constantinok I watched this movie in my journalism class and learned a lot from it. It showed the career of Stephen glass and how he got so far up in it , but it was actually all a lie. Stephen glass was a guy who was just trying to make a name for himself, but he did it through lying and making up fictional stories and publishing them as truth. The movie itself was an excellent portrayal of a man who did not live up to the journalistic standards in the eyes of his editor and the general public. I would recommend it for everyone to watch, especially those who are considering going into the journalism field and who want to see how NOT to make a name for themselves.

nultya-59147 I was surprised to find out that this movie was based on real events. The content of the fabrications made by Glass in this movie are completely outrageous. Stephen Glass is one of those people who needs constant reassurance and asks questions like "Are you mad," which I found quite annoying. I thought the movie was entertaining, but it could have been more clear with the format. The only part that really confused me was the part where he went back to the school. I wasn't sure if the students in the classroom were real or fake, but the looks Stephen was giving the young girl in the second row were creepy. I would recommend this movie to you if you are looking for what not to do as a journalist.

Nisar A Dharma In this world of cut-throat competition, how far would you go to clasp on to that position where you are viewed as 'the benchmark' for others? Would you pursue your conscience or let your 'praise- loving' instincts take over your decisiveness? Would you choose to be an entertainer at the cost of risking your 'Professional Integrity'? The questions like these stroll through your imagination when you watch the movie 'Shattered Glass'. This ironic 'true story' tells the tale of concoction and fabrication that marred the career of an otherwise talented writer, Stephen Glass. A 24 year old, young, dynamic reporter working for the prestigious 'INFLIGHT MAGAZINE OF AIRFORCE ONE', 'The New Republic (TNR)'; Stephen has made a name for himself as an entertainer who does stories that his colleagues wish they could do. These striking stories are new, entertaining and at times fiction- like. However, since they all go under the TNR 'three day torture test', as Stephen describes the emphatic 'fact-check and review process'; no one doubts their credibility. Stephen manages to manipulate the process and slip-in his fiction in the form of facts as any generic article which does not have a source material is purely checked on the basis of the reporter's NOTES and description of the event. Quite masterfully though, Stephen heightens his aplomb and starts overdoing his 'fiction-fact-farce' reports and is eventually exposed by an online magazine 'Forbes Digital' after an article titled 'Hack Heaven' is scrutinized and found fake. 27 of the 41 reports by Stephen are adjudged as fabricated, making the readers question the credibility of the entire magazine. What follows is a formal apology letter from 'The New Republic' team to its readers accepting the tale of myth, lies and fabrication that Stephen had managed to write as facts.'Shattered Glass' is a must-watch movie for every professional, not only a journalist. It portrays the significance of sensibility and commonsense over creativity and treachery. Not only it tells us a tale of emphatic rise and equally fast decline of a Journalist's career, it manages to describe the essentialities of the profession. The fact that assumption, over-confidence and amateurism should not overtake your conscience, honesty and professional integrity, has been beautifully showcased in this movie. Some of the nonverbal intricacies like showing the lead actor 'bare-footed' in the office signifies how immobile and theoretical his professional life was, the repeated dialogue 'are you mad at me?', tells us how sceptical and aware Stephen was about the fallacies in his work. And last but not the least, the conscious attempt to show a credible care for every colleague thereby gaining their trust tells us how planned Stephen was in his efforts of turning fiction into facts. As a journalist, everyone experiences that delicate moment in his profession where he has to make a sensible decision of acknowledging what is morally and professionally right and shunning what could possibly be a tempting short-lived success. But what follows can be a disaster as happened with Stephen. We all should create a moral watchdog for ourselves by strengthening our credibility and thus not allowing our thoughts take over our thinking…..Reality Touch: AftermathIn reality, Stephen Glass studied Law after his infamous exit from the world of journalism. Yet his disgraced past hung on to him as he was denied a license to practice law by the California Supreme Court. Pointing out in its ruling that 'Glass's journalistic dishonesty was not a single lapse of judgement but involved significant deceit sustained unremittingly for many years', Glass was left disorganised and ashamed. That tells us that the consequences of our cunningness may lead us into a life of failure and shame. So BEWARE and BE AWARE

SnoopyStyle Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) is a young ace reporter for The New Republic. The magazine is heralded as the inflight magazine of Air Force One. Glass is personable and his stories are fabulously enticing. He expertly weaves his fables with panache. Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) is originally a reporter, but then gets elevated to editor. Chuck is the exact opposite of Glass. He is reserved, and stickler for the work. As a reporter, he struggles to keep up with Glass's flashier stories. As an editor, nobody trusts him. When Glass's article on computer hackers is questioned by an online publication, things spin out of control.The true story is shocking. And the movie portrays it with realism. This is probably Hayden's greatest performance. He has the boyish charm that makes all those lies believable. But he also has a twitchy quality about him. It's also believable that he made up all those lies. This is infinitely better than the Star Wars debacle. Peter Sarsgaard has that quiet intensity that is perfect for his role.The only thing I didn't like was the older lady at the end when she says that if only they had pictures.... That's not necessarily any solution. Pictures can be doctored just as easily. And pictures can distract any fact checkers. I don't know if somebody actually said that in real life. But it's one line that I'd rather cut out.I think it's too bad that Hayden Christensen will always have the Star Wars movies hanging over him. It overshadows some good work in this movie. He needs to find these types of roles that can challenge his acting skills.