Glass was not the first to "cook a story", exaggerate, manufacture and create
something which was entirely fictional and present it as fact, and he wasn't the
last. His high position in such a high-profile magazine which prided itself on
its position of influence, is perhaps what makes him such an infamous villain,
although there are probably many people who have never heard of him at all.
Although the film focuses on Glass and his colleagues, it is a film which stands
on its own two feet; it could be any reporter, fictional or otherwise, in any
magazine, journal or newspaper cast in the role and the story speaks for itself;
some writers and journalists will do whatever they can to reach the top of
their profession, and if that means throwing away professionalism in the
process, then so be it.
The film touches upon the high pressure world in which journalists operate,
where every story has a deadline, and every deadline is always far too close,
the problems that outside influences can have, and the need to be one-up on
your colleagues to stand out, but it never excuses the failings. Yet on the
other hand it does not overtly condemn them either, it simply shows the cost of
action and consequence. It is left to the viewer to decide where the failures
are and who is ultimately responsible, but Glass is far from excused for his
errors.
While high-lighting the problems faced by an Editor - to uncompromisingly
support their writers or not - the one thing that was sorely missing in the
film was any explanation as to how New Republic had failed so
miserably in fact-checking the articles it let through for publication; the
very 'facts' that eventually led Forbes Digital to tear down the many
hoax and fictionalized stories Glass had created.
The film swung more in
defence of New Republic than against it, telling us how professional
it was, and how it was impossible to slip a hoax through the net, yet
offering nothing but a throwaway line from our on-screen Glass which suggests
that if there's no facts to be checked, then they can't be. The fabrications
of Glass were full of alleged facts and should have been caught by the system;
we are left wondering why they weren't. It gave the impression that the film
makers were too much in awe of New Republic to dare to criticise it
or its right-wing supporters, and there are criticisms to be made. Did such a
reputable magazine really fail so badly, or has the film fallen into the trap
of exaggerating the story for dramatic effect ?
There are two main failings of the film; the interwoven flash-back, which
starts to make no chronological sense at all until it is revealed for what it
is, and the technical errors shown when proof readers use the wrong mark-up
in their editing. As this had such a strong visual presence in the scenes
on what happens in the editorial processes, it is a shame that such an error
arose. Although perhaps only noticeable by some, it took away some credibility
that the film makers knew their subject area well.
But that is perhaps excusable. The film did not set out to condemn or praise
New Republic, it did not set out to absolve or crucify Glass, and nor
did it set out to moralise on the rights and wrongs of the media; it is a
human interest story of the meteoric rise and equally sudden fall of a human
being who made some very big mistakes.
In that, it did it remarkably well.
