Shattered Glass (2003) displays the difficult situation that aspiring reporters must consider when writing a proper story. Stephen Glass, a reporter for The New Republic, was caught up in being the new, famous young writer and forgot one of the biggest aspects of being a journalist and reporter, not to lie and fabricate your story. Fabrication is defined as “the action or process of manufacturing or inventing something; a lie” (Merriam-Webster) and directly connects to ethics in journalism. Lying, looking for a short cut for stardom, fabricating quotes, sources, and the overall story, are all unethical moves Stephen made. These unethical decisions led to the fall of Stephen’s journalism career, something foreshadowed when he imagined himself in the classroom during the movie.
Looking at the historical perspective on the issue, this movie pertains precisely to the case of Janet Cooke’s story Jimmy’s World (Jimmy’s World, 1980), when pondering ethics in journalism. Janet Cooke wrote a story about an eight-year-old heroin addict, whom was not a real child, and a made up story in general. Her fabricated story cost her her journalism career and reputation, comparable to Stephen, as he lost his career. In both cases, whether or not they believed they were being ethical in their decisions to compromise these stories, the job of a reporter and journalists is to follow the SPJ Code of Ethics, seeking the truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently, and being accountable, all aspects in which they did not follow (Lecture 4.2).
If I were put in Stephen’s situation, I would have done things completely different. In no way, shape or form, would I have fabricated any story, let alone more than half my stories. To be honest, when I sat there watching the movie, I thought to myself, why? Why is he doing this to not only himself, but also others that he is misleading? All I though about was the SPJ code of Ethics when watching the movie, and how not one aspect was followed. Stephen did not seek the truth and report it, he made it stories and lied; he didn’t minimize harm, he inflicted harm on himself, his reputation, The New Republic, and those he reported to; yes he did act independently, but in the nature that a journalists should not perform, working alone on stories and making them up and finally; he was not accountable, he was a liar and untrustworthy.
I believe that this movie has an enormous impact on journalism. The movie outlines a situation that journalists should never put themselves in, fabricating stories. Fabrication is not tolerable in journalism and never will be, or else what would the point of a journalist or reporter be? Their jobs would become obsolete because it would give everyone the freedom to make stories up and publish them. The movie also justifies the SPJ Code of Ethics and shows journalists that following the code will only keep you out of trouble. It is unethical to lie, plain and simple, and Shattered Glass (2003) puts a point of emphasis on unethical decisions.

Sources

Course Lecture 4.2 – Journalism Ethical Framework

Fabrication. (2015) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fabricate

Jimmy’s World. (1980) http://www2.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/lit/litjour/spg2002/cooke.htm

Shattered Glass. (2003) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/

Nothing But the Truth (2008) displays the difficult situation reporters face when working with sources. In the movie, Capital Sun-Times reporter Rachel Armstrong exposes a CIA operative agent’s identity and refuses to expose her source, amplifying the Supreme Courts defense as it posed a threat to national security. Rachel’s story made the front-page news with the support of her editor and legal counselor, but instead of praise, Rachel was put in front of a grand jury because revealing a CIA operatives identity was a threat to national security. When Rachel catches this, she immediately denies revealing her source and does not budge from her stance, landing years of jail time and separation from her husband and child.

Looking at the historical perspective on the issue, this movie pertains precisely to the case Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), and shield law. The case Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) established that a journalist does not have a constitutional right to refuse to appear and reveal his or her sources in court, and that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a “compelling and paramount” state interest and did not violate the First Amendment (Branzburg v. Hayes. 1972). The only thing that could have saved Rachel from serving jail time in this situation is shield law. Shield law “provides legal protection for the ‘reporters’ privilege, protecting journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources” (Lecture 8.1). Because shield law is not protected at the federal level, Rachel had no protection for her story, and had no rights when it came to not giving her source up, being found guilty of obstruction of the court.

If I were put in Rachel’s situation, I don’t know what I would have done to be honest. I like the fact that she refused to reveal her source, sticking to her journalistic beliefs and protecting her source. She stood for her job as a reporter, whether it was just or unjust, and tried to be ethical by keeping her source protected. At the same time though, the movie puts her in such a tough situation because one; the source is a minor, two; the source is the daughter of the CIA operative she exposes in her story, and three; the shield law did not apply to her case, being at the federal level. Because I saw what happened to Rachel; serving jail time and being separated from her husband and son; I also can take the other side. I would have revealed my source to not serve jail time, and be separated from my family. I also would have given up my source if I knew it meant the young girl would be excused from any charges, and the fact that she was the source that ultimately leads to her mothers passing.

I believe the difficult situation Rachel was put in has a great impact on journalism. Fully protecting sources is a topic that is hard pressed because there are so many issues on both sides of the argument. On one side journalists have an obligation to protect their source, especially when the news is on such a large scale. At the same time though, if you always protect your source, who will know exactly what is true and untrue? leaving room to stretch the facts. This shows journalists that with out a shield law, it is difficult to protect your source, especially with federal government involvement. It also shows journalists that before publishing your story, you need to understand your rights and the many boundaries that journalism presents.

Sources

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). OYEZ. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_85

Course Lecture 8.1 – Shield Law

Nothing But the Truth (2008).