Well, I hope he did. Judging from the 60 Minutes interview, it seems like he did. But can we trust him? Even reformed pathological liars are hard to trust. Poor Mr. Glass. I feel bad for him, I do, even though I wanted to strangle Hayden Christensen's portrayal of him throughout the whole movie. Every last scheming, 90s glasses-wearing, squirrelly, manipulative, sweet-talking, pathetic bit of him. OK, I know that sounds awful. But seeing that throughout his career he did nothing but reinforce the "sleazy journalist" stereotype that looms over us journalists' heads, I guess I can be a little angry. And though dishonesty isn't (or shouldn't be) acceptable in any profession, I think it is especially offensive in journalism where we are supposed to be reporting facts. Not posing facts as fiction. Not even stretching the truth a little. Yes, Stephen, I really hope you've learned your lesson.
I'm actually interested to read his book, "The Fabulist," though. I really wonder if he was able to tell the facts about his ordeal with the New Republic without sensationalizing or suckering and charming the readers into feeling bad for him. And like Jessica said, he is obviously a really smart man to be able to get away with his complex web of lies. Seriously! There's no doubt that Mr. Glass was a smart man. Obviously, though, he didn't feel like he got enough recognition in his life for said intelligence and lied in the name of responsible journalism.