The reporting done by Megan Carter in Absence of Malice shows us how the press can damage people’s lives. She comes across ethical problems while trying to report on an exciting story, and she ends up making a few bad decisions that end up hurting the people involved. Her thirst for a juicy story and her emotional ties to her subjects causes problems not only for her, but for them as well. This movie is a good representation of how reporting a story can go wrong, and what journalists should not be doing.

After illegally obtaining information on Michael Gallagher from the Dept. of Justice, Carter writes a story stating that he was a key suspect in the disappearance of Joey Diaz. She makes sure that her reporting is accurate, even though Gallagher may not end up being the perpetrator. Similarly, in the case of Hurst v. Capital Cities Media Inc., a story was written that Hurst was a suspect of a rape case. He sued for false-light invasion of privacy, but lost because the information was accurate at the time even though he didn’t commit the crime. Now in Carter’s case, she may have written a story that was accurate at the time, but she didn’t do a good job of fair reporting. She didn’t initially reveal that she got the information illegally. Today, sources need to be named up front, otherwise a journalist can lose credibility and maybe even their job.

Carter’s methods of reporting were very questionable. She did many things that people would deem unethical or wrong. For instance, when she goes to interview Michael Gallagher on his boat, she wears a wire. Because of the Wiretap Act of 1968, this would have been illegal for her to do in Florida, which is a two-party recording state. She also forms an emotional relationship with the man she wrote about in her story. She gets into a complicated situation where she’s torn between her right to inform the public and her feelings towards Gallagher. She comes across another ethical issue when she wants to clear Gallagher’s name, but also keep Theresa Perrone’s identity a secret. To secure the alibi, she included Parrone’s name, resulting in her suicide.

Although she ended up being in the wrong, Carter always had good intentions. She started out by writing a story to inform the public of an investigation and the suspects involved. The next story was released to make public the alibi of the man she had put into the spotlight. Her final story was meant to reveal corruption that had taken place involving a government official. She was trying to be a good and honest reporter by being accurate, though she did not know if it was truthful.

If I were in Megan Carter’s position, I wouldn’t have looked in the file, but still tried to find evidence to write the initial story. I also would have contacted Gallagher prior to writing to get his opinion on the investigation and use it in the story. The decisions she made weren’t always ethical, but she tried her best to right the wrongs she had made. Carter’s experience helped shape journalism by educating people on what malice is and how reporters should and should not handle a situation like this.

Sources

Absence of Malice

https://storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404

http://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/scandal/2012/12/04/what-a-journalist-should-not-do-watch-movie-absence-of-malice/

The investigation done by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to expose the Watergate scandal is a very exciting and inspiring story for journalists. However, the things they did to get information out of their sources may not be seen as completely ethical. People may argue that they crossed some boundaries in their pursuit of the truth. They knew they had a groundbreaking story on their hands and they did what they had to do to get the facts and report them to the public. Not only was Watergate a significant event in American history, but it helped change the way people would judge and communicate with journalists for years to come.

At the time of Watergate in America – the early 70s – confidentiality of sources was being disputed. There were several cases, such as Branzburg vs. Hayes and the In Re Pappas case, where journalists refused to release names and information about their sources, and later had to give them up because it was seen as compelling information. Woodward and Bernstein weren’t breaking any laws when they promised many of the people they interviewed that they would remain anonymous to protect them. Today, anonymous sources are seen as more of a last resort for reporters. Although there are shield laws today protecting journalists in certain states, there is no federal law. Woodward and Bernstein would not have been able to keep so many names, like Deep Throat, out of their stories if Watergate took place today.

From an average person’s point of view, Woodward and Bernstein seemed to be nosy and intrusive. They would constantly call and bug people for information. Woodward lied and said he needed information about Howard Hunt for a background profile. These strategies of obtaining facts and stories were unethical by the standards of SPJ Code of Ethics. They may have known that what they were doing wasn’t fundamentally “right”, but they knew if they could keep following the trail they were on, it would lead to a big story that had been covered up.

From a reporter’s opinion, it would seem as though the two journalists were just doing their jobs. In their profession, they had a duty to the public to find crucial and impactful information and release it so everyone could know, because they had a right to know what was going on in their government. Woodward and Bernstein found out that people who helped run their country were doing something illegal, and they believed that it was their responsibility to tell the public, or else there was a chance that nobody would have.

Although Woodward and Bernstein did not strictly follow proper journalism ethics while uncovering the Watergate scandal, I would have handled it the same way. Their work led to many journalists being more aggressive, whether they were ethical or not, to get the real stories out there. This event also paved the way for less anonymous sources, assuring that we will try to know exactly where our information is coming from and how credible it is. The story they were after was significant on a national scale and they knew that to get the truth out, they would have to bend the rules. Journalists today owe a lot to Woodward and Bernstein.

Sources

All the President’s Men

https://storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404 (Lecture 4.1)

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp (SPJ Code of Ethics)