In the film Absence of Malice (1981) reporter Megan Carter reports that the FBI is investigating Micheal Gallagher for murder, and after his name is all over the papers his life begins to fall apart. Gallagher is innocent but his only alibi is his friend Teresa who was with him at the time of the crime. Teresa’s reputation will be ruined if it is revealed that Gallagher was with her when she was getting an abortion, but Carter writes about it anyway. Teresa commits suicide after it was published that she had an abortion meanwhile Gallagher’s name is cleared. Later it is revealed that the investigator who knew Gallagher wanted to trick her into thinking he was guilty.

On one side, Carter did nothing wrong at first by reporting what was she thought was true (that the FBI was investigating Gallagher). She was investigating a story and talked to the sources necessary to get her story. Carter never intended to hurt anyone with her stories, so they are not considered libel since they were true.

On the other hand, Carter was under pressure by the newspaper and the community to continue to report about Gallagher’s investigation and she didn’t check her story. She could’ve have not rushed as much to get her sources in order to get the story out and she definitely should not have slept with her source. She even violates more ethical rules when she sends Gallagher an article a day before it will be published. Carter, however, admits her mistakes at the end of the movie.

NYT v. Sullivan (1964) established what malice is, which is when something false is published in reckless disregard of the truth. I think that Carter is not guilty of malice because she did not have the intention to cause harm and she got some of her information from an investigator.  Carter reported what she thought was true although it was not completely accurate.

I think that situation like this should have been handled with a lot more investigating and with not as much urgency. If Carter would have taken more time to find more sources and investigate further she could have eventually found that Gallagher was innocent to begin with. I also think this is a very far-fetched case since she was technically tricked into reporting that Gallagher was being investigated.

I think this issue is something very important to consider in journalism. Reporters have so many expectations to report fast, accurately, and thoroughly when that is not always possible. I think this issue is a good lesson to determine what malice is in regards to whether or not a reporter is recklessly disregarding the truth. I think that if a reporter is publishing the best possible obtainable version of the truth then they are doing their job well.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=ee05e7df173bb72caa494cc1b7799d836896 

‘All the President’s Men’ (1976) gave insight into the news coverage of Washington Post reports Woodward and Bernstein on the break-in of the Democratic party headquarters in 1972, more commonly known as Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein’s questionably unethical reporting ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

After Woodward discovers a connection from the burglary at Watergate to the White House, he investigates further and is faced with sources that refuse to give information. Woodward’s main source, known as “Deep Throat”, leads Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction to uncover the truth.

Many believe some of the ways the reporters acquired information were unethical because the reporters used anonymous sources, weren’t honest when asking questions, and the ways that they had their sources confirm information. For example, Woodward tells a source he is doing a profile when in reality he is doing an investigation. Bernstein uses unusual ways of confirming information such as names like telling sources to not talk for ten seconds if certain information is true or not true.

On the other hand, because of Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting, the truth was uncovered. If it wasn’t for the way the reports got their information, justice would not have prevailed in the Watergate scandal. The reporters had to use questionably unethical ways of reporting because many of their sources had been threatened to not reveal information. Although the ways of reporting were questionably unethical, the truth surfacing is also sometimes considered ethical. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, reporters should “seek the truth and report it” which is what Woodward and Bernstein did.

One precedent case that gives historical background on the ethics during the Watergate scandal time period is Branzburg v. Hayes (1971) which dealt with anonymous sources and whether reporters have the right to withhold information from a grand jury such as a confidential source. Reporters do not have the right to withhold information but Woodward and Bernstein still did.

I think given the situation that Woodward and Bernstein were in, most of their reporting decisions were ethical because they uncovered the truth. I would have handled the situation similarly, with the exception of lying to a source about why I am interviewing them. I think that that in this situation it would be ethical to use questionable ways of information confirmation because the sources’ lives were being threatened. It wasn’t that the sources did not want to give up the information, but that they were scared to do so. I think that sometimes that would be ethical to do because it would lead to the truth and could result in justice being served.

The impact of the Watergate reporting on journalism shaped the way society deals with what is ethical and what is not. Reporters now have to face whether or not they should make possibly unethical decisions if it means the truth will be uncovered. Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting influenced journalism to be less black and white and right and wrong to being more complex like the real world is.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/1613/All-the-President-s-Men/overview

http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-all-the-presidents-men/#gsc.tab=0