My stance on the ethical questions raised by the movie SHATTERED GLASS is that what Stephen Glass did was ethically and morally WRONG. Furthermore, it was apparent that even though his moral compass should have directed him differently, the excitement from his colleagues with his "fabricated" and "fictional" stories, overshadowed his reasoning and ethical fortitude. Again I take the stance that what he did, regardless of his reasoning was wrong and inexcusable.
Journalism is a profession where what you provide as factual information, should be nothing less than FACTUAL. I feel that each and every journalist has the moralistic duty to provide straight forward information, regardless of the subject matter. If Stephen felt so enlightened to fabricate his fictional characters and/or story content about real people, the he should have removed himself from his job as a writer at the New Republic and should have started writing books about the fictional characters he was creating.
Do you think Glass had that kind of reasoning - is there the same kind of prestige for a novelist as there is for a magazine writer?
ReplyDelete25/25
Delete