I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
66 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Jessica
I read your blog and watched the interviews duggerman. When the interviewer asked him why he wrote fiction instead of an autobiography, he said he could reach the "greater truths by writing a book of fiction instead" or something like that.  Color me confused. Does Stephen really get handjobs and go to strip bars in this book? It sounds sleezy and full of sin, but now I'm strangely tempted to read it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Becky
I actually ordered the book off Amazon last week. Talking about it in this forum made me want to read it again because it had been so long. I might scan a few pages of it and post it here. But my original opinion on the novel still stands.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Duggerman
Administrator
This post was updated on .
I read some of the book last night. It's an entertaining read. You never quite know what to expect.

Note: I just ran across this hilarious review of the novel on Amazon.com

I read this whole book in one sitting. I started it on a Sunday night and skipped work on Monday just to finish it. And I do have a job. I didn't get fired for writing lies.

I'm not even Stephen Glass and I loved it. Trust me, I'm not him.

The best part of the book was how I ... I mean Stephen Glass was really a good guy, even though he got fired from the New Republic for cooking stories.

Stephen Glass is is a great man. I wish I were more like him.

If you want to become more like him, you should bye his book. I bought multiple copies and had one put in a glass case (no pun intended cause I'm not Glass) for safe keeping, because I think this will become a timeless classic and eventually be worth alot of money.

If you read this, beleive me. I'm not lying.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Becky
I remember that review, AJ. It's someone posing as Stephen. Of course it isn't really him, but it's funny. Did you know that Marty Peretz--the publisher of TNR during Stephen's tenure-- defended Stephen a couple of years ago? Here is a link. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Peretz-t.html?pagewanted=all

In 1998, a young New Republic reporter named Stephen Glass was found to have fabricated at least two dozen articles for the magazine. It was the greatest scandal in the magazine’s history and marked a decade of waning influence and mounting financial losses.

Glass eventually went to law school. Later, he moved to Los Angeles, and applied to the California bar, but his application was denied because of his previous ethical lapses. He requested an appeal hearing. Charles Lane, The New Republic’s editor during part of Glass’s tenure, was subpoenaed and asked to offer testimony. In April, he made the trip to Los Angeles for the hearing and ran into a familiar face. Lane did a double take.

“Marty, what are you doing here?”

Peretz smiled.

“I’m testifying for Steve.”

Peretz testified that Glass’s accusers were hypocrites and that he would rehire the fabulist if given the chance. (The results of the hearing are sealed, but Glass’s name does not appear on California’s list of licensed lawyers.) I asked Peretz why he chose to speak on behalf of Glass. “It was the right thing to do,” he said. “Who are they to sit in judgment?”
It's nice that he defended Stephen and would rehire him. I didn't think Stephen had any friends or supporters left over at TNR.

I found out that he actually wrote an article in 2003 for Rolling Stone. Here it is.

CANADA'S POT REVOLUTION

By: Stephen Glass, Rolling Stone (US)', 09/04/03

North of the Border, Marijuana Policy Is Changing Radically. and The White House Is Not Happy

In November 2001, when Alain Berthiaume - Montreal's most prominet marijuana activist - was arrested on drug charges, the best advice might have been to plead guilty. Berthiaume, who owns a head shop, a grow shop, a seed band and a pot-culture magazine, was caught organizing his third annual Cannabis Cup - a public competition for marijuana growers. Several months later, the police raided his home and found 1,2000 cannabis plants - what Berthiaume calls his "small plantation"

But Berthiaume thought he shouldn't have to go to prison. "I've been smoking all my life," he says. "I no longer want to be treated as a failure, a drug addict, a fucking thief."

So when the prosecutor offered him a plea deal with only one year of jail time, he refused it.

And Berthiaume might just win.

In the past few months, a storm of legal reforms in Canada has made it likely that marijuana will be decriminalized before the year is out. By then, Parliament is expected to have passed a bill that will make the possession of small amounts of marijuana merely a ticketable offense, much like speeding. Meanwhile, this past spring, an Ontario court voided the country's possession law on technical grounds, meaning that in the province at least, there is currently no law against possessing small amounts of marijuana. And this fall, the Canadian Supreme Court will determine whether the country's laws prohibiting marijuana possession are unconstitutional and therefore must be struck down altogether.

Predictably, these reforms have the Bush administration steaming. Asa Hutchinson, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security, warned Canadian journalists that their country would face "consequences" it passed decriminalization.

The U.S. "would have to respond" to a change in Canada's drug laws, David Murray, a top member of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, told reporters in Vancouver. "This isn't Woodstock."

And John Walters, the drug czar himself, hinted in an interview with the Boston Globe that the northern border of the U.S. may have to be restricted, maybe even semimilitarized, like the border with Mexico. That's a significant threat to the Canadian economy, which relies heavily on fluid trade with the U.S.

But for all its bravado, the Bush administration has Canada's marijuana laws all wrong. The Canadians don't see the proposed new law as a step towards legalization; officials there see it as a soft and sensible way to crack down on drug use. Adults caught with fifteen grams or less (about half an ounce) would be fined $150 (U.S. $107); minors would own $100 (U.S. $71) and a letter would be sent to their parents. That would be the extent of it. No handcuffs, no mug shot, no overnight in lockup, no court appearance. Moreover, as with parking violations there would no cumulative punishments - as long as you paid your tickets, you could rack up an infinite number of infractions without fear of additional or harsher penalties.

In larger cases, when an individual is caught with between fifteen and thirty grams, police would have the discretion to issue a ticket (with double the fines) or file criminal charges, carrying the old penalties - up to six months in jail.

Unlike in the U.S., where pot prosecutions have skyrocketed during the past few years - more than 640,000 people were arrested for possession in 2001, nearly double the number arrested for all marijuana offenses in 1992 - Canada's judicial system only rarely enforces its own pot laws.

In 1999, Canadian police charged only about 21,000 people with cannabis possession. And that's only about half the number of times law enforcement reported an "incident" of cannabis possession. In other words, police looked the other way just as often as they arrested people.

Richmond, British Columbia - a city whose prosecutions were examined by a government commission - is a good example. In 2001, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found individuals in possession of marijuana 605 times. But they charged only thirty people. In short, Dudley Do-Right isn't doing much. And the country's leaders are realistic about it. "We don't believe that charging [and] prosecuting some 25,000 people a year really sends a message about the harmful effects of marijuana," says Richard Mosley, a senior official in Canada's Department of Justice. A Canadian Senate committee came to the same conclusion last year, noting that "any deterrent effect [the current law] may have [is] seriously in doubt."

Instead, the Department of Justice expects that when the penalty is reduced to a mere fine, nabbing offenders will be more efficient, and in turn a far greater number of Canadians will be pinched for pot. Criminologists call this phenomenon the "net-widening effect."

"[This reform] is not in any way an endorsement of a relaxed approach to the possession and use of cannabis," Mosley says. "The level of enforcement will go up."

Moreover, the bill, if anything, ought to lessen the flow of pot from Canada to the U.S., not increase it - making the Bush administration'sconcerns even more off the mark.

The proposed law will double the penalties - from seven to fourteen years - for large-scale growers: those with fifty plants or more, who presumably cultivate much of the pot that is shipped south. At the same time, it leaves untouched the current draconian penalties for trafficking or exporting drugs - offenses that still allow life imprisonment.

In sharp counterpoint to the U.S., Canada simply lacks any strong voice in favor of strict enforcement of criminal penalties for marijuana use. Last September, Canada's Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs issued an exhaustive 600-page-plus report that examined every aspect of the country's marijuana laws and concluded that legalization was the necessary reform.

Instead, some lawmakers even seem to find the whole subject amusing, treating it with a casual offhandedness unthinkable for their U.S. counterparts. When asked by reporters whether he had ever smoked marijuana, Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon said, "I'm thirty-nine years old.... Yes, of course I tried it before, obviously." And when the bill got delayed at one point, Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien told reporters, "It's coming, it's coming. Relax. You don't have to smoke it to relax."

Even Dan McTeague, one of the bill's leading, and most thoughtful, opponents, was careful to say, "I don't believe you throw people in jail because they smoked marijuana. That's absurd." Instead, McTeague says he will oppose the bill because he's concerned about the health consequences for marijuana users and the public-safety risks of widespread pot use.

Ironically, it's the pot activists who seem most upset about the upcoming changes in the law, seeing them as a rear-guard attempt to recriminalize pot possession after it had already been decriminalized in practice (though not in law). All across the country, smokers and growers have been ignoring pot laws during the past few years, banking on the fact that even if they got arrested, nothing would happen. Pot is openly smoked in coffee shops in Vancouver and even in smaller, provincial cities such as Saint John, New Brunswick.

"It's all cosmetic," says Marc-Boris St.-Maurice, the leader of the federal Marijuana Party, who has been arrested several times on pot charges. "The day the government realizes there's money to be made writing tickets for potheads, we're going to increase the amount of potheads being targeted."

At Crosstown Traffic, an Ottawa head shop, many of the clients said they, too, were worried about the ticketing scheme. One customer, Oliver Greer, a smart, confident, and at times very funny nineteen-year-old, is particularly concerned about how much the new law sill cost him. Greer says he smokes between fifteen and twenty joints a day.

"If you get caught smoking a joint by a cop, he's just going to take it and throw it away," Greer says. But when the ticketing system kicks in, he predicts, "For people who smoke lots and lots of weed, the fucking tickets are going to add up, you know what I mean?"

Pot has reached so deeply into Canadian daily life that Canada could very well become the most stoned country on earth. According to Alain Berthiaume, even small towns - some with as few as 15,000 people - have grow shops.

In Saint John, a small costal city ninety minutes from the Maine border, Jim Wood recently added a pot-friendly coffee bar to Hemp N.B., the head shop that he and his wife, Lynn, own. But later this month, the couple says they will become the very first to take the final, most controversial step for Canada's marijuana movement: They will begin openly selling pot to the public over the counter. Even Berthiaume - despite his many marijuana ventures - never actually deals, but the Woods intend to do some, and to do it unabashedly.

"What we want," says Jim Wood, "is Americans coming up here, spending their U.S. dollars on our pot."

Wood believes he has the right to sell pot thanks to a loophole in Canada's medical-marijuana laws: The cafe at Hemp N.B. will sell pot to anyone who presents a photocopy of any doctor's diagnosis. While Hemp N.B. will check to ensure the diagnosis comes from a legitimate doctor, a customer's doctor's note can say anything. It need not prescribe marijuana, Wood stresses. It doesn't even need to be evidence of an illness that's normally thought to be treatable with marijuana. "Dandruff would work," says Wood. "If you felt that eating or smoking pot - or maybe even rubbing it in your hair - would help, you're more than free to do so, as far as I'm concerned."

Wood says that he and his wife designed the coffee shop at Hemp N.B. to resemble a well-worn 1970s living room, with an overabundance of houseplants, checkers and cribbage sets, and comfortable seats. Adults over nineteen, he says, may never smoke their own pot as long as they buy a cup of coffee. Tobacco smokers, thought, must take their cigarettes outside. In May, a few weeks after the cafe opened, police officers hauled off five pot smokers. But when they appeared in court, an officer told them to go home. Charges still haven't been filed, presumably because of the current flux in the law. (In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, to other eastern Canadian provinces, the courts have suspended all marijuana prosecutions.)

Now, business is booming. Wood says he's getting about seventy-five customers a day; and, increasingly, Americans making port calls on North Atlantic cruse ships are stopping by - just as he'd hoped.

Wood seems to be anticipating a future free of marijuana laws, or at least of their enforcement - and so, in his own way, is Berthiaume. Ten years from now, Berthiaume says, he's "positive, positive, positive" that there won't be trials like his anymore in Canada.

For now, though, he is awaiting sentencing. Based on the judge's reactions from the bench, Berthiaume expects to receive six months to a year in prison, or maybe house arrest. But he vows that the legal hassles won't cause him to cancel his Cannabis Cup for the second straight year. "We're going to do it again, man," he assured me. "We cannot let that go, man."
http://www.humanhemphealth.ca/Rolling_Stone_090403.html

I'm glad they gave him a chance. Here is an article about how he got a second chance at journalism.

http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2003/07/stephen_glass_returns_to_reporting_at_rolling_stone

Everyone deserves a second shot.

At least Rolling Stone magazine seems to think so.

The publication has contracted infamous Penn alumnus and former Daily Pennsylvanian Executive Editor Stephen Glass -- who was fired from the New Republic in 1998 after the weekly magazine uncovered fabrications in his work -- to write an article on marijuana laws in Canada.

Rolling Stone owner Jann Wenner "believes the guy deserves a second chance... he deserves redemption," the magazine's spokesperson Stu Zakim said.

After Glass' departure from the New Republic, editors there found fabrications in 27 of the 41 articles published with his byline.

After the resulting scandal, Glass dropped from the national spotlight for several years, earning a law degree at Georgetown and later moving to New York.

In 1998, an article Glass wrote for Rolling Stone -- also about drug policy -- resulted in a $50 million lawsuit against the magazine.

Zakim said the editorial system at the magazine would institute no special measures to verify the information in Glass' latest article.

The magazine will check facts "no more so than we normally do," Zakim said.

However, Glass still has a ways to go before convincing others that he deserves this second chance.

"It just boggles the mind why Rolling Stone would do this," said Baltimore Sun reporter Scott Calvert, who worked with Glass at the DP.

"I'm sure it's a publicity stunt," Calvert added, noting that he initially assumed the news about Rolling Stone publishing an article by Glass was a joke.

Glass emerged from several years of silence following his departure from the New Republic this past spring when he published a novel.

His novel, The Fabulist, is a mix of autobiography and fiction about a young writer named Stephen Glass, who fabricates parts of his stories.

Glass made the rounds of talkshows and newsmagazines, his story rendered especially pertinent by the highly publicized revelation that former NewYork Times reporter Jayson Blair had fabricated many of his own stories.

"This is the very beginning of a very, very long process of apologies," Glass said in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired in May -- coinciding with the release of his novel, published by Simon & Schuster.

However, Glass' pubic contrition -- as well as his habit of mixing fact and fiction -- still leaves some disturbed.

"I don't harbor any ill will toward Steve," Calvert said, but added, "I think he's forfeited a right to do journalism."

In addition to his novel, a movie based on Glass' deception, titled Shattered Glass, is planned for release next October. With Tom Cruise as an executive producer, the film will feature Star Wars' Hayden Christensen as Glass.

Glass did not return calls for comment.
What do you think? Were they right to give him the chance and trust him? Would you have done the same?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Duggerman
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Becky wrote
What do you think? Were they right to give him the chance and trust him? Would you have done the same?
That's a tough one. As a christian, I'd give him one more chance. After all, God gives us more than multiple chances. But if he got caught doing it again, then no. Business is business. I honestly think Stephen learned his lesson and won't do it again. He went from being somewhat famous to being infamous. I remember reading this article a few years ago. I wonder why he didn't continue writing? They seemed happy to have him.

Speaking of Stephen Glass, I found this rare interview online from 1997. Stephen is talking about how he fooled people when he worked as a telephone psychic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEgdd2IwClM

Note: Here is part two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LO-Ng5ktgY
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
I haven't been around too much lately. Finals Suck. But I have a little free time now. I listened to the interviews Stephen did about being a psychic. Towards the end he said he felt bad. I doubt that. Why feel bad about stealing someone's money when you're lying in your journalism every damn week?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Bugs
Is it true that he's a lawyer now?
Eh....What's Up, Doc?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Jessica
Oh my God. New updates about Stephen Glass!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/justice/stephen-glass/index.html

From reading these it looks like his parents are the cause of his behavior.

Stephen Glass, the whiz-kid magazine writer exposed 13 years ago as a serial fabricator, is telling what may be his most compelling story yet -- his own. He swears he's not making it up, and he's asking California's highest court to believe him and give him a chance.

Glass, who graduated in 2000 from Georgetown's law school, works as a paralegal for a firm in Beverly Hills, California. But he really wants to be a lawyer, and he insists he's remorseful, reformed and committed to telling the truth. Others aren't so sure, which is why a bar application that usually would be a no-brainer is taking five years and counting.

There is no question that Glass is brilliant, and he easily passed the bar exams in New York and California. But his budding legal career has become snagged on the jagged rocks of good character and moral fitness.

The latest installment in the infamous fabulist's saga is contained in a thick file at the California Supreme Court. Opened to the public late last month, it finally offers an explanation for why Glass once felt driven to publish lie after lie, and then lie some more to cover it all up. But this case also raises some difficult questions: Can he, should he be forgiven? Is his redemption even possible? Or, once a liar, always a liar?
"Maybe there are certain types of behavior you never get over," said Arnold Siegel, an ethics professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. But, he added, "The Bar has a fairly compassionate view. They do believe in rehabilitation."

Adam Penenberg, the writer who first outed Glass' lies in 1998, took a more ironic view: "When I first learned of Glass' quest to join the legal profession, I thought, Christ, it's been 13 years. And, since when does lying disqualify someone from being a lawyer? Let the guy earn a living," he wrote for fastcompany.com. "Leave it to Glass to disgrace himself in one mistrusted profession only to apply to another."

Lawyers and journalists aren't highly regarded, although they usually rank a notch above lobbyists, members of Congress and used car salespeople in Gallup's annual Honesty and Ethics survey. Nurses, teachers and doctors are considered the most trustworthy professionals. Glass' father was a doctor, and his mother a nurse, and they didn't think much of lawyers or journalists, which is a big part of his story.

Glass insists he has undergone a dramatic character change, even if he looks very much the same as he nears 40 as he did at 25 -- wiry with short brown hair and glasses, the prototypical nerd. One of his psychiatrists explains that as an immature young man, Glass was so eager to succeed that his lying became compulsive, like a gambler's high. He lied and lied and lied until he lost it all.

Glass and his supporters say he is now almost compulsive about the truth -- to the point where he usually volunteers that he is that Stephen Glass, and even went back to a store to return excess change he'd been given.

But he shouldn't be permitted to simply gloss over his past, Rachel Grunberg, associate counsel for the California State Bar, said in an interview with CNN. "Given the egregiousness of Glass' past misconduct, that goes to the heart of what we look at -- truthfulness, honesty, respect for others."

Those aren't traits magazine editor Richard Bradley associates with the Stephen Glass he knew in 1998. At least three of the pieces Glass wrote for him at George magazine contained fabrications, he told CNN. The bulk of Glass' lies were concocted at The New Republic, a small but influential magazine, where he was unmasked as a serial faker and fired.

"Steve was figuring out people's blind spots -- their biases, prejudices -- including myself. He wrote pieces that benefited him at the expense of those people," said Bradley, now the editor-in-chief of Worth magazine. "I do forgive Steve, but being a lawyer is a privilege, not a right," he added. "He can be a fully contributing, valuable member of society without being a lawyer."

Glass withdrew his application to the New York State Bar in 2003, when it became obvious he would be turned down. He applied to the California Bar in 2005, after he moved to Los Angeles. The bar committee declined to find him morally fit to be a lawyer; Glass appealed and the State Bar Court sided with him last year. The California Supreme Court will have the final word, having added "In Re Glass on Admission" to its docket for 2012.

Everyone agrees that what Glass did in 1998 was inexcusable. But, as the State Bar Court points out, the past is not the issue: it's Glass' moral character today. The bar examiners -- the lawyers who vet other lawyers -- argue that Glass' lies were so "staggering" he hasn't done enough to demonstrate he has reformed.

"Going to law school and living a normal life isn't enough," Grunberg said.
If Glass "were to fabricate evidence in legal matters as readily and effectively as he falsified material for magazine articles, the harm to the public and the profession would be immeasurable," observed State Bar Court Judge Catherine Purcell, dissenting from two other judges who found Glass morally fit to practice law.

Glass' lawyer, Arthur Margolis, argues that his client has indeed changed and that the sins of a callow 25-year-old won't be repeated: "He is now 39. The overwhelming evidence testifies to his maturation, reformation and rehabilitation over the past 13 years."

Without a doubt, Glass knows how to tell a great story. His eye for whimsical detail and ear for the salient quote made him Washington's journalistic darling. An internal investigation at The New Republic revealed that more than half of his stories had been fudged in some way -- starting with a quote here and an anecdote there until entire stories were pure fiction. Even the notes, e-mail and voice mail messages that were supposed to back up his stories were faked.

Friends and colleagues felt betrayed by the amusing but insecure boy wonder. His dream profession -- journalism -- took a credibility hit, and Glass holed up in his apartment, cringing and crying as he was hounded by reporters who were like him in so many ways -- except that they sought the truth: Why'd you do it, Steve?

Part One: The Failure
Glass didn't really have an answer until now, and he says it took years of psychotherapy to find it. His quasi-autobiographical 2003 novel, "The Fabulist," didn't come close to telling the story the California Bar has heard.

He turned down CNN's request for an interview. His past attempts to explain have been viewed by some as self-serving, and so he has little to gain and much to lose by speaking out as he awaits the court's decision. Almost all of his supporters also declined to comment, as did one of his most vocal critics, Charles Lane, the former editor who investigated Glass' lies at The New Republic.

Of those who know Glass, only Bradley and a former law school professor would talk to CNN; besides their words, we're left with what was said in the court papers. The thick court file reveals that Glass has won over some very smart and accomplished people who initially doubted him but now can be counted among his closest friends.

They tell an inspiring story of failure, remorse and redemption, one that makes you want to believe there is good in everyone. But others who feel burned and betrayed by Glass -- as well as those whose duty it is to protect the public -- can't help wonder whether the fabulist has told his last lie.
More than anything, Glass' parents wanted him, their first-born son, to be a doctor, just like his father. "It was a moral calling in my family that one becomes a doctor," he said at a bar hearing. But Glass wasn't cut out for medicine. He fainted at the sight of blood. Dissecting animals made him squeamish. (He's now a strict vegetarian.)

Growing up in Highland Park, an affluent suburb on Chicago's North Shore, Glass was a standout student and a social dud. His mother kept a meticulous home. Beds were made with hospital corners and, as Glass told the court, "you could eat off the floors." Food in the refrigerator was arranged just so -- "apples on one side, oranges on the other" -- and only his mother could open the refrigerator door.
But this orderly house was a pressure cooker. There were lots of rules and high expectations. As Glass' lawyers noted, almost drolly: "The family members' interactions with each other precluded dissent by the children."

The parents grilled Stephen and his younger brother, Michael, on their studies, making them stand and recite answers. Stephen Glass recalled being "frozen out" by his mother when he disappointed her.
"If she was upset with you, she would stop speaking to you in the house, except for the most minute things," he testified. During the freeze-outs, which could last weeks, she showered "over the top love" on his brother "so I could see what I was not getting." His father would react in a manner Glass described as "rageful, stomping around, screaming and yelling."

He was an anxious kid, eager to please but always seeming to fall short. He had frequent chest pains, caused by stress. Sometimes he'd double over in pain.
"It was apparent to everybody that I was just insanely worried about everything all the time," he recalled.
He felt woefully inadequate and believed he was a failure as a son. At school, it wasn't any better. He was a "nerd," so bad in gym class that his parents hired a tutor to teach him how to climb a rope.

Classmates mocked him. During a health class focusing on the dangers of teenage pregnancy, the teacher "married" him to a classmate, and they were to jointly care for a doll. The girl was horrified, and she and her parents lobbied to have the marriage annulled.
He withdrew socially and sought the company of adults, eating lunch every day with his Spanish teacher. His parents worried that his lack of social skills would hurt his chances of getting into medical school.
"My dad would just say to me -- it was in high school -- 'Why can't you just hold a beer when you're at a party? Like, I want you to, like, meet girls.'

The court heard only Glass' version of his childhood. His parents and brother did not participate in the bar hearings. His psychiatrists say Glass has mended his relationship with his parents, but has set up "boundaries." There was no response to messages left at his father's medical offices.

Glass insists he's not resorting to the abuse excuse.
"It can be easy to misunderstand me and think that, when I talk about my parents and the family dynamics that occurred, that in some way I am blaming my parents or saying my parents are at fault for what I did wrong," he told the California Bar Court. "I feel that zero percent. My parents are complicated people. ... So, when we talk about this, I think it's important that I'm saying it to help explain, but not in any way as an excuse."

Part Two: Shattered Glass
The chest pains intensified as Glass waited to hear whether he'd be accepted by his father's alma mater. They immediately stopped when he learned he'd gotten in at the University of Pennsylvania -- with a scholarship. He enrolled in the pre-med program but also joined the college newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, over his parents' objections. They considered it "frivolous" and feared it would interfere with his studies.

Glass thrived at the paper, even as he flunked organic chemistry.
"This made my parents very, very, very angry. My father was rageful and my mother was freezing me out," he recalled. The future they'd so carefully mapped out for their oldest son wasn't going according to plan, and so a compromise was struck: Glass could go to law school -- "a garbage profession" in his parents' opinion -- if he enrolled in a program that also gave him a medical degree.
He got into New York University but deferred enrolling to try his hand at Washington journalism. His parents considered it a "ridiculous" career move.

He joined The New Republic in 1995 as an intern and immediately felt at home with a group of people he genuinely liked being around. To Glass, the weekly editorial pitch meetings felt like "a family dinner."
"You would go around the table and you would announce what stories you were working on, and these were jovial meetings," he said. "There was a lot of energy and electricity in these meetings," he added, calling them "the highlight of my entire week."
He was thrilled "seeing all these people that I had been reading." He desperately wanted them to like him.

Back at home, tensions between Glass and his parents came to a head during a Passover visit in the spring of 1996. He was proud of what he was doing and had given his parents a subscription to the magazine.
"They thought this was the stupidest thing in the world. They didn't read my pieces," he said. "They just thought this is folly." He was "doing a bad job, poorly," they scolded, and his mother added a dig: "Maybe at least you're working on your social life."

He took it hard: "I cried some, I know, and I had trouble sleeping, and I felt really distant from my family. I felt that I would not be a success in any way in their eyes unless I went to medical school and fulfilled those dreams and, you know, I knew that I was not suited for medical school."
Not long after the Passover confrontation, Glass began fabricating articles.

"The Hall Monitor" included his first made-up quote -- initially inserted as "a place holder," he said. He kept the quote in the story and was praised for it. The boy who had learned to recite his lessons for his parents soon was the star of the weekly pitch meetings. He replaced the disapproval he received at home with the praise and popularity he found at work, where he was known as "The Hub" -- always seeming to be at the center of office gossip.

His fabrications mushroomed. From July to December 1996, they were limited to a few fudged quotes or anecdotes. They increased through 1997. From that December until he was fired in May 1998, nearly every article Glass wrote either contained huge fabrications or were completely made up.
"I was very, very, very much wanted, and felt very powerfully the desire to please my parents, please my editors, and to succeed at this," he said. He wanted the magazine staff to love him the way he felt his family did not.

One of his psychiatrists, Richard Rosenthal, told the bar that Glass' relationship with his parents, "set the stage" for his "almost addictive need for approval and success."
He compared Glass' compulsive lying to behavior shown by gambling addicts: "They just want it to be over. They're physically and emotionally exhausted, and they can't lose it fast enough, they can't stop, they're just going through it as quickly as they can until there's nothing left."
When the lies were discovered, editor Charles Lane fired Glass.

"I was terrified and insane and anxious, and I saw my world collapsing around me. I thought that I would lose this entire family that I had built. I didn't really have this family. I was lying to them all," Glass recalled.

The court file lists his final accounting: 43 fabricated articles, 36 of them in The New Republic. The others were published by: George, 3; Rolling Stone, 2, and a single freelance piece in Policy Review.
He went home to his family a basket case. He talked of suicide, and his parents kept a close eye on him. And then they suggested his firing was "an opportunity to go to medical school."

Part Three: Reinvention
Glass returned instead to Georgetown's Law Center, where he had been taking classes at night. One of his professors, Susan Low Bloch, reached out to him.
"I realized there had been a Steve Glass in my class who had done very well, so I called him and asked, 'Are you that Steve Glass who is in all the papers?' " she told CNN in a telephone interview. He said that he was, and she invited him to stop by for a talk. She saw him "as someone who just got in this whirlpool," and so she offered him a hand.

"He was so remorseful and so devastated by this that it was worth my while to give him a chance to show me he could do legal research without embellishing it," said Bloch, who had clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall as a law student.

She hired Glass as her research assistant. But first she made him promise to be honest with her if he couldn't find an answer "and not make something up just to please me."
She never regretted taking a chance on Glass, and eventually came to trust him so much that she recommended him to two judges. She flew to California to vouch for him at his bar hearing.
"I take in stray cats, too," Bloch told CNN. "I believe you don't throw people out; you don't toss them out as garbage because of a mistake."

Julie Hilden also gambled on Stephen Glass. She had first seen him in the offices of Williams & Connolly, the prestigious Washington law firm where she worked for David Kendall, the civil lawyer for Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was 1998, the height of the scandal, and Glass was talking with his lawyer at the firm about how he could confirm his fabrications to the magazine without digging himself into a deeper legal hole. She walked in to get some papers signed for another case.

"I looked at him and I just went, 'My God, this person is the most depressed person I've ever seen,' " she told the bar court.
Two years later, a mutual friend introduced them. She was skeptical, but they started dating, putting him "on probation." If she sensed he was untrustworthy, she was gone. And then she says she "fell in love with him."

In 2001, after she had moved to New York to pursue writing, Hilden woke up in a hospital emergency room and, she said, "He was instantly, immediately there." He drove from Washington to New York every weekend during her seven tough months of recovery from colitis. "He put up with me even though I was not in a great mood because I was just dead sick," Hilden told the court.

During early parts of their relationship, he seemed traumatized and insecure and often woke up with nightmares. He always seemed to be looking for affirmation, which she found "a bit irritating."
Now, she says, he has matured and gained confidence, and she considers him her "life partner." Their relationship wouldn't have lasted if he were not "completely honest" with her, she said. "I feel completely committed to Steve." They only reason they haven't married is one of principle: There will be no wedding until their gay friends can also get married, she said.

When Hilden began dating Glass, one of her best friends was horrified. Melanie Thernstrom, a contributor to the New York Times Magazine, said she tried to talk her out of seeing him.
"As a journalist, I had very strong negative feelings about what he did, as the members of my community all did." Thernstrom told the bar court. But he eventually won her over, too.
"Getting to know him, I went from horrified to skeptical, and then grudging, like, 'Well, he seems nice but he probably isn't, you know, deep down. Maybe it's all an act.' " Over the years, she said, it slowly dawned on her that "he is really a wonderful person."

She added, "This journey I took from horror to affirmation is one I saw every one of Julie's friends go through over the years, and there is not a single friend of hers now who doesn't feel the same way I do."
She has so much trust in Glass that in 2009, she and her husband asked Hilden and Glass to be the godparents of their children, she said.

Glass has undergone extensive therapy -- in Washington and New York, as well as in Los Angeles, where he still sees two therapists. He long ago ended his compulsive lying, they say, but he continues to work on rebuilding his life. As part of that process, he wrote his book and about 100 letters of apology to the people he harmed with his fabrications.

Bradley, who met Glass for coffee, forgives him for fudging at least three of the articles Bradley edited at George magazine. But because the apology letters came when Glass had a book coming out and was trying to gain admission to the New York Bar, Bradley considers them self-serving.
He told CNN he was disappointed.

"I wasn't reassured. I wanted to be reassured," he said. He wanted to hear a heartfelt apology. "There were things he could have done to show more genuine regret," Bradley added. "He could have written a memoir, not a novel."

Glass' lawyers point out that if his motives were truly selfish, he would have sent a computer-generated mass mailing and kept copies. Instead, he wrote each letter out by hand, tailoring it to an individual. Friends who knew him at the time say it was exhausting and agonizing for him.
After Glass and Hilden moved to Los Angeles in 2004, he applied for jobs at law firms. One of his resumes crossed the desk of Paul Zuckerman, managing partner of a plaintiff's litigation firm. He was impressed with the resume, but then he read the cover letter.

"I was familiar with the story. I knew who he was. And I kind of laughed to myself and promptly deleted his resume," Zuckerman told the bar court.
But then he thought about his own struggle with alcohol, and how he'd come back from the brink.
"I sat there, which is unusual for me, to sit there and be reflective during the day. ... I have been a liar in my life. I myself have had some problems and have had difficulties that I've overcome, and I've been given a very big second chance, and I thought that I was being incredibly judgmental ..."

He invited Glass in for an interview.
"I called him mainly because I felt ... it was wrong for me to be judgmental and to throw somebody away without ever having given them a chance or ever having talked to them," Zuckerman said. Upon meeting Glass, he became convinced that he had gone through a genuine transformation. He could see the remorse in his eyes.

He hired Glass on the spot, but at first watched him closely.
"When I first hired him, there was no way I was giving him my Social Security number and my mother's maiden name," Zuckerman told the California Bar. "He can have that today."
He advised Glass that his downfall ultimately would make him a better lawyer:
"I've always found brilliance untempered by failure is purely arrogance but brilliance that has overcome failure can be truly useful to your fellow man," he said. He's glad he opened his mind to Glass' potential.

Those who saw the promise in a 25-year-old fabulist may still feel the sting of disappointment and betrayal. But for Zuckerman and others who believe in redemption, the latest story by Stephen Glass is nothing short of fabulous. It's about a man transformed.

"I love having him at the office, because he is like my touchstone, my benchmark for honest and proper conduct. It's like 'What would Steve do?' "
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Becky
Jessica, thank you. It sounds like his parents were the reason why Stephen fabricated. It sounds like Stephen was the awkward kid who couldn't get anything right and kept falling short. His mom would freeze him out and shower love on his brother? That's wrong.

His parents looked down on journalists and wouldn't read his articles? He was writing for a national magazine for pete's sake!! His parents sound like dickheads that didn't want him to be anything other than a doctor or lawyer. Stephen couldn't find love and support at home so he fabricated at work to get love and support there. That's no excuse but it makes perfect sense. I hope Steve finds work.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
In reply to this post by Jessica
Whoa, mama! This was a very very long but interesting read. I don't know where to start.

From reading this it really does sound as if Stephen has changed. The TNR scandal happened so long ago that it almost feels inadequate. What gets me is that a lawyer is the perfect job for a liar.

His past attempts to explain have been viewed by some as self-serving, and so he has little to gain and much to lose by speaking out as he awaits the court's decision.
That's true and likely the reason he hasn't said much. Maybe after the whole thing is over he will finally give us another interview?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Jessica


He looks really good to be pushing 40.

I didn't know that he actually handwrote letters to everyone he offended. People should really cut him some slack. They act like he's never apologized.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Duggerman
Administrator
Jessica wrote
That's him alright. Curly hair and glasses. He looks better at 39 than Macauley Culkin does at 31.



But to get back on topic, I do wish him the best. He was a creative journalist. He had a great sense of scene setting and imagery in his articles. He also knew which quotes would move the story along smoothly. Then again, some of his colleagues have said that Stephen's stories were heavily edited to become smooth narratives, so I'm not sure how talented he really was. But he had a great imagination and clever ideas.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Jessica
I watched Shattered Glass last night. I forgot how he used to walk around the TNR office with his shoes off!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
AJ, could Stephen get away with his crimes in today's day and age? Back then the internet wasn't what it is today. But Stephen was always thinking ahead. Maybe he would create fake facebook profiles for his fabricated people. Would it be possible for him to get away with it?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Duggerman
Administrator
Michelle wrote
AJ, could Stephen get away with his crimes in today's day and age? Back then the internet wasn't what it is today. But Stephen was always thinking ahead. Maybe he would create fake facebook profiles for his fabricated people. Would it be possible for him to get away with it?
It's unlikely. I think the main reason he got away with his fabrications at TNR was because the magazines allowed no pictures. Generally when a reporter writes an article, there is photography to go along with it.

If he stole the photographs of real people and used them as "sources" I doubt he'd get away with it, especially since he was writing for national publications. You're on to something, though. It wouldn't surprise me if he would invent phony facebook pages, twitter accounts, etc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
Thats what i thought. I was listening to the "psychic" radio interviews that Stephen did and he sounded a lot more confident than he does now. In every interview he did after the scandal he sounded broken but sneaky and ungenuine. (Is that a word? lol) But he sounded really confident in himself on that radio interview. He sounded effeminate too. But I don't think he is gay.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Double A
In reply to this post by Michelle
Michelle wrote
AJ, could Stephen get away with his crimes in today's day and age? Back then the internet wasn't what it is today. But Stephen was always thinking ahead. Maybe he would create fake facebook profiles for his fabricated people. Would it be possible for him to get away with it?
Stephen could absolutely get away with it today. Have you read the thread we have about Sarah Phillips? She was a freelance journalist for ESPN that got fired for scamming people out of money. She manipulated her number of twitter followers and facebook likes with fake accounts.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
Double-A wrote
Stephen could absolutely get away with it today. Have you read the thread we have about Sarah Phillips? She was a freelance journalist for ESPN that got fired for scamming people out of money. She manipulated her number of twitter followers and facebook likes with fake accounts.
Yes I saw that. I never imagined that you could fake thousands of twitter followers and the like.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Becky
Here's a screen cap of the fake Jukt Micronics website created by Stephen Glass to fool Chuck Lane and Forbes.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I saw this movie called Shattered Glass

Michelle
What a fool...thinking that a major software company would have their website only on "AOL Members."
1234