Throughout the movie Absence of Malice (1981), ethical and legal issues in journalism are questioned, as reporter Megan Carter of the Miami Standard destroys a mans reputation by publishing a story that is accurate, but not true. Could you imagine waking up in the morning to find your name published on the front of a newspaper, knowing that the story is not true, and that all the sudden you are looked upon as a guilty criminal? According to lecture, ethics is defined as “an analysis, evaluation and promotion of correct conduct and or good character, according to the best available standard” (Lecture 4.1). Because ethics is very subjective, many may view Carter’s actions ethical, many unethical. When Carter gets light of the Michael Gallagher case, she approaches federal prosecutor Eliot Rosen for information, but is unsuccessful. Though she is unsuccessful, this does not stop her, as she steals information she finds in a portfolio left on Rosen’s desk, the same information she uses to create her published story. Right here we see an ethical dilemma. Unethically, Carter snooped through a federal officers portfolio and stole information that could have been correct or incorrect to her knowledge, publishing the story anyway before consulting Gallagher, the accused man. Contrary though, was she ethically doing her job as a reporter? Gathering information on a story of a deceased man to publish to the public?

With the idea of “the public has the right to know a few things” as said by Carter, legal issues in her actions arise as well. According to lecture, defamation is defined as a “false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm” (Lecture 6.1) and can be further defined as a type of defamation called Libel, “making defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper” (Lecture 6.1). Carter’s decision to publish the story of Gallagher was not only ethically debatable, but also legally debatable, as she published a story that not only diminished Gallagher’s reputation as a man, but liquor business as well. We learned in lecture that Libel is rooted in history, beginning with Seditious Libel; crime to criticize the government, and the Sedition Act of 1798; crime to write false, scandalous, and malicious statements (Lecture 6.1). In saying this, do Carter’s actions in publishing the defamatory story fall under libel? Or is she protected by the 1^st Amendment, in which James Madison crafted to give citizens open dialog?

If I were put in Carter’s position, I would have handled situation differently, not putting anyone in jeopardy. First, I would not have published the story without confronting Gallagher beforehand for numerous reasons. One being the fact that the stolen information could be incorrect, two; the fact that if I do publish the story, I could be diminishing someone’s reputation; three, if I do publish the information and it is incorrect, I just committed defamation, something we saw in the New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) case. Secondly, I would not have become so emotionally and personally attached to Gallagher if I were Carter. Emotion and personal feelings as a reporter is a tough situation to put yourself in, especially when the ongoing story is the one you are attached to.

I believe the ethical and legal issues in this movie greatly impact journalism. The actions of Megan Carter throughout the entire movie display both ethical and legal dilemmas in journalism, from stealing federal documents, to publishing a false story and committing defamation, bugging herself in an interview, and becoming emotionally and personally attached to her story. Though she is not the only one who questions ethics, (i.e. Rosen leaking false reports, Gallagher training Teresa what to say to the press, etc.) she is the center of attention, being the initial publisher of the story that was untrue. On top of this, I fell this movie impacts journalism because it really shows how journalists and reporters do not care for those they are publishing about. Yes towards the end of the movie Carter feels guilty for what she did and has a personal relationship with Gallagher, but when she originally published the story, she did not care about Gallagher at all. We see this all the time in society today, newspapers, blogs, and magazines printing stories that are far from the truth in some cases just to get a rise out of society and have good ratings. Because of this movie, I believe journalists will think twice before committing defamatory statements, and learn from the ethical and legal dilemmas displayed.

Sources

Absence of Malice. (1981). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/

Course Lecture 4.1 – Introduction to Journalism Ethics

Course Lecture 6.1 – Libel

New York Times v. Sullivan. (1964). http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39

When it comes to ethical issues in journalism and the media, All The President’s Men (1976), represents exactly the dilemma of what is understood to be ethically correct and wrong, and how perceptions are made from such issues. Ethics is defined as an analysis, evaluation and promotion of correct conduct and or good character, according to the best available standard (Lecture 4.1). The movie in entirety is about President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal, where he sanctioned “dirty tricks” while in office. He approved events and gave permission on things such as bugging the offices of political opponents, sanctioning fake letters, using stolen documents, and hiring spies, raising a major ethical debate on right verses wrong. Likewise, Deep Throat, a member of Nixon’s presidential office, was secretly feeding Bob Woodward of The Washington Post the information he needed to report the scandal to the nation. Right here we see an ethical issue of debate, as the information could be correct or incorrect, and because the source was “anonymous”, it may not be credible. Ethically, was Deep Throat trying to provide information to the press about a President committing a conspiracy? Unethically, secretly meeting with Woodward in a parking garage, feeding him bits and pieces of the Presidents wrongdoings behind his back?

Furthermore, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were forced to make ethical decisions as journalists. Seeking the truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently, and being accountable, outline the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics, raising debate on how well Woodward and Bernstein followed this outline (Lecture 4.2). When Woodward and Bernstein tried to seek the truth, they used sources that wanted to remain anonymous and were very persistent when it came to these sources not wanting to talk. Was it ethically correct to go to their homes and ask the questions they did in the manner they did just for a lead? When they began reporting the story, the realization of how big the story could actually be did not sink in until they began situating potential sources in danger of losing jobs, or being followed, etc. When they showed up at these homes, they insisted on talking to the potential source, no matter if they said they felt endangered, or did not want to speak at all. Ethical? To society and the normal person, this seems to be invasive and unethical in many ways, but to Woodward and Bernstein, this may have been fine, given the nature of their job. Alternatively, Woodward and Bernstein may have known their ways were unethical, but because of the nature of the story and pressures they encountered, they knew it had to be done to publish a successful story.

Because of the position Woodward and Bernstein were in, I feel they handled this situation well. In journalism and reporting, it is your job to find information at all costs and release the information for the nation to see, ethics aside. Woodward and Bernstein had no emotional connection to the scandal, so I feel they were more obligated to take the story on, from the stance that a President of The United States was wrongfully leading the nation, plain and simple. If I were in their shoes, I would have done the same thing. Woodward and Bernstein did nothing to affect the law illegally, vowing to keep their sources anonymous, and knew that they were protected under the First Amendment, Freedom of Press and Speech. They simply wanted to reach the bottom of the scandal, and unfold all the unethical moves of the President.

All in all, both Woodward and Bernstein were put in difficult situations as journalists when dealing with this case. The magnitude of the case weighed in on the decisions Woodward and Bernstein made, both ethically and unethically. Because there is such a fine line when it comes to ethics, this movie is a personal judgment on how you base correct conduct and or good character. Woodward and Bernstein succeed with reporting the Watergate Scandal, setting standards for journalism and the job of a reporter, showing that there is more to the story sometimes, especially with the government.

Sources

All The President’s Men. (1976). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/

Course Lecture 4.1 – Introduction to Journalism Ethics

Course Lecture 4.2 – Journalism Ethical Framework

FBI’s No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat’: Mark Felt Ends 30-Year Mystery of The Post’s Watergate Source. (2005). http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbis-no-2-was-deep-throat-mark-felt-ends-30-year-mystery-of-the-posts-watergate-source/2012/06/04/gJQAwseRIV_story.html