated, at least 27 of 39 stories he wrote for New Republic over time that spanned two editors. At a time before the complexity of today’s internet, Glass pulled off his work that would not be possible to do today. The article describes an interview with Stephen Glass and a former co-worker who still works at New Republic that took place roughly 10 years after the movie came out. Since his time at New Republic, Glass had been desperately trying to become a lawyer which he ended up not passing the bar because he was not deemed fit for the job. Steve was eventually hired by Paul Zuckerberg, a Georgetown graduate who found Stephen’s history to be incredible. He hired Glass as a paralegal. Zuckerberg was the only one to offer Glass an interview out of 100 employers.

What Stephen Glass did essentially was committing the seven deadly sins of journalism in one extensive, deceitful event. He lacked every bit of journalistic ethics and was dealt with accordingly. While it is a story that can be seen as heartbreaking, he only brought it upon himself. There is no journalist that could ever get away with a production like his today in the technological age.

As addressed in other articles we have read, we are human and we make mistakes, we always will. In the event a mistake is made, most people don’t realize how powerful corrections can be when they are made in a timely manner. This applies even more so to journalists because we are public informants known as gatekeepers who have a duty to inform the public correctly. It is said in the first line of SPJ Code of Ethics, seek truth and report it. The fundamentals of correcting error is as follows:

1. Feel like a human

2. Write like a human

3. Be clear about what was wrong and correct it.

4. Due prominence.

5. A correction is an act of promotion that builds trust.

For every medium an error is distributed through, it is your responsibility to send the corrections through all those mediums. IT is your job to get all people who viewed the incorrect information to view the correct information. Be clear and consistent as well as full hearted.

Regarding the formulated story, A Rape on Campus, a month later the Rolling Stone put out an apology column to its readers who were duped by the menacing story. Going over the facts of the story first reported by Rolling Stone journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Washington Post and other news outlets could not confirm the identity of the alleged rapist “Drew” and discovered he did not work at the the pool where “Jackie,” the victim, worked. The real “Drew” in the story does not even belong to the Phi Psi fraternity at University of Virginia. None of the facts were adding up to Jackie’s story.

Rolling Stone cited multiple errors in the apology to readers saying, “In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault… We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.”  Editor Will Dana wrote the letter and concluded by saying, “We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.”

Rolling Stone identified their main error as making a poor judgment, but it was very understandable. No journalist wants to have a source recall terrible events that had happened to him or her for a story. Compassion was given by Erdely who wrote the story, and that’s really all you can do as a journalist is to trust your source. With all the graphic detail provided in the original article, I can tell Erdely did ask some tough questions that some may view as unethical. The biggest flaw made in the whole article was the lack of confirmation sought out to identify the truth to Jackie’s story.

The mistakes were avoidable; however, all journalists can learn from this dilemma by understanding how to confirm a story, especially one so large as this.

News outlets may be hesitant to follow through with an unpublishing request because it undermines the work of the journalist and the organization may have to unpublish every article if it accommodates every request. Here are some reasons people may request unpublishing an article:

1. Sources believe that a story was unfair or inaccurate.

2. Those who have been acquitted, or whose charges were dropped, want crime stories about them to be removed.

3. Source remorse: Regret from a source about saying something on record.

4. Writer remorse: Embarrassment of content.

So how should organizations decide what to unpublish based on requests?

* Unpublish if the integrity of the story is challenged or it puts someone’s life in danger.

* Write an addendum, an additional piece of information that supplements the text.

* Write a follow-up story if the addendum doesn’t seem like enough.

* Take out source’s name if it is not on record.

* Run a correction piece. It may be embarrassing, but as we talked about before, it can increase the integrity of the news organization.

1. Honesty is good journalism.

2. Transparency is good journalism.

3. Attribution is good journalism.

4. Context is good journalism.

Linkage is good for business because of these reasons:

1. Links help search engines find your work.

2. Links help interested people find your work.

It’s worth noting that the event which Williams incorrectly recalled occurred 12 years ago when he spoke about it. Fact checking, if possible, could’ve prevented this honest mistake which upset many. “News organizations practicing due diligence is important to all journalists and society,” said the SPJ blog about Williams, and they are completely right. To establish credibility, which Brian Williams has more than 99% of journalists, is so majorly important for outlets and journalists. Brian Williams undermined that aspect.

Being a journalist, yes, the article makes a point that Brian Williams knows better than to “cook” a sensational story to create sympathy for himself. It makes a great story, but it’s false. There’s simply no reason Williams should’ve said the story. He then received critical attention for his story by appearing on Letterman and also said the story on his nightly show, that is preposterous. Honoring veterans are features which all local and national news sources set out to publish, but making one up is completely dishonorable for a journalist I hold in high regard as well as most of the country.

After the piece, A Rape on Campus, I refuse to believe the source as a whole is tainted. Rather the journalist’s career is now tainted and I don’t believe I would be compelled enough to read another article by her. The Rolling Stone released a statement apologizing for the article calling it a “journalistic failure that was avoidable.” The Rolling Stone was forced to do what the New Republic was prompted to do after their journalist, Stephen Glass fabricated 27 stories with the magazine.

Once again, people make mistakes and editors entrust their journalists to seek the truth and report it without bias. Harm was most certainly done with the fabrication of the article, A Rape on Campus, in which the University of Virginia and Phi Psi fraternity filed lawsuit for defamation against the journalist.

The fundamental problem lies with journalists who fabricate stories, but fact checkers also must have the ability to put aside relationships and challenge the authority of an article, especially one so riveting and encapsulating. If no one can confirm the identity of the source or critical details vital to the story, the story cannot be and must not be published.

There were some flaws in the Rolling Stone, but nothing from which they cannot recover. The article is still very credible, but the only one who deserves to lose her job is the journalist who wrote the false article.

With bylines and credits, we as journalists have a sense of ownership to our work which we must defend and be responsible for. The article lists five key areas as to how journalists can best build credibility through their clear, transparent work.

1. Show the reporting and sources that support your work.

Disclosing all sources and using hyperlinks for readers to find documents used for reporting can indicate dedication to the truth for a journalist.

2. Collaborate with the audience.

The audience in which a journalist works to serve is not just a consumer, but an intellectual entity that can help a journalist with his or her reporting.

3. Curate and attribute information responsibly.

It’s simple, quote and cite accurately.

4. Offer disclosures and statements of values

When there may be a conflict of interest, disclose that information. Disclose information on who the original source was for the information (similar to citing sources).

5. Correct website and social media errors effectively.

It’s a cliche to say, “everyone makes mistakes.” But it happens in every business on every level. If correctable, American Press Institute recommends simply admitting it because we’re human, be clear about what was incorrect and what is correct, make the correction as important as the original story and help spread the truth. Corrections can make the news source seem valuable and credible if done in a timely matter.

The images which were shown in class that led to the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo were completely non-nonsensical as the attack was. Stéphane Charbonnier, editoral director of Charlie Hebdo, who was ultimately killed in the attack, acted irrationally with no filter which ultimately cost him his life along with his colleagues. Simply because Charbonnier doesn’t have any relation to Islam does not give him right to defame a sacred religion.

Understandably so, before the attack occurred, Charlie Hebdo had continuously been criticized for its explicitly absurd cartoons which draw some fans but also draw critics. Charbonnier cited in the past that journalistic ethos and its satire base makes Charlie Hebdo ethically acceptable. However, I don’t think there is any question that Charbonnier set out to offend Muslims rather than make a joke. If it was a joke, my goodness, it was in poor taste.

In no way were the acts taken by radical Muslims justified, that is clear. However, Charlie Hebdo does not play the innocent bystander as the victim. Satire should never set out to offend people or groups of people but to understand the ramifications to follow a decision to publish material or not. Editors must have the utmost discretion to make an accurate foolproof judgment.