Stephen Glass is back

I had no idea Harper's still existed.

Harper’s issues its first retraction ever: A piece by disgraced ‘fabulist’ Stephen Glass

 

So that leaves Rolling Stone as the only publication Glass wrote for that won't concede he made stuff up while writing for them.

 

Rolling Stone has quite the track record regarding writers making crap up.

 

It's beyond ridiculous that going on 20 years later, there are still Stephen Glass pieces needing to be retracted. He keeps popping us saying how he's reformed, but how many decades are we really going to need for him to actually finish coming clean? I'm a few years younger than Glass and I fully expect to be hearing about new articles he retracts even while in retirement.

 

Retraction isn't a punitive measure. It isn't about anybody "coming clean." It's about withdrawing something from the historical record so that, years from now, the historians (or aliens) are operating with accurate information and nobody cites said article as proof of something that did not actually occur.

 

What I'm saying is that given how long it's been and how many times he's claimed to turn over a whole new leaf, it's absurd that at this point there are still things remaining in the wild from him that he needs to retract. He should have completed this process by, say, Y2K at the latest.

 

Like Donald Trump and Pete Rose, Glass long ago passed the point where anything and everything he utters or publishes should be preemptively assumed to be bullshit.

Anybody who published anything under Glass's byline should simply print a disclaimer granting any factual assertions in any such pieces are probably fabricated.

 

Repped for real talk. It's like a product recall - you just assume everything with that serial number is defective and take it out of circulation.

 

In which Stephen Glass helped his wife hid her Alzheimer's diagnosis from everyone:

https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies

 

Meh. He's a liar and fabricator. Zero credibility.

 

Maybe. Perhaps he lied all about his wife's disease.

The entire article is about how he's spent the past decade or more trying to atone and be truthful about everything.

 

That’s the big question from the story. Did her doctors receive permission to disclose anything post mortem? If not, who are the corroborating sources? The story doesn’t indicate who the sources are.