According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, Journalists report the best possible version of the truth. That is exactly what Rachel Armstrong, played by Kate Beckinsale, was doing in Nothing but the Truth. However there was a major, constitutional concern at hand. Because of our first amendment she had freedom of the press. However, once the federal government began the investigation, she had no protection, legally, to keep her source confidential. The question at hand, still today, is whether a federal shield law should exist?

After watching this particular film, I have decided to revisit my views towards the matter. Although a shield law could have helped Rachel Armstrong, I do not believe a federal level law of such should be created. As a strong supporter of our constitution, I believe the first amendment should stay as is. The first five words are, “Congress shall make no law.” These words are essential and were put in place for a reason. Providing further specification on freedom of the press has the ability to negatively impact journalism.

The Code of Ethics obliges journalists to “Do No Harm.” Was Rachel Armstrong doing any harm? I believe she was simply reporting what she knew was the best possible version of the truth. In the film, it was clear she did not intend to cause harm, but was simply doing her job. The federal government took her to jail over refusing to reveal a source that was crucial to National Security. She preserved her integrity throughout the entire investigation. Eventually, she ended up losing everything over it: her husband, time to see son grow up and her freedom. At one point she began questioning herself and whether it was all worth it.

I think what she did was very brave and inspiring for other journalists-especially after seeing the end. If there weren’t people out there fighting for what they believe in everyday, we wouldn’t be here today.

After comparing the type of journalism exposed in All the President’s Men with that of Absence of Malice, once could note the differences as fairly obvious. All three of the journalists involved prove to be very passionate about journalism and put their best effort forward. However, Bernstein and Woodward seemed to do the best job. In Absence of Malice, Carter fails to get the other side of the story. Her effortless attempts to reach out to Gallagher fell short and the information was never confirmed. She moves forward and posts the article regardless, leaving Gallagher’s reputation at stake. As a journalist your job is to assemble and verify facts. She gets very caught up in the importance of getting the story and fails to check her accuracy.

More specifically, contrasting the work of Bob Woodward with Megan Carter: Bob Woodward held a slightly differing set of beliefs than those of Megan Carter. He strongly believed in writing the “best obtainable version of the truth.”  As Gallagher quoted to Megan, in the film, “You don’t write the truth, you write what people say!” I believe the two concepts at hand are not one in the same. The best obtainable version of the truth entails verification by many in order to ensure accuracy. This is an obligation to obtain the best version available. Writing what people say could mean someone has said something and it was posted. It does not ensure the same amount of effort and dedication put forth.

The two movies are very similar in the way sources are being kept anonymous. I have a hard time deciding whether the sources should be kept confidential. I believe that the credibility of an anonymous sources is less valuable. On the other hand, when lives are in danger it is hard to say. From a general perspective, if sources were always kept confidential, would anyone be willing to share any information at all? Depending on the size of the scandal and amount of people involved, it could be a very high risk.

While considering different contexts of Watergate, first one must look at the scandal from a historical perspective. A few of the events leading up to the scandal were Vietnam, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the psychiatric office burglary, and, lastly, the break-in at the DNC headquarters. Another aspect to consider would be the relationship between the media and Nixon’s  administration. The relationship had already suffered due to the large disapproval of our involvement in Vietnam. Immediately following the scandal Americans were fully aware of the government’s hidden agenda.

Secondly, we must look at the impact the scandal brought upon Americans. As more and more Americans started realizing the importance of the press, there was a significant increase in interest within the field. Ultimately, this led to a rise of great journalists. Watergate also drastically altered the way the country viewed the presidency. With the amount of corruption taking place, many became less likely to trust the government at all.

Referring back to the movie, All The President’s Men, one must consider the legal and ethical issues concerning the two renowned Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein. In my opinion a few things could have been done differently. Knocking on doors and speaking to people in person was a very effective method at the time. However, in a few cases they crossed the line. For example, when Bernstein abruptly marched in for a cigarette at the bookkeeper’s residence. That could have been considered trespassing. Regardless of the legal aspect, it was not ethical.

I believe the tactics the journalists were using to get information may have been at question as well. They tried to trick people into thinking they had already obtained the information from another source. This made it seem as if they were not using them as a source but just confirming a previous one. Ultimately, it does not prove to be ethical under the Code of Ethics.

Woodward and Bernstein also knew people were at risk and there was an apparent threat of safety. This does not align with the “SPJ Code,” more specifically, under the “Do No Harm” category. Furthermore, the bookkeeper proceeds to show how uncomfortable she feels with revealing further information, but Bernstein doesn’t stop there. He keeps insisting on getting more information no matter what the consequences could be. Others may feel as if this was completely ethical, but I may not be so easily convinced.

Overall, the journalists failed to foresee the significance and size of the scandal in the beginning, but it was handled well under the circumstances they were faced with. I must say that it was very brave going against the federal government and pursuing the interest of the public despite the risks. This showed how dedicated Woodward and Bernstein were to finishing the story. After nearly throwing in the towel, Deep Throat guided Woodward in the right direction. Advising Woodward to follow the money led to the unraveling of the scandal. If it wasn’t for a significant source like Deep Throat, Americans may have been left in the dark.