What does this 2003 film about disgraced New Republic reporter, Stephen Glass, tell us about sociopathic or narcissistic behavior? How does the film engage with matters of journalistic ethics, and illustrate the dangers or traps created by journalistic bias when it comes to exercising critical thought and editorial oversight? How does the film show competition between journals aiding or prodding the editorial and critical efforts that should have been in place at the New Republic? How does this film illustrate the corrosive effects of deception and lying? How does Glass abuse the presumption of veracity that we all bring to life and our interactions with others? How do Glass’s story pitches take advantage of his peers’ political biases and their desire to engage in advocacy journalism? How does the case illustrate the risks taken on by journals and news media when they allow writers to use un-named sources?