{"id":45,"date":"2022-08-07T18:38:12","date_gmt":"2022-08-07T18:38:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/?post_type=chapter&p=45"},"modified":"2022-09-05T22:45:56","modified_gmt":"2022-09-05T22:45:56","slug":"original-work","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/chapter\/original-work\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 4: Integrity and Unacceptable Practices","rendered":"Chapter 4: Integrity and Unacceptable Practices"},"content":{"raw":"

From: NYU Journalism Handbook for Students<\/a><\/h1>\r\n

Ethics, Law and Good Practice<\/h2>\r\nBy Prof. Adam L. Penenberg<\/em>\r\n\r\nREVISED 2020<\/strong>\r\n\r\nOpen Access License: The author of this work, in conjunction with the Carter Institute at New York University, has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution License to this Ethics Handbook. While the author and the journalism institute retain ownership, we encourage others to reprint, amend and distribute this work for both commercial and noncommercial uses, as long as the original author and the journalism institute are credited. This broad license was developed to allow open and free access to original works of all types.<\/em>\r\n

INTEGRITY<\/h3>\r\nReporters critique the activities of other people and institutions, and what they publish can have a profound impact on the people, businesses and institutions they cover, as well as society at large. Journalists must live up to the highest standards of integrity, and by integrity we mean: truth, fairness, sincerity, and avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.\r\n\r\nSince the Carter Institute of Journalism at NYU is an educational entity, rigorous honesty is required in research, analysis, and writing, as well as in discussion with professors and classmates. Lack of honesty in scholarship undermines the very foundation of the learning process and can have grave consequences for the student, including failure in a course or expulsion from the university.\r\n\r\nAll work on all platforms\u2014the page, the screen, the Web\u2014must be original. A student may not engage in \u201cdouble-dipping\u201d by handing in an assignment for one class then submitting the same or similar material to another without the permission of the instructor. Of course, in classes engaged in long-form work, professors might actually encourage a longer and more elaborate treatment of a previously executed idea, or the project in question is so labor-intensive that two professors may agree that the student can work on the piece for both classes. In all instances, however, the prior approval of the professors involved is imperative.\r\n\r\nA student may not conduct research for one class and then use that research in another class\u2014again, unless they have received explicit permission from both professors. Students who work on joint projects should note that they are equally responsible for the veracity of the work. Finally, a student may not submit for an assignment material that has already been published or was contracted by a professional publisher and rejected. Of course, students are very much encouraged to submit for publication stories produced in class. Consult your professor if you have questions.\r\n

CARDINAL SINS<\/h3>\r\n

Plagiarism\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\r\nJournalists earn their living with words, and plagiarism\u2014using someone else\u2019s words as if they were your own\u2014is, simply stated, stealing. It can take many forms. At its worst, plagiarism can be copying and pasting an article off the internet and slapping your own byline at the top. Or subtler: Lifting a quote from a wire service story or taking credit for another person\u2019s idea.\r\n\r\nBecause of the internet, plagiarism is easier today than ever before; it\u2019s also easier to catch. To avoid charges of plagiarism, a writer must paraphrase another\u2019s words and state the source(s); credit another person\u2019s ideas and theories; and cite any facts that are not commonly known. Be sure to label your notes carefully when consulting material in a library or online. It is possible to inadvertently plagiarize a work this way; if you do, you suffer the consequences nevertheless.\r\n\r\nHow to recognize acceptable paraphrasing vs. plagiarism\r\n\r\nOriginal passage: \u201cIn 1938, near the end of a decade of monumental turmoil, the year\u2019s number-one newsmaker was not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Hitler, or Mussolini. It wasn\u2019t Pope Pius XI, nor was it Lou Gehrig, Howard Hughes or Clark Gable. The subject of the most newspaper column inches in 1938 wasn\u2019t even a person. It was an undersized, crooked-legged racehorse named Seabiscuit. (From\u00a0Seabiscuit: An American Legend<\/em>, by Laura Hillenbrand.)\r\n
The following is plagiarism:<\/h5>\r\n\u201cThe biggest newsmaker in 1938\u2014measured in newspaper column inches\u2014wasn\u2019t the president, nor was it Adolph Hitler or the pope. It wasn\u2019t Babe Ruth or any Hollywood actor either. Why, it wasn\u2019t even human. It was a racehorse named Seabiscuit.\u201d\r\n\r\nWhy is this plagiarism? Because the writer has taken the spirit of Hillenbrand\u2019s passage and simply reordered a few sentences and substituted words\u2014including a relatively obscure fact about more newspaper column inches being dedicated to Seabiscuit than any human in 1938. What\u2019s more, the writer didn\u2019t credit Hillenbrand\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nHere is an acceptable paraphrase of this same passage:\r\n\r\n\u201cIn 1938, the legendary racehorse Seabiscuit was so famous he accounted for more newspaper column inches than the president, pope and any Hollywood film star, according to Laura Hillenbrand in\u00a0Seabiscuit: An American Legend<\/em>.\r\n\r\nOr simply, Seabiscuit was extremely popular in 1938. There\u2019s no need to cite Hillenbrand because this is a commonly known fact that cannot be reasonably disputed.\r\n
Here is another example:<\/h5>\r\nOriginal passage: \u201cJaithirth \u2018Jerry\u2019 Rao was one of the first people I met in Bangalore\u2014and I hadn\u2019t been with him for more than a few minutes at the Leela Palace hotel before he told me that he could handle my tax returns and any other accounting needs I had\u2014from Bangalore. No thanks, I demurred. I already have an accountant in Chicago. Jerry just smiled. He was too polite to say it\u2014that he may already be my accountant, or rather my accountant\u2019s accountant, thanks to the explosion in the outsourcing of tax preparation. \u2018This is happening as we speak,\u2019 said Rao, a native of Mumbai, formerly Bombay, whose Indian firm, MphasiS, has a team of Indian accountants able to do outsourced accounting work from any state in America and the federal government. \u2018We have tied up with several small and medium-sized CPA firms in America.\u2019\u201d (From\u00a0The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century<\/em>, by Thomas L. Friedman.)\r\n
The following is plagiarism:<\/h5>\r\n\u201cIndia has become a major player in outsourced accounting, and, for all you know, someone in Bangalore might very well be crunching your tax returns\u2014on behalf of your accountant. \u2018This is happening as we speak,\u2019 said Jaithirth Rao, whose firm, MphasiS, has \u2018tied up with several small and medium-sized CPA firms in America.\u2019\u201d\r\n\r\nIt is unacceptable because the way it is written, it appears the writer interviewed Rao and got that original quote, when it originated in Thomas Friedman\u2019s book.\r\n
Another example:<\/h5>\r\nOriginal passage: \u201cThe stock market crashed on October 29, 1929, a Tuesday, the most disastrous session on Wall Street to date in a month of turmoil.\u201d (The Worst Hard Time<\/em>, by Timothy Egan.)\r\n\r\nThe following is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0plagiarism: \u201cThe stock market crashed on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, following a month of economic jitters.\u201d\r\n\r\nIt is acceptable because the day the stock market crashed, leading to the Great Depression, is a well-known fact.\r\n
Additional sticking points:<\/h5>\r\nIt can be tempting to lift highly technical passages (say, a description of BMW\u2019s braking system or an in depth analysis of how Google\u2019s search engine actually works). Don\u2019t do it. Instead, find a way to describe these things in your own words. This also goes for company descriptions used in press releases. For example, HP describes itself as \u201ca technology solutions provider to consumers, businesses and institutions globally.\u201d You might describe it as \u201ca seller of a broad range of technology products and services, including PCs, printers, and IT infrastructure.\u201d\r\n\r\nThe bottom-line rule of attribution is: When in doubt, cite the source of your information. You can\u2019t go wrong then.\r\n

Fabrication<\/b><\/h4>\r\nMaking up sources or information in an assignment is a serious ethical violation. In the real world, it could lead to immediate dismissal and the end of your career. In the late 1990s Stephen Glass created in part or whole cloth some two dozen stories he published in\u00a0The New Republic<\/em>,\u00a0Harpers<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/em>, which led to one of the biggest journalism scandals in history. Jayson Blair of\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>\u00a0plagiarized and fabricated sources and material, which became a huge embarrassment to the\u00a0Times<\/em>, which is still recovering. Both are out of the profession.\r\n
\r\n

Shattered Glass: A lesson in what not to do<\/h1>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n

Stephen Glass<\/h1>\r\n
\r\n
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a><\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
Stephen Randall Glass<\/b>\u00a0(born September 15, 1972)[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0worked as a journalist for\u00a0The New Republic<\/a><\/i>\u00a0from 1995 to 1998, until it was revealed that many of his published articles were fabrications. An internal investigation by\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0determined that the majority of stories he wrote either contained false information or were fictitious. Glass later acknowledged that he had repaid over $200,000 to\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0and other publications for his earlier fabrications.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\nFollowing the journalism scandal, Glass pursued a career in law. Although he earned a\u00a0Juris Doctor<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>\u00a0and passed the\u00a0bar exam<\/a>\u00a0in New York and California, he was unable to become a licensed attorney in either state over concerns derived from his scandal.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass instead found work as a paralegal at the law firm Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, serving as the director of special projects and trial team coordinator.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nGlass made a brief return to writing when he fictionalized his story in his 2003 novel\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>.[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The same year, the scandal was dramatized in the film\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>, which was based on a\u00a0Vanity Fair<\/a><\/i>\u00a0article of the same name and starred\u00a0Hayden Christensen<\/a>\u00a0as Glass.\r\n

Early life and education<\/span><\/h2>\r\nGlass grew up in a Jewish family in the Chicago suburb of\u00a0Highland Park<\/a>,[6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and attended\u00a0Highland Park High School<\/a>.[8]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0He graduated from the\u00a0University of Pennsylvania<\/a>\u00a0as University Scholar, where he was an executive editor of the\u00a0student newspaper<\/a>,\u00a0The Daily Pennsylvanian<\/a><\/i>.[4]<\/a><\/sup>[9]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0His colleagues at\u00a0The Daily Pennsylvanian<\/i>\u00a0included\u00a0Sabrina Erdely<\/a>, who later became involved in a fabricated story scandal owing to her\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a><\/i>\u00a0article \"A Rape on Campus<\/a>\" and\u00a0Alan Sepinwall<\/a>, currently the chief television critic for Rolling Stone.[10]<\/a><\/sup>[11]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nGlass later graduated\u00a0magna cum laude<\/a><\/i>\u00a0from\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>\u00a0with a\u00a0Juris Doctor<\/a>\u00a0degree and was named John M. Olin Fellow in law and economics.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n

Career<\/span><\/h2>\r\n

The New Republic<\/i><\/span><\/h3>\r\nAfter his 1994 graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, Glass joined\u00a0The New Republic<\/a><\/i>\u00a0in 1995 as an editorial assistant.[12]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Soon thereafter, the 23-year-old Glass advanced to writing features. While employed full-time at\u00a0TNR<\/i>, he also wrote for other magazines including\u00a0Policy Review<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0George<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0Harper's<\/a><\/i>\u00a0and contributed to\u00a0Public Radio International<\/a>'s (PRI) weekly hour-long program\u00a0This American Life<\/a><\/i>, hosted by\u00a0Ira Glass<\/a>\u00a0(no relation to Stephen).\r\n\r\nAlthough Glass enjoyed loyalty from\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0staff, his reporting repeatedly drew outraged rebuttals from the subjects of his articles, eroding his credibility and leading to private skepticism from insiders at the magazine. The magazine's majority owner and editor-in-chief,\u00a0Martin Peretz<\/a>, later said that his wife had told him that she did not find Glass's stories credible and had stopped reading them.[13]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nIn December 1996, the\u00a0Center for Science in the Public Interest<\/a>\u00a0(CSPI) was the target of a hostile article by Glass titled \"Hazardous to Your Mental Health\". CSPI wrote a letter to the editor and issued a press release pointing out numerous inaccuracies and distortions and hinting at possible plagiarism.[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The organization\u00a0Drug Abuse Resistance Education<\/a>\u00a0(D.A.R.E.) accused Glass of falsehoods in his March 1997 article \"Don't You D.A.R.E\".[15]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0defended Glass and editor\u00a0Michael Kelly<\/a>\u00a0demanded CSPI apologize to him.[6]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nIn May 1997, Joe Galli of the\u00a0College Republican National Committee<\/a>\u00a0accused Glass of fabrications in \"Spring Breakdown\", his lurid tale of drinking and debauchery at the 1997\u00a0Conservative Political Action Conference<\/a>. A June 1997 article called \"Peddling Poppy\" about a\u00a0Hofstra University<\/a>\u00a0conference on\u00a0George H. W. Bush<\/a>\u00a0drew a letter from Hofstra reciting errors in the story.[15]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On May 18, 1998,\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0published a story by Glass (by then an associate editor) entitled \"Hack Heaven\", purportedly telling the story of a 15-year-old\u00a0hacker<\/a>\u00a0who had penetrated a company's computer network, then been hired by that company as a security consultant. The article opened as follows,\r\n
Ian Restil, a 15-year-old computer hacker who looks like an even more adolescent version of\u00a0Bill Gates<\/a>, is throwing a tantrum. \"I want more money. I want a\u00a0Miata<\/a>. I want a trip to\u00a0Disney World<\/a>. I want\u00a0X-Men<\/a>\u00a0comic [book] number one. I want a lifetime subscription to\u00a0Playboy<\/a><\/i>\u00a0\u2013 and throw in\u00a0Penthouse<\/a><\/i>.\u00a0Show me the money! Show me the money!<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>...\" Across the table, executives from a California software firm called Jukt Micronics are listening and trying ever so delicately to oblige. \"Excuse me, sir,\" one of the suits says tentatively to the pimply teenager. \"Excuse me. Pardon me for interrupting you, sir. We can arrange more money for you.\"[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/blockquote>\r\nAdam Penenberg<\/a>, a reporter with\u00a0Forbes<\/a><\/i>\u00a0magazine, became suspicious when he found no search engine results for \"Jukt Micronics\", found that \"Jukt Micronics\" had just a single phone line, and saw that its website was extremely amateurish.[17]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0When challenged, Glass claimed to have been duped by \"Restil\". Glass took\u00a0Charles Lane<\/a>, the lead editor of\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>, to the\u00a0Bethesda, Maryland<\/a>\u00a0hotel at which Restil had purportedly met with the Jukt executives; Lane discovered that on the day of the claimed meeting the hotel's conference room had been closed and the restaurant where the hackers supposedly ate dinner afterwards closes in the early afternoon.[6]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Lane dialed a\u00a0Palo Alto<\/a>\u00a0number provided by Glass and spoke with a man who identified himself as a Jukt executive; when he realized that the \"executive\" was actually Glass's brother, who attended\u00a0Stanford University<\/a>\u00a0in Palo Alto, he fired Glass.[18]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nLane later said:\r\n
We extended normal human trust to someone who basically lacked a conscience... We busy, friendly folks, were no match for such a willful deceiver... We thought Glass was interested in our personal lives, or our struggles with work, and we thought it was because he cared. Actually, it was all about sizing us up and searching for vulnerabilities. What we saw as concern was actually contempt.[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/blockquote>\r\n

Aftermath<\/span><\/h3>\r\nThe New Republic<\/i>\u00a0subsequently determined that at least 27 of the 41 articles Glass wrote for the magazine contained fabricated material. Some of the 27, such as \"Don't You D.A.R.E.\", contained real reporting interwoven with fabricated quotations and incidents,[20]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0while others, including \"Hack Heaven,\" were completely made up.[12]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the process of creating the \"Hack Heaven\" article, Glass had gone to especially elaborate lengths to thwart the discovery of his deception by\u00a0TNR<\/i>'s<\/span>\u00a0fact checkers<\/a>: creating a website[21]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and\u00a0voice mail<\/a>\u00a0account for Jukt Micronics; fabricating notes of story gathering;[22]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0having fake business cards printed; and even composing editions of a fake computer hacker community newsletter.[12]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nAs for the balance of the 41 stories, Lane, in an interview given for the 2005 DVD edition of\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/i>, said, \"In fact, I'd bet lots of the stuff in those other 14 is fake too. ... It's not like we're vouching for those 14, that they're true. They're probably not either\".\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>,\u00a0George<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Harper's<\/i>\u00a0also re-examined his contributions.\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Harper's<\/i>\u00a0found the material generally accurate yet maintained they had no way of verifying information because Glass had cited anonymous sources.\u00a0George<\/i>\u00a0discovered that at least three of the stories Glass wrote for it contained fabrications.[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass fabricated quotations in a profile piece and apologized to the article's subject,\u00a0Vernon Jordan<\/a>, an adviser to\u00a0Bill Clinton<\/a>\u00a0when he was president. A court filing for Glass's application to the\u00a0California bar<\/a>\u00a0gave an updated count on his journalism career: 36 of his stories at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0were said to be fabricated in part or in whole, along with three articles for\u00a0George<\/i>, two articles for\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>\u00a0and one for\u00a0Policy Review<\/i>.[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass also later wrote a letter admitting he fabricated the article he wrote for\u00a0Harper\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0and the company retracted the story (the publication\u2019s first retraction in 165 years).[24]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nGlass had contributed a story to an October 1997 episode of the\u00a0NPR<\/a>\u00a0program\u00a0This American Life<\/a><\/i>\u00a0about an internship at George Washington's former plantation and another to a December 1997 episode about time he spent as a telephone psychic. The program subsequently removed both segments from the Archives section of its website \"because of questions about [their] truthfulness\".[25]<\/a><\/sup>[26]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n

Later work<\/span><\/h3>\r\nAfter journalism, Glass earned a\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0degree at\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>. He then passed the\u00a0New York State bar<\/a>\u00a0examination<\/a>\u00a0in 2000 but the Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify him on its moral fitness test, citing ethics concerns related to his journalistic malpractice.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0He later abandoned his efforts to be admitted to the bar in New York.[28]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In 2003, Glass published a so-called \"biographical novel<\/a>\",\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>.[29]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nGlass sat for an interview with the weekly news program\u00a060 Minutes<\/a><\/i>\u00a0timed to coincide with the release of his book.\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>'s<\/span>\u00a0literary editor,\u00a0Leon Wieseltier<\/a>, complained, \"The creep is doing it again. Even when it comes to reckoning with his own sins, he is still incapable of nonfiction. The careerism of his repentance is repulsively consistent with the careerism of his crimes\".[29]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0One reviewer of\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>\u00a0commented, \"The irony\u2014we must have irony in a tale this tawdry\u2014is that Mr. Glass is abundantly talented. He's funny and fluent and daring. In a parallel universe, I could imagine him becoming a perfectly respectable novelist\u2014a prize-winner, perhaps, with a bit of luck\".[30]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nAlso in 2003, Glass briefly returned to journalism, writing an article about Canadian\u00a0marijuana<\/a>\u00a0laws for\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>.[31]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On November 7, 2003, Glass participated in a panel discussion on\u00a0journalistic ethics<\/a>\u00a0at\u00a0George Washington University<\/a>, along with the editor who had hired him at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>,\u00a0Andrew Sullivan<\/a>, who accused Glass of being a \"serial liar\" who was using \"contrition as a career move\".[32]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n
\r\n
It was very painful for me. It was like being on a guided tour of the moments of my life I am most ashamed of.<\/blockquote>\r\nStephen Glass, reacting to\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>[33]<\/a><\/sup><\/cite>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nA film about the scandal,\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>, was released in October 2003 and depicted a stylized view of Glass's rise and fall at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>. Written and directed by\u00a0Billy Ray<\/a>, it starred\u00a0Hayden Christensen<\/a>\u00a0as Glass,\u00a0Peter Sarsgaard<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Charles Lane<\/a>,\u00a0Hank Azaria<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Michael Kelly<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Steve Zahn<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Adam Penenberg<\/a>. The film, appearing shortly after\u00a0The New York Times<\/a><\/i>\u00a0suffered a similar\u00a0plagiarism<\/a>\u00a0scandal with the discovery of\u00a0Jayson Blair<\/a>'s fabrications, occasioned critiques of journalism by nationally prominent journalists such as\u00a0Frank Rich<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Mark Bowden<\/a>.[34]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nGlass was out of the public eye for several years following the release of his novel and the film. In 2007, he was performing with a Los Angeles comedy troupe known as\u00a0Un-Cabaret<\/a>, having earlier found employment at a small law firm, apparently as a paralegal.[35]<\/a><\/sup>[36]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nIn 2015, Glass again made the news after reportedly sending\u00a0Harper's Magazine<\/i>\u00a0a check for $10,000 \u2013 what he was paid for the false articles \u2013 writing in the attached letter that he wanted \"to make right that part of my many transgressions...I recognize that repaying Harper's will not remedy my wrongdoing, make us even, or undo what I did wrong. That said, I did not deserve the money that Harper's paid me and it should be returned\".[37]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass has stated he has repaid $200,000 to\u00a0The New Republic, Rolling Stone, Harper's<\/i>\u00a0and the publisher of\u00a0Policy Review<\/i>.[38]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n

Unsuccessful California Bar application<\/span><\/h3>\r\nIn 2009, Glass applied to join the\u00a0State Bar of California<\/a>.[39]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify him, finding that he did not satisfy California's moral fitness test because of his history of journalistic deception.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Insisting that he had reformed, Glass then petitioned the State Bar Court's hearing department, which found that Glass possessed the necessary \"good moral character\" to be admitted as an attorney.[27]<\/a><\/sup>[23]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nThe Committee of Bar Examiners sought review in the State Bar's Review Department and filed a Writ of Review, thereby petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the decision.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On November 16, 2011, the Supreme Court granted the petition, the first time in 11 years the court had granted review in a moral character case.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On January 3, 2012, Glass's attorneys filed papers with the Court arguing that his behavior had been beyond reproach for more than 13 years and this was proof that he had reformed.[40]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\nOn November 6, 2013, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Glass's case[41]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and ruled unanimously against him in an opinion issued January 27, 2014. The lengthy opinion describes in minute detail the applicant's history, record, the bar's applicable standard of review, the appeal and its analysis of how Glass failed to satisfy the court's standards, concluding, \"On this record, he has not sustained his heavy burden of demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness for the practice of law\".[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On that basis, Glass was denied admission to the California bar.[42]<\/a><\/sup>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

Doctoring Photos or Videos<\/b><\/h4>\r\nIt is not permissible to doctor or manipulate photos for the purpose of misleading, although is all right to crop pictures or enhance clarity if blurry. With video it is OK to edit footage but not all right to alter subjects\u2019 appearance or likewise distort reality. Increasingly photo manipulation is being used as an explanatory technique: Putting George Bush\u2019s head onto a wrestler\u2019s body for satirical purposes, for example. This is acceptable only if there will be no confusion between the photo manipulation\u2014satirical or otherwise\u2014and reality.\r\n

Fictional Devices<\/b><\/h4>\r\nNames, dates and places should never be altered in any story, even to protect a source\u2019s identity. If publishing those facts could lead to retribution against a source, or if compassion dictates omitting these facts from a story, they should simply be cut (with an explanation to the reader). Composites, which are characteristics and histories of multiple characters blended into one, should never be used.\r\n
\r\n

Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Case Studies<\/span>\r\nThe New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and Jayson Blair<\/span><\/h2>\r\nBy Adrian Uribarri, SPJ Ethics Committee<\/em><\/a>\r\n\r\nWHAT:<\/strong>\u00a0Jayson Blair advanced quickly during his tenure at\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>, where he was hired as a full-time staff writer after his internship there and others at\u00a0The Boston Globe<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0The Washington Post<\/em>. Even accusations of inaccuracy and a series of corrections to his reports on Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks did not stop Blair from moving on to national coverage of the war in Iraq. But when suspicions arose over his reports on military families, an internal review found that he was fabricating material and communicating with editors from his Brooklyn apartment \u2014 or within the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0building \u2014 rather than from outside New York.\r\n\r\nSome\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0staffers, opposed to what they viewed as favoritism by Executive Editor Howell Raines, blamed a star system that allowed Blair to advance unusually fast in an extremely competitive, mostly veteran environment. Blair's former boss, Jonathan Landman, said race played a large part in the African American writer's ascendancy.\r\n\r\nThe findings of a 25-member committee headed by Allan Siegal, an assistant managing editor, led to the appointment of a public editor and stricter editorial policies. But staffing changes and higher standards could not change what happened: The\u00a0Times\u2018s<\/em>\u00a0reputation was deeply tarnished. Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned in a cloud of mismanagement. Journalism, in general, suffered perhaps the biggest blow to its credibility in U.S. history.\r\n\r\nQuestion: How does the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0investigate problems and correct policies that allowed the Blair scandal to happen?<\/span>\r\n\r\nWHO:<\/strong>\u00a0The consequences of Blair's actions are so broad that it is important to have representatives from all staff levels, as well as journalists outside the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0staff, weigh in on corrective steps. Leading this group should be one or several highly ethical consensus-builders who can solicit and synthesize ideas from throughout the profession.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the\u00a0Times<\/em>, stakeholders range from the humble retiree who simply reads his paper in the morning to the power-wielding diplomat who relies on foreign-policy reports to inform her decisions. Journalists, too, lose ground when a colleague lowers the public's value of their work. As a group, biggest stakeholders are citizens of democracies, which depend on journalists to grow trust in readers with accurate reporting.\r\n\r\nWHY:<\/strong>\u00a0The Blair case raises questions about hiring, management and overall editorial policy.\r\n\r\nFirst, there is the issue of relative inexperience in a super-high-stakes newsroom. Is it fair to senior staffers to allow a fresh-out-of-college writer to step into the ranks? More importantly, is it fair to expect such an inexperienced writer, however talented, to produce reporting as sharp as that of a decorated correspondent? While a pure meritocracy allows an individual of any experience level to fill any role, talent in the absence of experience could lead to diminished professionalism: Blair's ability to impress editors with his writing may have led to him feeling that facts are less important than prose.\r\n\r\nSecond, there is the question of who is responsible for letting Blair go so far. Is it the editor who hired him straight from the University of Maryland? How bout successive editors, who, despite their mediocre evaluations, did not object loudly enough to Blair's promotions? Could the executive and managing editors, with their big-picture roles and busy days, truly be responsible for one staffer\u2019s malfeasance?\r\n\r\nThird, there must be a better way. Is it enough to know what went wrong and tighten the reigns on practices such as anonymous sources? Or does the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0need an auditor, someone it pays for a scolding? Why should an outsider be allowed to make recommendations on better internal practices? Then again, how could an insider, in earshot of the mess itself, lead the committee to fix things?\r\n\r\nHOW:<\/strong>\u00a0The\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0decided that to remedy the nasty ramifications of the Blair scandal, it would commission an insider, along with others in and outside the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0newsroom, to investigate problems and suggest changes. The insider, Siegal, decided the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0should hire an outsider (who would be former\u00a0Life<\/em>\u00a0magazine editor Daniel Okrent) to suggest further improvements. And\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0editorial policy changed to reflect a much more cautious, conservative atmosphere concerning staff promotions and, especially, verification of reporting. A notable example of the latter aspect regards anonymous sources. In terms of staffing, the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0went so far as to require written evaluations for any candidates transferring between posts.\r\n\r\nA particularly difficult aspect of the fallout, although one welcome by staffers who felt marginalized, was the dual resignation of Raines and Boyd. That development, at least in the view of Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, was for the greater good of the\u00a0Times<\/em>. Symbolically, their departures made it possible for observers to view the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0as a reformed institution.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"

From: NYU Journalism Handbook for Students<\/a><\/h1>\n

Ethics, Law and Good Practice<\/h2>\n

By Prof. Adam L. Penenberg<\/em><\/p>\n

REVISED 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n

Open Access License: The author of this work, in conjunction with the Carter Institute at New York University, has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution License to this Ethics Handbook. While the author and the journalism institute retain ownership, we encourage others to reprint, amend and distribute this work for both commercial and noncommercial uses, as long as the original author and the journalism institute are credited. This broad license was developed to allow open and free access to original works of all types.<\/em><\/p>\n

INTEGRITY<\/h3>\n

Reporters critique the activities of other people and institutions, and what they publish can have a profound impact on the people, businesses and institutions they cover, as well as society at large. Journalists must live up to the highest standards of integrity, and by integrity we mean: truth, fairness, sincerity, and avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

Since the Carter Institute of Journalism at NYU is an educational entity, rigorous honesty is required in research, analysis, and writing, as well as in discussion with professors and classmates. Lack of honesty in scholarship undermines the very foundation of the learning process and can have grave consequences for the student, including failure in a course or expulsion from the university.<\/p>\n

All work on all platforms\u2014the page, the screen, the Web\u2014must be original. A student may not engage in \u201cdouble-dipping\u201d by handing in an assignment for one class then submitting the same or similar material to another without the permission of the instructor. Of course, in classes engaged in long-form work, professors might actually encourage a longer and more elaborate treatment of a previously executed idea, or the project in question is so labor-intensive that two professors may agree that the student can work on the piece for both classes. In all instances, however, the prior approval of the professors involved is imperative.<\/p>\n

A student may not conduct research for one class and then use that research in another class\u2014again, unless they have received explicit permission from both professors. Students who work on joint projects should note that they are equally responsible for the veracity of the work. Finally, a student may not submit for an assignment material that has already been published or was contracted by a professional publisher and rejected. Of course, students are very much encouraged to submit for publication stories produced in class. Consult your professor if you have questions.<\/p>\n

CARDINAL SINS<\/h3>\n

Plagiarism\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n

Journalists earn their living with words, and plagiarism\u2014using someone else\u2019s words as if they were your own\u2014is, simply stated, stealing. It can take many forms. At its worst, plagiarism can be copying and pasting an article off the internet and slapping your own byline at the top. Or subtler: Lifting a quote from a wire service story or taking credit for another person\u2019s idea.<\/p>\n

Because of the internet, plagiarism is easier today than ever before; it\u2019s also easier to catch. To avoid charges of plagiarism, a writer must paraphrase another\u2019s words and state the source(s); credit another person\u2019s ideas and theories; and cite any facts that are not commonly known. Be sure to label your notes carefully when consulting material in a library or online. It is possible to inadvertently plagiarize a work this way; if you do, you suffer the consequences nevertheless.<\/p>\n

How to recognize acceptable paraphrasing vs. plagiarism<\/p>\n

Original passage: \u201cIn 1938, near the end of a decade of monumental turmoil, the year\u2019s number-one newsmaker was not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Hitler, or Mussolini. It wasn\u2019t Pope Pius XI, nor was it Lou Gehrig, Howard Hughes or Clark Gable. The subject of the most newspaper column inches in 1938 wasn\u2019t even a person. It was an undersized, crooked-legged racehorse named Seabiscuit. (From\u00a0Seabiscuit: An American Legend<\/em>, by Laura Hillenbrand.)<\/p>\n

The following is plagiarism:<\/h5>\n

\u201cThe biggest newsmaker in 1938\u2014measured in newspaper column inches\u2014wasn\u2019t the president, nor was it Adolph Hitler or the pope. It wasn\u2019t Babe Ruth or any Hollywood actor either. Why, it wasn\u2019t even human. It was a racehorse named Seabiscuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why is this plagiarism? Because the writer has taken the spirit of Hillenbrand\u2019s passage and simply reordered a few sentences and substituted words\u2014including a relatively obscure fact about more newspaper column inches being dedicated to Seabiscuit than any human in 1938. What\u2019s more, the writer didn\u2019t credit Hillenbrand\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

Here is an acceptable paraphrase of this same passage:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 1938, the legendary racehorse Seabiscuit was so famous he accounted for more newspaper column inches than the president, pope and any Hollywood film star, according to Laura Hillenbrand in\u00a0Seabiscuit: An American Legend<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Or simply, Seabiscuit was extremely popular in 1938. There\u2019s no need to cite Hillenbrand because this is a commonly known fact that cannot be reasonably disputed.<\/p>\n

Here is another example:<\/h5>\n

Original passage: \u201cJaithirth \u2018Jerry\u2019 Rao was one of the first people I met in Bangalore\u2014and I hadn\u2019t been with him for more than a few minutes at the Leela Palace hotel before he told me that he could handle my tax returns and any other accounting needs I had\u2014from Bangalore. No thanks, I demurred. I already have an accountant in Chicago. Jerry just smiled. He was too polite to say it\u2014that he may already be my accountant, or rather my accountant\u2019s accountant, thanks to the explosion in the outsourcing of tax preparation. \u2018This is happening as we speak,\u2019 said Rao, a native of Mumbai, formerly Bombay, whose Indian firm, MphasiS, has a team of Indian accountants able to do outsourced accounting work from any state in America and the federal government. \u2018We have tied up with several small and medium-sized CPA firms in America.\u2019\u201d (From\u00a0The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century<\/em>, by Thomas L. Friedman.)<\/p>\n

The following is plagiarism:<\/h5>\n

\u201cIndia has become a major player in outsourced accounting, and, for all you know, someone in Bangalore might very well be crunching your tax returns\u2014on behalf of your accountant. \u2018This is happening as we speak,\u2019 said Jaithirth Rao, whose firm, MphasiS, has \u2018tied up with several small and medium-sized CPA firms in America.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

It is unacceptable because the way it is written, it appears the writer interviewed Rao and got that original quote, when it originated in Thomas Friedman\u2019s book.<\/p>\n

Another example:<\/h5>\n

Original passage: \u201cThe stock market crashed on October 29, 1929, a Tuesday, the most disastrous session on Wall Street to date in a month of turmoil.\u201d (The Worst Hard Time<\/em>, by Timothy Egan.)<\/p>\n

The following is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0plagiarism: \u201cThe stock market crashed on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, following a month of economic jitters.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is acceptable because the day the stock market crashed, leading to the Great Depression, is a well-known fact.<\/p>\n

Additional sticking points:<\/h5>\n

It can be tempting to lift highly technical passages (say, a description of BMW\u2019s braking system or an in depth analysis of how Google\u2019s search engine actually works). Don\u2019t do it. Instead, find a way to describe these things in your own words. This also goes for company descriptions used in press releases. For example, HP describes itself as \u201ca technology solutions provider to consumers, businesses and institutions globally.\u201d You might describe it as \u201ca seller of a broad range of technology products and services, including PCs, printers, and IT infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n

The bottom-line rule of attribution is: When in doubt, cite the source of your information. You can\u2019t go wrong then.<\/p>\n

Fabrication<\/b><\/h4>\n

Making up sources or information in an assignment is a serious ethical violation. In the real world, it could lead to immediate dismissal and the end of your career. In the late 1990s Stephen Glass created in part or whole cloth some two dozen stories he published in\u00a0The New Republic<\/em>,\u00a0Harpers<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/em>, which led to one of the biggest journalism scandals in history. Jayson Blair of\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>\u00a0plagiarized and fabricated sources and material, which became a huge embarrassment to the\u00a0Times<\/em>, which is still recovering. Both are out of the profession.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Shattered Glass: A lesson in what not to do<\/h1>\n<\/header>\n
\n

Stephen Glass<\/h1>\n
\n
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stephen Randall Glass<\/b>\u00a0(born September 15, 1972)[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0worked as a journalist for\u00a0The New Republic<\/a><\/i>\u00a0from 1995 to 1998, until it was revealed that many of his published articles were fabrications. An internal investigation by\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0determined that the majority of stories he wrote either contained false information or were fictitious. Glass later acknowledged that he had repaid over $200,000 to\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0and other publications for his earlier fabrications.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n
\n

Following the journalism scandal, Glass pursued a career in law. Although he earned a\u00a0Juris Doctor<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>\u00a0and passed the\u00a0bar exam<\/a>\u00a0in New York and California, he was unable to become a licensed attorney in either state over concerns derived from his scandal.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass instead found work as a paralegal at the law firm Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, serving as the director of special projects and trial team coordinator.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Glass made a brief return to writing when he fictionalized his story in his 2003 novel\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>.[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The same year, the scandal was dramatized in the film\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>, which was based on a\u00a0Vanity Fair<\/a><\/i>\u00a0article of the same name and starred\u00a0Hayden Christensen<\/a>\u00a0as Glass.<\/p>\n

Early life and education<\/span><\/h2>\n

Glass grew up in a Jewish family in the Chicago suburb of\u00a0Highland Park<\/a>,[6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and attended\u00a0Highland Park High School<\/a>.[8]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0He graduated from the\u00a0University of Pennsylvania<\/a>\u00a0as University Scholar, where he was an executive editor of the\u00a0student newspaper<\/a>,\u00a0The Daily Pennsylvanian<\/a><\/i>.[4]<\/a><\/sup>[9]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0His colleagues at\u00a0The Daily Pennsylvanian<\/i>\u00a0included\u00a0Sabrina Erdely<\/a>, who later became involved in a fabricated story scandal owing to her\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a><\/i>\u00a0article “A Rape on Campus<\/a>” and\u00a0Alan Sepinwall<\/a>, currently the chief television critic for Rolling Stone.[10]<\/a><\/sup>[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Glass later graduated\u00a0magna cum laude<\/a><\/i>\u00a0from\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>\u00a0with a\u00a0Juris Doctor<\/a>\u00a0degree and was named John M. Olin Fellow in law and economics.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Career<\/span><\/h2>\n

The New Republic<\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

After his 1994 graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, Glass joined\u00a0The New Republic<\/a><\/i>\u00a0in 1995 as an editorial assistant.[12]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Soon thereafter, the 23-year-old Glass advanced to writing features. While employed full-time at\u00a0TNR<\/i>, he also wrote for other magazines including\u00a0Policy Review<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0George<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0Harper’s<\/a><\/i>\u00a0and contributed to\u00a0Public Radio International<\/a>‘s (PRI) weekly hour-long program\u00a0This American Life<\/a><\/i>, hosted by\u00a0Ira Glass<\/a>\u00a0(no relation to Stephen).<\/p>\n

Although Glass enjoyed loyalty from\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0staff, his reporting repeatedly drew outraged rebuttals from the subjects of his articles, eroding his credibility and leading to private skepticism from insiders at the magazine. The magazine’s majority owner and editor-in-chief,\u00a0Martin Peretz<\/a>, later said that his wife had told him that she did not find Glass’s stories credible and had stopped reading them.[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In December 1996, the\u00a0Center for Science in the Public Interest<\/a>\u00a0(CSPI) was the target of a hostile article by Glass titled “Hazardous to Your Mental Health”. CSPI wrote a letter to the editor and issued a press release pointing out numerous inaccuracies and distortions and hinting at possible plagiarism.[14]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The organization\u00a0Drug Abuse Resistance Education<\/a>\u00a0(D.A.R.E.) accused Glass of falsehoods in his March 1997 article “Don’t You D.A.R.E”.[15]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0defended Glass and editor\u00a0Michael Kelly<\/a>\u00a0demanded CSPI apologize to him.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In May 1997, Joe Galli of the\u00a0College Republican National Committee<\/a>\u00a0accused Glass of fabrications in “Spring Breakdown”, his lurid tale of drinking and debauchery at the 1997\u00a0Conservative Political Action Conference<\/a>. A June 1997 article called “Peddling Poppy” about a\u00a0Hofstra University<\/a>\u00a0conference on\u00a0George H. W. Bush<\/a>\u00a0drew a letter from Hofstra reciting errors in the story.[15]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On May 18, 1998,\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0published a story by Glass (by then an associate editor) entitled “Hack Heaven”, purportedly telling the story of a 15-year-old\u00a0hacker<\/a>\u00a0who had penetrated a company’s computer network, then been hired by that company as a security consultant. The article opened as follows,<\/p>\n

Ian Restil, a 15-year-old computer hacker who looks like an even more adolescent version of\u00a0Bill Gates<\/a>, is throwing a tantrum. “I want more money. I want a\u00a0Miata<\/a>. I want a trip to\u00a0Disney World<\/a>. I want\u00a0X-Men<\/a>\u00a0comic [book] number one. I want a lifetime subscription to\u00a0Playboy<\/a><\/i>\u00a0\u2013 and throw in\u00a0Penthouse<\/a><\/i>.\u00a0Show me the money! Show me the money!<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>…” Across the table, executives from a California software firm called Jukt Micronics are listening and trying ever so delicately to oblige. “Excuse me, sir,” one of the suits says tentatively to the pimply teenager. “Excuse me. Pardon me for interrupting you, sir. We can arrange more money for you.”[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Adam Penenberg<\/a>, a reporter with\u00a0Forbes<\/a><\/i>\u00a0magazine, became suspicious when he found no search engine results for “Jukt Micronics”, found that “Jukt Micronics” had just a single phone line, and saw that its website was extremely amateurish.[17]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0When challenged, Glass claimed to have been duped by “Restil”. Glass took\u00a0Charles Lane<\/a>, the lead editor of\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>, to the\u00a0Bethesda, Maryland<\/a>\u00a0hotel at which Restil had purportedly met with the Jukt executives; Lane discovered that on the day of the claimed meeting the hotel’s conference room had been closed and the restaurant where the hackers supposedly ate dinner afterwards closes in the early afternoon.[6]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Lane dialed a\u00a0Palo Alto<\/a>\u00a0number provided by Glass and spoke with a man who identified himself as a Jukt executive; when he realized that the “executive” was actually Glass’s brother, who attended\u00a0Stanford University<\/a>\u00a0in Palo Alto, he fired Glass.[18]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Lane later said:<\/p>\n

We extended normal human trust to someone who basically lacked a conscience… We busy, friendly folks, were no match for such a willful deceiver… We thought Glass was interested in our personal lives, or our struggles with work, and we thought it was because he cared. Actually, it was all about sizing us up and searching for vulnerabilities. What we saw as concern was actually contempt.[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aftermath<\/span><\/h3>\n

The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0subsequently determined that at least 27 of the 41 articles Glass wrote for the magazine contained fabricated material. Some of the 27, such as “Don’t You D.A.R.E.”, contained real reporting interwoven with fabricated quotations and incidents,[20]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0while others, including “Hack Heaven,” were completely made up.[12]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the process of creating the “Hack Heaven” article, Glass had gone to especially elaborate lengths to thwart the discovery of his deception by\u00a0TNR<\/i>‘s<\/span>\u00a0fact checkers<\/a>: creating a website[21]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and\u00a0voice mail<\/a>\u00a0account for Jukt Micronics; fabricating notes of story gathering;[22]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0having fake business cards printed; and even composing editions of a fake computer hacker community newsletter.[12]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

As for the balance of the 41 stories, Lane, in an interview given for the 2005 DVD edition of\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/i>, said, “In fact, I’d bet lots of the stuff in those other 14 is fake too. … It’s not like we’re vouching for those 14, that they’re true. They’re probably not either”.\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>,\u00a0George<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Harper’s<\/i>\u00a0also re-examined his contributions.\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Harper’s<\/i>\u00a0found the material generally accurate yet maintained they had no way of verifying information because Glass had cited anonymous sources.\u00a0George<\/i>\u00a0discovered that at least three of the stories Glass wrote for it contained fabrications.[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass fabricated quotations in a profile piece and apologized to the article’s subject,\u00a0Vernon Jordan<\/a>, an adviser to\u00a0Bill Clinton<\/a>\u00a0when he was president. A court filing for Glass’s application to the\u00a0California bar<\/a>\u00a0gave an updated count on his journalism career: 36 of his stories at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>\u00a0were said to be fabricated in part or in whole, along with three articles for\u00a0George<\/i>, two articles for\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>\u00a0and one for\u00a0Policy Review<\/i>.[23]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass also later wrote a letter admitting he fabricated the article he wrote for\u00a0Harper\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0and the company retracted the story (the publication\u2019s first retraction in 165 years).[24]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Glass had contributed a story to an October 1997 episode of the\u00a0NPR<\/a>\u00a0program\u00a0This American Life<\/a><\/i>\u00a0about an internship at George Washington’s former plantation and another to a December 1997 episode about time he spent as a telephone psychic. The program subsequently removed both segments from the Archives section of its website “because of questions about [their] truthfulness”.[25]<\/a><\/sup>[26]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Later work<\/span><\/h3>\n

After journalism, Glass earned a\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0degree at\u00a0Georgetown University Law Center<\/a>. He then passed the\u00a0New York State bar<\/a>\u00a0examination<\/a>\u00a0in 2000 but the Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify him on its moral fitness test, citing ethics concerns related to his journalistic malpractice.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0He later abandoned his efforts to be admitted to the bar in New York.[28]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In 2003, Glass published a so-called “biographical novel<\/a>“,\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>.[29]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Glass sat for an interview with the weekly news program\u00a060 Minutes<\/a><\/i>\u00a0timed to coincide with the release of his book.\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>‘s<\/span>\u00a0literary editor,\u00a0Leon Wieseltier<\/a>, complained, “The creep is doing it again. Even when it comes to reckoning with his own sins, he is still incapable of nonfiction. The careerism of his repentance is repulsively consistent with the careerism of his crimes”.[29]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0One reviewer of\u00a0The Fabulist<\/i>\u00a0commented, “The irony\u2014we must have irony in a tale this tawdry\u2014is that Mr. Glass is abundantly talented. He’s funny and fluent and daring. In a parallel universe, I could imagine him becoming a perfectly respectable novelist\u2014a prize-winner, perhaps, with a bit of luck”.[30]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Also in 2003, Glass briefly returned to journalism, writing an article about Canadian\u00a0marijuana<\/a>\u00a0laws for\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/i>.[31]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On November 7, 2003, Glass participated in a panel discussion on\u00a0journalistic ethics<\/a>\u00a0at\u00a0George Washington University<\/a>, along with the editor who had hired him at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>,\u00a0Andrew Sullivan<\/a>, who accused Glass of being a “serial liar” who was using “contrition as a career move”.[32]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\n

It was very painful for me. It was like being on a guided tour of the moments of my life I am most ashamed of.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stephen Glass, reacting to\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>[33]<\/a><\/sup><\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A film about the scandal,\u00a0Shattered Glass<\/a><\/i>, was released in October 2003 and depicted a stylized view of Glass’s rise and fall at\u00a0The New Republic<\/i>. Written and directed by\u00a0Billy Ray<\/a>, it starred\u00a0Hayden Christensen<\/a>\u00a0as Glass,\u00a0Peter Sarsgaard<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Charles Lane<\/a>,\u00a0Hank Azaria<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Michael Kelly<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Steve Zahn<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0Adam Penenberg<\/a>. The film, appearing shortly after\u00a0The New York Times<\/a><\/i>\u00a0suffered a similar\u00a0plagiarism<\/a>\u00a0scandal with the discovery of\u00a0Jayson Blair<\/a>‘s fabrications, occasioned critiques of journalism by nationally prominent journalists such as\u00a0Frank Rich<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Mark Bowden<\/a>.[34]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Glass was out of the public eye for several years following the release of his novel and the film. In 2007, he was performing with a Los Angeles comedy troupe known as\u00a0Un-Cabaret<\/a>, having earlier found employment at a small law firm, apparently as a paralegal.[35]<\/a><\/sup>[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In 2015, Glass again made the news after reportedly sending\u00a0Harper’s Magazine<\/i>\u00a0a check for $10,000 \u2013 what he was paid for the false articles \u2013 writing in the attached letter that he wanted “to make right that part of my many transgressions…I recognize that repaying Harper’s will not remedy my wrongdoing, make us even, or undo what I did wrong. That said, I did not deserve the money that Harper’s paid me and it should be returned”.[37]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Glass has stated he has repaid $200,000 to\u00a0The New Republic, Rolling Stone, Harper’s<\/i>\u00a0and the publisher of\u00a0Policy Review<\/i>.[38]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Unsuccessful California Bar application<\/span><\/h3>\n

In 2009, Glass applied to join the\u00a0State Bar of California<\/a>.[39]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify him, finding that he did not satisfy California’s moral fitness test because of his history of journalistic deception.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Insisting that he had reformed, Glass then petitioned the State Bar Court’s hearing department, which found that Glass possessed the necessary “good moral character” to be admitted as an attorney.[27]<\/a><\/sup>[23]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The Committee of Bar Examiners sought review in the State Bar’s Review Department and filed a Writ of Review, thereby petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the decision.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On November 16, 2011, the Supreme Court granted the petition, the first time in 11 years the court had granted review in a moral character case.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On January 3, 2012, Glass’s attorneys filed papers with the Court arguing that his behavior had been beyond reproach for more than 13 years and this was proof that he had reformed.[40]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On November 6, 2013, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Glass’s case[41]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and ruled unanimously against him in an opinion issued January 27, 2014. The lengthy opinion describes in minute detail the applicant’s history, record, the bar’s applicable standard of review, the appeal and its analysis of how Glass failed to satisfy the court’s standards, concluding, “On this record, he has not sustained his heavy burden of demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness for the practice of law”.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0On that basis, Glass was denied admission to the California bar.[42]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Doctoring Photos or Videos<\/b><\/h4>\n

It is not permissible to doctor or manipulate photos for the purpose of misleading, although is all right to crop pictures or enhance clarity if blurry. With video it is OK to edit footage but not all right to alter subjects\u2019 appearance or likewise distort reality. Increasingly photo manipulation is being used as an explanatory technique: Putting George Bush\u2019s head onto a wrestler\u2019s body for satirical purposes, for example. This is acceptable only if there will be no confusion between the photo manipulation\u2014satirical or otherwise\u2014and reality.<\/p>\n

Fictional Devices<\/b><\/h4>\n

Names, dates and places should never be altered in any story, even to protect a source\u2019s identity. If publishing those facts could lead to retribution against a source, or if compassion dictates omitting these facts from a story, they should simply be cut (with an explanation to the reader). Composites, which are characteristics and histories of multiple characters blended into one, should never be used.<\/p>\n

\n

Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Case Studies<\/span>
\nThe New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and Jayson Blair<\/span><\/h2>\n

By Adrian Uribarri, SPJ Ethics Committee<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

WHAT:<\/strong>\u00a0Jayson Blair advanced quickly during his tenure at\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>, where he was hired as a full-time staff writer after his internship there and others at\u00a0The Boston Globe<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0The Washington Post<\/em>. Even accusations of inaccuracy and a series of corrections to his reports on Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks did not stop Blair from moving on to national coverage of the war in Iraq. But when suspicions arose over his reports on military families, an internal review found that he was fabricating material and communicating with editors from his Brooklyn apartment \u2014 or within the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0building \u2014 rather than from outside New York.<\/p>\n

Some\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0staffers, opposed to what they viewed as favoritism by Executive Editor Howell Raines, blamed a star system that allowed Blair to advance unusually fast in an extremely competitive, mostly veteran environment. Blair’s former boss, Jonathan Landman, said race played a large part in the African American writer’s ascendancy.<\/p>\n

The findings of a 25-member committee headed by Allan Siegal, an assistant managing editor, led to the appointment of a public editor and stricter editorial policies. But staffing changes and higher standards could not change what happened: The\u00a0Times\u2018s<\/em>\u00a0reputation was deeply tarnished. Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned in a cloud of mismanagement. Journalism, in general, suffered perhaps the biggest blow to its credibility in U.S. history.<\/p>\n

Question: How does the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0investigate problems and correct policies that allowed the Blair scandal to happen?<\/span><\/p>\n

WHO:<\/strong>\u00a0The consequences of Blair’s actions are so broad that it is important to have representatives from all staff levels, as well as journalists outside the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0staff, weigh in on corrective steps. Leading this group should be one or several highly ethical consensus-builders who can solicit and synthesize ideas from throughout the profession.<\/p>\n

In the case of the\u00a0Times<\/em>, stakeholders range from the humble retiree who simply reads his paper in the morning to the power-wielding diplomat who relies on foreign-policy reports to inform her decisions. Journalists, too, lose ground when a colleague lowers the public’s value of their work. As a group, biggest stakeholders are citizens of democracies, which depend on journalists to grow trust in readers with accurate reporting.<\/p>\n

WHY:<\/strong>\u00a0The Blair case raises questions about hiring, management and overall editorial policy.<\/p>\n

First, there is the issue of relative inexperience in a super-high-stakes newsroom. Is it fair to senior staffers to allow a fresh-out-of-college writer to step into the ranks? More importantly, is it fair to expect such an inexperienced writer, however talented, to produce reporting as sharp as that of a decorated correspondent? While a pure meritocracy allows an individual of any experience level to fill any role, talent in the absence of experience could lead to diminished professionalism: Blair’s ability to impress editors with his writing may have led to him feeling that facts are less important than prose.<\/p>\n

Second, there is the question of who is responsible for letting Blair go so far. Is it the editor who hired him straight from the University of Maryland? How bout successive editors, who, despite their mediocre evaluations, did not object loudly enough to Blair’s promotions? Could the executive and managing editors, with their big-picture roles and busy days, truly be responsible for one staffer\u2019s malfeasance?<\/p>\n

Third, there must be a better way. Is it enough to know what went wrong and tighten the reigns on practices such as anonymous sources? Or does the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0need an auditor, someone it pays for a scolding? Why should an outsider be allowed to make recommendations on better internal practices? Then again, how could an insider, in earshot of the mess itself, lead the committee to fix things?<\/p>\n

HOW:<\/strong>\u00a0The\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0decided that to remedy the nasty ramifications of the Blair scandal, it would commission an insider, along with others in and outside the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0newsroom, to investigate problems and suggest changes. The insider, Siegal, decided the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0should hire an outsider (who would be former\u00a0Life<\/em>\u00a0magazine editor Daniel Okrent) to suggest further improvements. And\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0editorial policy changed to reflect a much more cautious, conservative atmosphere concerning staff promotions and, especially, verification of reporting. A notable example of the latter aspect regards anonymous sources. In terms of staffing, the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0went so far as to require written evaluations for any candidates transferring between posts.<\/p>\n

A particularly difficult aspect of the fallout, although one welcome by staffers who felt marginalized, was the dual resignation of Raines and Boyd. That development, at least in the view of Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, was for the greater good of the\u00a0Times<\/em>. Symbolically, their departures made it possible for observers to view the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u00a0as a reformed institution.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":53,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-45","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/45","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/53"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/45\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":175,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/45\/revisions\/175"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/45\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=45"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=45"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/medianewsandreporting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=45"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}