This movie concentrates on the journalist Stephen Glass a 25-year-old rising star at The New Republic, wrote dozens of high-profile articles for a number of national publications in which he made things up. Stephen, who fabricated a number of articles to impress his readers, has been one of the most respected journalists in The New Republic.
Stephen Glass was making up stories to impress people, and he said it was because he loved the electricity of people liking his stories. The stories he made up were all believable, that’s the reason why nobody questioned him about them in the beginning. He would make up false stories, false facts and false citations. The last editor, Michael Kelly really trusted his writers and didn’t make a big deal when some of the facts were false. There was a quote in the movie that appeared more than one time, “A great editor fights for his writers.” That’s exactly what Michael Kelly used to do, which he shouldn’t have, I believe that if he had checked all the facts and the citations they could have stopped him in the right moment. After Kelly got fired, Chuck took over and the movie portrayed him as the bad guy. I think that he is a smart guy and he saved the magazine at the right moment. Stephen Glass accused him of punishing him for his loyalty to Michael Kelly, which I don’t think it’s true. It was just another excuse for Glass to escape from the humiliation. When the online magazine called for the fact check, I think that it was a golden opportunity for any competitor to bring the magazine down and take their place. I didn’t appreciate Glass at that moment when he just continued lying about his stories, instead he could have just told the truth, he knew he was about to sink anyways. He just kept on running it by telling his brother to call them as one of the sources and by bringing up new stories and accusing Chuck of not trusting him. What the magazine should have thought about were pictures, it could have been...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document