Synthesis Argument

Name
Professor’s name
Course number
Date
In this paper, there are enough reasons to support the claim that a journalist’s duty is to seek reality and to offer a reasonable and ample accounts of happenings. Therefore, all writers ought to attend to the community with meticulousness and uprightness since specialized integrity is the substance of a journalist’s integrity. It was in 1998 that the New Republic published a captivating story about a hacker throwing tantrum. The writer of the article was Stephen Glass, who had a 15-year-old Ian Restil feature in his “Hack Heaven” story. Glass claimed that the boy was shouting at executives from a Jukt Micronics, a leading software firm (Barry, et al., 38). It is very clear that this writer did not follow the code of ethics that require journalists to test information accuracy from all sources. The best way for them to avoid inadvertent errors, according to “Lies damn lies and fiction”, is by exercising care (Pannenberg, 23).
According to the article mentioned above, it is tough to prove something is negative but it is even harder to prove that someone or something fails to exist (Pannenberg, 23). That was the same challenge that came up after the Hack Heaven story. For that reason, these sources provide enough support to the argument that Glass and Jayson did not follow the right code of ethics. The blatant disregard for the truth is evident enough of how Glass violated the code of ethics that is held by journalists in the US and worldwide.

It is also part of the code of ethics for a press to avoid secretive as well as other sly methods of gathering information. However, this code gives an exception of the traditional open method that does not yield vital information to the public that does not give Glass a reason to tell lies.
Glass and Jayson broke all the cardinal rules of ethical journalism, and they, therefore, serve as examples of what journalists should not do. The “lies, damn lies and fiction” article claims that Jayson Blair also rose quickly at the paper. It is said that the writer wrote 600 articles in four years, and they were all full of factual errors and plagiarism (Pannenberg, 23). The two authors allow everyone a moment to question everything and especially concerning the business of journalism. What would have prompted someone to do such a thing? Can we trust any of the journalists?what can be done to prevent this? Jayson Blair published the article “Nation at War: Military families; relatives of missing soldiers dread hearing worst news” in 2003. It was found that the article was full of deception (Blair, 30). It was about kins of militias who went missing in warfare in Iraq. Jayson’s cellphone registers designated that he was in New York although his colleagues at the Lynch home affirmed that they had not seen him.
In his article, Mr. Blair designated the suffering of the family since their son was one of the eight members that had been listed missing. The most critical part of the mistake made by the writer is that despite giving false information he plagiarized other sources. He quoted Ruben Estrella saying while El Paso had written an article on March 26 and had the same quote. That was enough proof that Jayson was the using information copied directly from other sources. The two writers among many others are uncelebrated for making up stories (Blair, 27). They only worried of how to captivate their audiences, and that led to their receipt. In an arbitrary decision, the justices wrote that Glass seemed to have been directed primarily at advancing his well-being instead of giving back to the society. All the evidence support the claim in this paper that the two writers engaged in actually innocent demeanor over a lengthy period. The justices, therefore, concluded that Glass, on the record during the period of his exposure until the hearing in 2010, did not sustain his heavy burden of validating rehabilitation as well as fitness for the practice of law.
This paper is also very supportive of the ethics rule imposed by the New York Times on its journalists after the incidences. More precisely, the history of American newspapers is not synonymous with traditional journalism history. Therefore, the two writers ought to have diligently sought out the correctness of info from all springs not to mention exercising care. Similarly, the two journalists failed to show the code of ethics that insists that the affected people showed be shown compassion. For that reason, Glass did not find any compassion either from the judge because he did not show any improvement between the time he was exposed and the time of the hearing. It is also a clear that journalists should use special understanding when handling information on youngsters but Glass did not follow that rule (Pannenberg, 23). Blair, on the other hand, ought to have remained free of associations that compromise journalistic integrity. It wouldn’t be prudent to support them for they were not accountable for their booklovers.
Work cited:
Barry, Dan, et al. “Correcting the record: Times reporter who resigned leaves a long trail of deception.” New York Times 11 (2003).
Blair, Jayson. “Relatives of the missing soldiers dread hearing the worse news.” New York Times 27 (2003).
Glass, Stephen, and Ian Restil. “Hack Heaven.” The New Republic 5 (1998): 98.
Penenberg, Adam L. “Lies, Damn Lies and Fiction.” Authenticity (2012)