Monthly Archives: November 2012

Hi,

“Absence of Malice” is a great movie which cynically portrayed several important ethical issues of Journalism.

In my opinion, two journalistic sins which a female news reporter, Megan Carter, commit are as follows:

First sin was that Carter did not contact Michael Gallagher before she publish the article that Gallagher is suspected of having something to do with the death of Joey Diaz. He did not have a chance to express his notion about the article and point out what is not true. As a result, Gallagher got significant damages on his business because of her article.  Journalists must take maximum care when they publish articles about private individuals because it causes significant damages on them. It is difficult to recover one’s reputation because “You say somebody’s guilty, everybody believes you. You say he’s innocent, nobody cares.” Of course, private individuals can sue the publisher if the article revealed to be wrong. However, it requires many time and cost for private individuals as Pat Intrieri told the class.

Second sin was that Carter disregarded the will of her news source. Teresa Peron, who was a girl friend of Gallagher and tried to testify his alibi, asked Carter not to write her story because she was afraid that the article will reveal the fact that she had an abortion. Peron was a Catholic and abortion was prohibited. However, Carter published the article and Person commits a suicide. Journalists must respect the notion of their news sources, or their articles generate unintended results.

I think another sin Carter made was that she became close relationship with Gallagher. In many cases, close relationship between reporters and their news source had scandal or bad-endings because they cannot see things rightly. Journalists should keep proper relationships with their news sources, especially if they are male and female.

KEI

All,

Sydney Pollack’s 1981 film, Absence of Malice, serves an interesting testament to the dynamics of journalism.  Asked to focus on the practices the newspaper reporter, Megan Carter, did wrong throughout the film, I offer the following:

(1) She failed right off the bat by falling into the trap set by federal prosecutor, Elliot Rosen.  She read the file he intentionally left for her to see on his desk regarding Michael Gallagher.  A federal prosecutor has the responsibility to ensure that nothing is published that could implicate an individual absent an indictment.  However, Rosen is not the most noble of characters, and he’s desperate for a story, and Carter is guilty of not being more cautious as a reporter before publishing it.

(2) Carter also failed to make adequate efforts to contact Gallagher before publishing her initial story about the investigation surrounding his involvement with the murder of Joey Diaz.  Simply claiming to have tried calling without leaving a message is not good enough.  Gallagher had a right to be given the opportunity to comment before Carter went ahead and published the story.

(3) In my opinion, Carter’s worst failing throughout this whole ordeal was her total lack of empathy and caring for Teresa Peron.  During her meeting with Teresa, Teresa disclosed the whereabouts of Gallagher the night Diaz was killed, which was a realistic and believable alibi that buttressed Gallagher’s claim that he did not commit the crime.  Gallagher was with Teresa in Atlanta for emotional support when Teresa went down for an abortion.  Carter was completely insensitive to Teresa’s pleas not to reveal the abortion details in the paper for fear of being ostracized by the Catholic community who knew her well.  Carter published the story with full details anyway and Teresa committed suicide the next day.

Overall, there were several areas of journalistic integrity and professionalism that were called into question throughout the film.  Carter’s colleague at the paper said something to her along the lines of, “I know how to tell the truth, and I know how not to hurt people, but I don’t know how to do both at the same time, and neither do you.” He told Carter this after Carter received word of Teresa’s suicide in an attempt to comfort her and help absolve her of any guilt she might be feeling by publishing the story.  But the truth is, she should feel guilty; she ignored the personal feelings of a source.  Anonymity would have been most appropriate in this scenario.

I appreciate how Gallagher summarizes the entire debacle in one of the last scenes of the movie where he responds to Carter’s saying, “You really go us all,” with, “You got yourselves.”

-Jordana

All,

I saw the film this past weekend and found it incredibly sad and moving.  To address the question, “how innocent were the Central Park Five and how does the film treat this, if at all,” I offer the following:

The film does do a remarkable job at encapsulating the culture of crime and racism of the late 1980s/early 1990s.  I also found it very compelling when the historian the director kept going to for commentary (his name escapes me) indicated that the sentiment of disappointment and fear in one’s own race was so drastic that when events like the central park jogger case emerged in the media, one would just say to himself, oh God I hope it’s not us.

The question of innocence is a tricky one.  On one hand, it is clear the Five were not guilty of committing the crime they were convicted of.  However, the director was less clear on the matter of sheer innocence.  The Five were out in a group of 25+ teenagers accused of “wilding” that night and committing random acts of violence throughout the park on unsuspecting victims.  The documentary does a good job at chronicling the Five’s whereabouts throughout the park, and showing how they could not have conceivably been at the spot of the rape during the time it occurred.  However, that does not necessarily absolve the Five completely.  They could have conceivably aided or even committed some crimes of “wilding” the night of April 19, 1989, rendering them not entirely innocent.  Also, one of the Five, Raymond Santana, was later convicted of an unrelated drug charge after serving time for the rape he did not commit.  One could argue Santana would have never been led to the drug life had he not been so displaced and emotionally spent from serving time for a crime he did not commit.  But regardless, his conviction for a crime he actually did commit makes him not a completely innocent character.

That being said, there is no question this was a failing on every level.  From journalists, to the prosecution, to the NYPD, to the media, to the general culture permeating NYC at the time; in almost every respect this was a witch hunt.  The Five’s lives were ruined and their youth stripped.  There was not one ounce of DNA from any of the Five found on the rape victim, and there was a complete communication failure within the department.  The wrongful conviction of these five boys was the unjust result of hatred that percolated the mindset of NYC, and incompetence that rendered justice unattainable.

-Jordana

OK students, I’ve just seen “The Central Park Five” (at Lincoln Cinemas, 62d and Bway) and am more convinced than ever that you must see this film! It’s what we’ve been talking about on the subject of wrongful conviction. Here are links to two of the original stories which will help you understand the atmosphere at the time. (Hope these links turn live.)