Shattered Glass (2003, 2004)

Shattered Glass is a historical and biographical drama (based on a true story) about the rise and fall of Stephen Glass, who was an investigative reporter at The New Republic, until he was exposed as a fraud who had fabricated several articles written for TNR and other prominent publications. Here is some basic information about this drama which premiered in 2003:

** Written and directed by Billy Ray
** Based on an article by H. G. Bissinger published in Vanity Fair (September 1998)
** Released on DVD: 2004
** Run time: 94 minutes

The cast includes the following:

** Hayden Christensen as Stephen Glass – reporter, TNR

** Peter Sarsgaard as Charles “Chuck” Lane – TNR, editor # 2

** Melanie Lynskey as Amy Brand – reporter, TNR

** Chloe Sevigny as Caitlin Avey – reporter, TNR (a fictional character)

** Hank Azaria as Michael Kelly (1957-2003) – TNR, editor # 1

** Ted Kotcheff as Martin Peretz – the owner of TNR

** Steve Zahn as Adam Penenberg – a reporter who exposes Glass

** Rosario Dawson as Andy Fox – a reporter who works with Adam

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore I feel free to mention some of them in this review.

While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here, but the basic story is true.

The year is 1998. The place is New York. Stephen Glass is an investigative reporter at The New Republic, a monthly magazine what was founded in 1914. He is a young man. At TNR he is quite popular. The editors of other prominent publications want to talk to him. He is a rising star.

Then one day, something begins to go wrong. Adam Penenberg, who works for an online magazine, is asked by his editor to look into a story about hackers written by Glass in TNR. When Penenberg tries to verify the basic facts of Glass’s story, he is puzzled.

The deeper he digs, the stranger it gets. It seems the persons mentioned in the story do not exist! It seems the main event mentioned in the article never happened! Penenberg becomes convinced that Glass must have invented the whole thing.

He contacts the editor of TNR, who contacts Glass. At first, Glass stands by his story. When pressured, he admits that he may have made one or two mistakes. Step by step the truth is revealed, until we reach the inescapable conclusion: Glass made up the whole thing!

In this drama we follow the painful process. We see how Glass responds. We also see how the people around him respond: his colleagues; and his editor. At first, they support him, because they trust him. They cannot believe he would do anything wrong. Later, they become skeptical. In the end, they have to face the horrible truth, even though they still cannot believe it.

A careful investigation of all articles written by Glass in TNR comes to the following conclusion: 27 of 41 articles were fabricated in whole or in part.

The drama also raises the question: how could this happen? Submissions are checked before they are published. How could so many lies slip through the net so many times?

The first answer is that Glass was clever and convincing. The second answer is that the fact checkers were rather careless. The third answer is that TNR at the time had a policy which said no photos in the magazine. If a story must be illustrated by photographs, it is much more difficult to write about persons who do not exist and events that never happened.

But there is a loophole here. Sometimes a reporter must use and quote an anonymous source. This source cannot be identified by name; this source cannot be shown in a photo.

As Glass explains in a meeting with students from his old high school: sometimes the only evidence is the reporter’s handwritten notes. And in such notes anything can be written. The facts listed in such notes cannot be verified. All we have is the reporter’s word. Can the reporter be trusted? Maybe, maybe not.

What do reviewers say about this historical drama? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 72 per cent = IMDb = 3.6 stars on Amazon
** 73 per cent = Metacritic = 3.7 stars on Amazon
** 91 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes = 4.6 stars on Amazon

If you ask me, the average ratings of IMDb and Metacritic are a bit too low, while the average rating of Rotten Tomatoes is a bit too high. This movie is good, but not great. It has a very short time frame: events in 1998; and only that. Nothing before; and nothing after. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1. Stephen Glass later wrote a novel based on (or inspired by) his own case: The Fabulist. It was published in 2003. A paperback version appeared in 2014.

PS # 2. A somewhat similar case happened at the New York Times in 2003: a young reporter (Jayson Thomas Blair, born 1976) resigned from the paper after he had been accused of plagiarism. For details about this case, see the documentary film: A Fragile Trust: Plagiarism, Power, and Jayson Blair at the New York Times (2013).

PS # 3. A somewhat similar case happened at the Washington Post in 1980-1981: a young reporter (Janet Cooke) wrote a story about a boy who was addicted to heroin. Her story was published in 1980. In 1981 it won the Pulitzer Prize. Shortly after the award was announced, it was discovered that the story was the product of the reporter's vivid imagination.

PS # 4. Billy Ray is the director of the historical drama Breach, which premiered in 2007.

*****

A Fragile Trust (2013, 2014)

A Fragile Trust: Plagiarism, Power, and Jayson Blair at the New York Times is a documentary film which premiered in 2013. It was shown on US television (“Independent Lens”) in 2014. Here is some basic information about it:

** Producer and director: Samantha Grant
** Available on Amazon Video
** Run time: 75 minutes

Jayson Blair (born 1976) was a reporter at the New York Times. In 2003 he resigned, after it had been revealed that at least half of the articles he had written for the paper were based on fabrications and plagiarism. By resigning, he avoided being fired. When the editors of the paper wanted to fire him, they discovered that he had resigned the day before.

This film covers Jason Blair’s life and career, focusing on his work at the New York Times. The film discusses how and why he did it. It also discusses why the editors did not stop him sooner.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that there were several warning signs that something was seriously wrong with Jayson Blair long before he resigned from the New York Times in 2003.

In this film, Jayson Blair gets a chance to explain what happened. He talks a lot, but does not show much remorse. He says it was stupid, but he does not apologize. He does not blame himself. He seems to blame the editors of the paper for not stopping him sooner.

While Jayson Blair is allowed to talk, this film does not want to defend him. Several other people are interviewed as well. Some of them were directly involved in the case, while others were observers. These people have a different approach. Here are their names in alphabetical order:

** Jerry Gray, political editor, NYT
** Macarena Hernandez, reporter, San Antonio Express-News
** Howard Kurtz, media critic, Washington Post
** Adam Liptak, correspondent, NYT

** Seth Mnookin, author of the book “Hard News” (2004, 2005)
** Howell Raines, executive editor, NYT
** Robert Rivard, editor, San Antonio Express-News
** William E. Schmidt, assistant managing editor, NYT

** Al Siegal, assistant managing editor, NYT
** Lena Williams, correspondent, NYT
** Edward Wong, correspondent, NYT

[There is also a brief clip with Gerald Boyd, managing editor, NYT, but this is archive footage. Boyd died in 2006. He was no longer alive when Samantha Grant began to make her film.]

What do reviewers say about it? Here are the results of three movie aggregators:

** 56 per cent = Metacritic
** 67 per cent = IMDb
** 67 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes

The topic is important and interesting, but the ratings are not impressive, as you can see. They correspond to something like three stars on Amazon. If you ask me, these average ratings are too low.

On the other hand, I cannot go all the way to the top, because this film has a flaw: it does not mention a similar case which happened five years before Jason Blair was exposed as a fraud.

This case concerns Stephen Glass (born 1972) and The New Republic. In 1998 he was fired, after it was revealed that several of the articles he had written in this journal and in other journals were based on fabrications.

Stephen Glass was 26 when the scandal involving him broke. Jayson Blair was 27 when the scandal involving him broke. These two reporters had almost the same age when they were exposed. They had been working as fabricators for several years before the truth about them was finally discovered.

How could they get away with this for so long? One significant reason is that they working with words and words alone. They did not have to provide any photos to support their stories. If they had been asked to provide a few photos it would have been much more difficult for them to deceive their editors and their readers for such a long time.

Many people were interviewed for this film. But not one of them mentions the case of Stephen Glass and The New Republic which happened only five years before the case of Jayson Blair and the New York Times. The omission of this case is a serious flaw which cannot be ignored; which cannot be overlooked.

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but I have remove one star because of this flaw. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1. Burning down My Master’s House: My Life at the New York Times by Jason Blair was published in 2004 (hardcover) and 2006 (paperback). The book is mentioned in the film. We are told that it got poor reviews. This is true. On the US version of Amazon there are more than forty reviews of this book. The average rating is 2.5 stars. More than twenty reviewers offer only one star!

PS # 2. Hard News: Twenty-One Brutal Months at the New York Times and how it changed the American Media by Seth Mnookin was published in 2004 (hardcover) and 2005 (paperback). The author, who appears in the film, is one of the sharpest critics of Jayson Blair.

PS # 3. Shattered Glass is a movie about Stephen Glass and his time at The New Republic. It was released in 2003.

*****

 

Jayson Blair (born 1976)

*****