Hacker Cinema
Shattered Glass
2003 · Film · 94 min
Directed by Billy Ray
Stephen Glass is a staff writer for the respected current events and policy magazine The New Republic and a freelance feature writer for publications such as Rolling Stone, Harper's and George. By the mid-90s, Glass' articles had turned him into one of the most sought-after young journalists in Washington, but a bizarre chain of events - chronicled in Buzz Bissinger's September 1998 Vanity Fair article - suddenly stopped his career in its tracks.
7 positive1 neutralfrom 8 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
8 comments on Hacker News
So that's exactly the kind of over correction in the wrong direction that I'm talking about. I don't think I agree that that's the pertinent extrapolation here. We absolutely would benefit from that spot checking. But I don't think the implication should be that 100% or something near it of the previous articles are fabricated, or under the cloud of deep suspicion until proven otherwise. The same things that led to this particular story unraveling, are vulnerabilities that could have led to other stories unraveling.
If we get a second and a third, I think you might be right to have that cloud of suspicion. That would be like a Shattered Glass scenario and we're not there yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Glass_(film)
There’s an interesting film: Shattered Glass (2004) That explores this… looking at a fabulist working for a website in the late 90s early 2000s somewhere in there.
For a fun movie on similar try Shattered Glass (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
He got busted by computer nerds outing him over a hacking story, not his articles on conservatives.
[1] The story he wrote - http://penenberg.com/story-archive/hack-heaven/ [2] The story which brought him down - https://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html#35e255922d7f
And Stephen Glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass
A very good film Shattered Glass was made about it.
There's a few films that deal with vaguely similar themes:
Rogue Trader: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131566/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_54
Cheaters: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218094/
Shattered Glass: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/?ref_=nv_sr_1
These are just 3 off the top of my head. There are probably other better films.
A. We know pretty well how he did it - all he needed to do was stay within the limits and there is considerable evidence that the UCI and testing labs were suggesting to him how to do that. When the UCI picked a max hematocrit number of 50%, it was an invitation to the athletes to dope up to that limit. When he came back to competition in 2009 & 2010, the USADA report clearly states that his blood passport profile shows almost certain non-legal manipulation.
B. He isn't being forced to do anything. He had the opportunity to challenge USADA's report in arbitration; he declined and again denied he had ever doped. Going on TV to speak with a talk-show host after you have retired is not a coerced move, especially to say that you have been lying for 15 years. Yes, he may want to return to some kind of competition (triathlons) and needs his life sentenced to be reduced to the minimum 8 years to do this. But oh look, he says the last time he ever doped was 2005 (not when he raced in 2009 or 2010, how about that?), which would mean he could return to sport in 2013.
C. George Hincapie never tested positive either, had an even longer career than Armstrong and was a long-time friend of Armstrong. He admitted to doping for years and testified against Lance. There's a rather simple truth here and it isn't driven by doubt and jealousy.
D. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. But I imagine it is similar to arguments made before about scored rivals and journalists seeking vengeance. I've followed pro cycling for many years now; the truth is much more boring. The sport was rife with drugs, Armstrong would do anything to win and I don't think to this day he thinks he did anything truly wrong.
I watched the movie "Shattered Glass" two nights ago. It had this great scene:
Caitlin Avey: What the hell did you do to Steve? He called me from his car, hysterical. I asked him what was wrong, he said, "ask Chuck?" Chuck Lane: I fired him, okay? Not suspended, fired. Because this wasn't an isolated incident Caitlin. He cooked a dozen of them, maybe more. And we're going to have to go through them, you and I. We're going to have to go through all of them, now. Caitlin Avey: No, the only one was Hack Heaven. He told me that himself. Chuck Lane: If he were a stranger to you, if he was a guy you were doing a piece about, pretend that guy told you he'd only did it once. Would you take his word for it? Of course not! You'd dig and you'd bury him! And you'd feel offended if anyone told you not to.
This is the guy who broke the Stephen Glass plagiarism story back in the day. He has a history of being first.
EDIT: Steve Zahn played him in "Shattered Glass", which is a pretty great movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
This article reminded me of "Jukt Micronics", from the infamous Stephen Glass article "Hack Heaven" -- although this case's motives and procedure are very different, there's the same smell of desperation here.
BTW, the movie Shattered Glass is a fascinating look at the Glass case: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/