I believe that the issue and major conflict that arises in Absence of Malice has everything to do with libel. Some would believe that by Megan Carter intentionally defamed Michael Gallagher, a journalistic no-no that could result in lawsuits and is not legally protected as it comes as a balance between the First Amendment and a U.S. citizen’s right to have protected reputations (Source 1). In addition to this, some may also argue that Carter committed libel as she published false statements as the fact, not as an opinion, and she seriously harmed the reputation of Gallagher (Source 1). However, as is evident throughout the film, Carter in no means intended to intentionally harm the reputation of Gallagher as she had no previous relations with him and in no way, shape, or form had reason to destroy his reputation:
Receptionist: They’re all up watching the movies. Surveillance film. Gallagher’s funeral. It’s pretty funny. Bob Waddell gets slugged at the end.
Megan Carter: Who’s Gallagher? (Source 2)
In addition to her absence of malice, Carter does not knowingly publish the false information. To the best of her knowledge (which has been gathered by illegally, in some senses, reading a government document professing the ongoing investigation of Gallagher and assumes he is responsible for the disappearance of Diaz) the information she has included in her article is in fact true and trustworthy. Thus, the absence of malice in Carter’s case is enough grounds to assume that libel has not been committed.
The story would hold a much different tune, however, in the case that Carter was aware of the falsity of her information, or poised an opinion she held of Gallagher as a fact. Had she in fact done this and Gallagher had brought it to court, Carter would have been found guilty of libel. This case would be very similar to the case of Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967), where Butts was able to hold in court that libel had been committed against him and the case was unable to be appealed as Butts was not a public official (Source 3).
Another conflict that rose throughout the movie was Carter’s choice to steal information in order to get a story. Many would have considered this unethical, as she found a backwards way to gain insight onto a private individual’s life in order to create a compelling story. However, others would claim that in the event that the paper was not concealed and left out for her to see, then it was public knowledge (in a way) and that her judgment was sound. Personally, I would have managed this situation in a very different manner than how Carter managed it. Though I am not a journalist and lack the understanding of the means of finding a story, my morals are coded to believe that stealing information (especially government information, to boot) is unjust and wrong. The SPJ Code of Ethics insists on “minimizing harm” and “acting independently” (Source 4), which I have interpreted for this case as avoiding wide speculations and not taking others information for your own use.
On the topic of minimizing harm, another situation I would have managed much differently was Carter’s choice to expose Teresa Perrone’s abortion. Though Perrone does go on the record in her statement and provides Carter with this intimate information, the phrasing Carter chooses to use in her story results in Perrone taking her own life. It would have been very simply for Carter to change the phrasing of “abortion” to something simply along the lines of “medical procedure”. In this way, though Carter does not break any laws in publishing her story, she breaks the SPJ Code of minimizing harm.
I believe that this story shows and perpetuates the media’s lack of empathy for the individuals they cover in their story. Though writers themselves may not lack empathy, their stories do hold a confusing sense of the lack of care and disregard for basic understanding of the human condition and right to privacy that many individuals find appalling. In this sense, the story elaborates the possible harm that can be done through journalism and its refusal to change their tone. Hopefully, however, as the media sphere acknowledges more and more the harm their blunt reports cause, a change with erupt throughout, leading to a more conscious effort to protect the sanity and respectability of the common man.
Sources:
Source 1: Class Notes, Section 5.2: Libel
Source 2: Absence of Malice Script (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/absence-of-malice-script-transcript.html)
Source 3: Class Notes, Section 5.2: Libel Cases
Source 4: Class Notes, Section 4.1: Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting