In order to win a defamation case, a malice intent has to be proven. No intent, absence of malice, and the case is shut.

I do not think Megan Carter had any intent of malice. I mean, there’s many scenes in the movie proving she felt something completely different towards Gallagher.

Instead of aiming to harm, I think she was simply careless.

She wasn’t the only one. Her editor had no right to go in to her lead and change “suspect” to “prime suspect,” and other such changes. Changes like that made a pretty weak story into something worth publishing. Was it worth it?

I don’t think it was for Gallagher when his union workers quit.

I don’t think it was for Peron. That story was not worth her life.

Carter didn’t put the blade to Peron’s wrists but she did put her name in the paper when she explicitly asked to not be named.

A case can be made that Carter wouldn’t have been interested in the alibi if it wasn’t for her romantic flirtation with Gallagher. That conflict of interest propelled her to prove his innocence. Newspapers publish stories every day about people being arrested. Few have stories when they’re let go.

Why did Gallagher deserve to have his name cleared?

The whole story did come out at the end. I know that makes my classmates, who thought that it was unfair to not have followup stories, happy. I think that was also part of clearing the paper’s name after they damaged it in the beginning.

Journalists could learn from Carter’s mistakes though.

Don’t embellish the truth to make your own story better. It’s not worth someone’s life and their livelihood.

Don’t get on a boat with sources and drink their wine. It’s a slippery slope.

The message in this movie is similar to the one in House of Cards: Don’t. Sleep. With. Sources.

You only end up getting screwed again.

Journalists should stay true to themselves and true to their stories. They don’t need no man.

“You’re no Woodward and Bernstein,” is a common phrase aimed at reporters who are getting too big for their britches (that saying is courtesy of my southern grandma).

But what does it mean to be Woodward and Bernstein? What are their ethics? Are they still relevant in modern journalism?

The Washington Post’s Watergate story hinged on information given to them from “Deep Throat,” their source on deep background. This is one point of ethical debate– whether so much of a story can be dependent on a source that won’t even go on record. Other sources of theirs also refused to go on the record, preferring to stay on background for fear of backlash from their job and the government.

One side would say that all sources need to reveal themselves and take ownership of what they say. Otherwise what’s to say that they aren’t just making things up to attack or manipulate others in power? Naming sources creates credibility.

But from Woodward and Bernstein’s side, this was the only option to get information. It was a sensitive, scandalous issue. It’s reasonable that people wouldn’t want to go on record. Plus, hopefully, anything they say can be validated by other, on the record, sources.

People may say that some of Woodward and Bernstein’s actions put people in harm’s way, for example, the bookkeeper who seemed panicked and afraid on the phone. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says “do no harm.” But it also says, “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.” That’s exactly what Woodward and Bernstein did.

BUT, another section of the code of ethics says, “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.”

It gets to be like an ethical game of table tennis.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are great at giving advice on situations that they aren’t personally responsible for.

I respect what Woodward and Bernstein did. I don’t think I could’ve handled it better than they did. I have a cute giggle and charm, but that wasn’t going to make Deep Throat reveal his true name or sources feel like their lives were safe in my hands.

If I was editor, I hope I would have held the story until it was backed up more in fact– like Ben Bradlee did. But I also know the journalistic world we live in and the blood pumping feeling when you have a scoop you want to share with the Twitterverse.

Social medias come and go though. Integrity is forever. It’s what separates the journalists who knock on door after door from the bloggers who sit on their couch going through beer after beer. It’s not right to alarm a nation to a scandal that’s actually false. It’s a privilege to be a watchdog who has sniffed out all the right details to make your case.

It’s a privilege to be a Woodward and Bernstein.