The film, Shattered Glass, is truly a cautionary tale capturing the horrific predicaments of a journalist’s decision to unrightfully delve into fiction. Due to his hunger for glory, Steven Glass, a well-liked writer and editor at The New Republic, continually manipulates the system by orchestrating fake phone numbers, web sites, and contact names; however, in 1998, one of Glass’s recently released editorials prompts an investigation by a local team of journalists which leads to Glass’s downfall. As the pressure for the truth increasing lurks around Glass, he consistently strives to lie to his new boss, Charles Lane. Although Glass’s fellow employees instinctively believe him, Lane finally discovers the truth and is forced to fire Glass. In end, Stephen Glass reportedly fabricated numerous other articles. Why did Glass do what he did? The previous question remains a mystery, but the integrity of journalism was definitely compromised by Glass’s actions; moreover, critics question if Glass’s methodology should be considered plagiarism and if Glass deserved his strict punishment.
In Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, plagiarism is defined to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own or to use (another's production) without crediting the source. After considering the definition of plagiarism, I believe Glass’s actions should not be considered plagiarism. First of all, Glass failed to reproduce an individual’s work. Instead, he chose to completely invent, in whole or in part, a fictional story. With the help of his brother, Glass cited various innovative names, phone numbers, and businesses. In my opinion, Glass’s false references are not an act of plagiarism, because they do not truly exist. Fictional authors fail to be associated with plagiarism; as a result, Glass’s pieces should be regarded as fictional stories, so the author should not be criticized of plagiarizing.
In order to save the magazine, get a grasp on the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document