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.