Monthly Archives: December 2012

Absence of Malice

If there was ever a reporter who could benefit from a course on investigative journalism, it would be Megan Carter, the zealous but naive reporter in the movie Absence of Malice. In the beginning of the film, Megan is told that the FBI is interested in Micheal Galigher, a businessman whose family has ties to the mob. They are interested in Galigher, because they believe that he can lead them to the individuals who killed another very important person. She begins investigating Galigher and after being intentionally given his file to read during a visit to the head of a special FBI strike force, she begins publishing stories saying that Michael Galigher is under investigation in a murder case. She does not take the time to reach out to Galigher to hear his side of the story, or to verify if what she has is correct. She just runs with what she thinks she knows, with no consideration for whose life would be damaged by the story. Her most grotesque deed is in the film is the printing of the story regarding Galigher’s alibi for the date of the murder. Galigher accompanied his close friend to Atlanta so that she could have an abortion. During an interview with Galigher’s friend, the friend explained to Megan that she is terrified of speaking to her and of the possibility that news of her abortion could be published. She expressed that she is from a Catholic background and that such having her story published would severely damage her reputation and life. Without regard for this concern, Megan prints the story and Galigher’s friend commits suicide.  As a reporter, Megan only thinks about the story, never the lives that could be affected by her story.

Central Park Five
Disgust, anger, resentment and hope are just some of the emotions that I experienced after watching Central Park Five. The film tells the stories of five African American and Latino male teenagers who were wrongfully convicted for the rape and attempted murder of a woman in Central in 1989.
Disgusted- there were quite a few things that I felt disgusted by while watching this film. First was the District Attorney’s office (D.A.) eagerness to put the blame on someone. New York City was spiraling out of control and the D.A. saw this as a P.R. opportunity. I was DISGUSTED by the fact that detectives coerced the scared teenagers into fabricating stories simply to satisfy their own self interests. Additionally, the D.A.’s office seemed to care very little for the fact that they were ruining the lives of five innocent teenagers and their families.
I was also disgusted by the fact that the lack of DNA evidence did not in any way cause the case to be more closely scrutinized. This case was just filled with holes, which the D.A’s office, the NYPD and the media turned a blind eye to. Even though the teens had given statements, if they were indeed guilty, then there should have been some kind of DNA evidence. Someone in the film said it best. “The confessions trumped DNA… the D.A. wanted to hold someone accountable… the idea was that if you couldn’t get all the culprits, at least you could get some.”
Anger- I was angered by the fact that some of the parents did very little to stop what was happening. Why didn’t they get lawyers? I understand that the situation might have come as a shocked and was difficult to process all at once, however, I can’t help but think how differently things could have gone if they had retained counsel, assuming that the attorneys were remotely decent. Additionally, I was angered by the role that race played in the case. The film pointed out that there was also another rape case that had occurred almost simultaneously in which a woman was raped and then thrown from a building. Contributors to the film said that because the rape was not interracial, it did not receive much coverage. “However, interracial rapes are another story.” They also raised the question, “if this rape was committed in Harlem, would it receive as much coverage?”
Resentment- I resented the fact that the media did not do its job. They took everything the police and D.A’s office said, without doing any real investigative reporting.
Hope- because Matias Reyes came forward. Despite the failings of the justice system, Humanity shined through and all the charges were dropped against the five individuals.

In the 1981 film, Absence of Malice, Meghan Carter, one of the main characters makes a number of mistakes that, may show an absence of malice, but point to a presence of irresponsibility.

Ms. Carter, who is a reporter for the Miami Standard, is caught between a demanding editor and Michael Gallagher, a man who she connected to a murder in a story.  Throughout the film, Ms. Carter makes a number of errors that bring her professional credentials as a journalist into question and point to a pattern of irresponsibility.

Firstly, Ms. Carter does not inform Mr. Gallagher that she is about to publish a damaging story about him.  Journalists should always alert people before they are going to print damaging information because it gives the suspected party a chance to defend himself on the record and to correct any mistakes in the reporter’s story.  Ms. Carter leaves a phone message on Mr. Gallagher’s answering machine, but this does not satisfy her responsibility to inform him of what is about to hit him in the Miami Standard.  She prints the story to appease her desk editor, which naturally raises the ire of Mr. Gallagher when he encounters the story.

The next mistake that Ms. Carter makes is secretly recording Mr. Gallagher when they are  on his boat for lunch.  A responsible journalist should always alert a subject that he is being recorded prior to “hitting play.”  Ultimately it matters little because Mr. Gallagher discovers the hidden recorder in Ms. Carter’s jacket pocket when he suspects that she is hiding something because she refuses to remove her jacket, despite the warm afternoon temperatures.

Ms. Carter actually drives Theresa Parrone to suicide when she publishes the fact that the woman had an abortion in Atlanta.  Ms. Parrone makes the confession to Ms. Carter to provide proof that Mr. Gallagher was not in Florida during the time of the murder.  Ms. Carter’s indiscretion leads Ms. Parrone, who came from a conservative Roman Catholic family, to commit suicide out of social shame.  To make matters worse, Ms. Carter tells Ms. Parrone that no one would care if she had an abortion  showing a complete ignorance for the social implications of such an action, especially with Roman Catholic friends and family.

Ms. Carter shows more poor decision making when she decides to sleep with Mr. Gallagher.  What people choose to do in their private lives is up to them, but this is still very unprofessional.  In fact, their relationship leads Ms. Carter to give-up Elliot Rosen as her source for the story.  Of course, a journalist should never reveal her sources.

Ms. Carter makes plenty of mistakes throughout the film and is a good case study of what not to do as a journalist.

-Logan

I saw The Central Park Five at the Lincoln Plaza theater on Saturday afternoon and I was very moved by this heartbreaking film.  There are certain aspects about how the neighborhoods of New York City have formed, and shifted through time, that have always puzzled me and this film brought out the social, economic, and geographic implications of the city.

I have never been comfortable with Carnegie Hill, neither the physical form itself, nor the idea of the hill.  Carnegie Hill is a slope that separates the Upper East Side from the southern reaches of Harlem; it runs approximately from Central Park to the East River, along 96th Street.  But Carnegie Hill is more than just a physical form; it is a social and emotional barrier that separates two worlds: the plushness of the Upper East Side with its doormen buildings, elite private schools, and boutique shops rest atop the hill, while East Harlem, with its public housing projects, failing public schools, and aging bodegas sit at the bottom.  In short, the Upper East Side embodies an urbane vision of the American dream while the lowlands are more reminiscent of an American nightmare that those atop the hill would rather forget.

But what about Central Park?  In the film, Ed Koch refers to the park as a sort of, “sacred” space.  This common space, a monument to democracy and open to all, exists as a sort of third position between the excesses of the Upper East Side and the desperation of East Harlem.  No individual and no group may exert control over Central Park.  And it is here where two worlds collided during the events that unfolded in 1988.  When the jogger, a resident of the highlands, was raped that night, the police had no evidence linking the five Harlem residents to the crime; however, it seems that their prejudices immediately lead them to the assumption that the crime must have been committed by “others.”  I believe that the geographic segregation of New York City lends itself well to this sort of racism/classism because it reinforces the idea that we, as Americans, are not a single people, but rather a loosely-bound confederation of different peoples.  This sort of ignorance put five innocent men behind bars.

There’s a lot going on “between the lines” in this story.  At its heart, it shows a fragmented America fraught with distrust and disdain.  One victim is upper class and white; five victims are working class and minorities.  It seems nearly impossible in America to speak about race without speaking about economics, and vice versa.  Martin Luther King Jr. spoke passionately about social justice and one theory about the 1993 Los Angeles race riots is that they were fueled much more by working-class economic anguish than by genuine racial hatred.  All of these dynamics–geographic, racial, economic–have a place in explaining how such a great injustice could be brought against five innocent men in a “free” country.  But one thing is for sure: this story illuminated the gaps that exist between different groups of Americans and it challenges the notion that Americans are a unified people.

-Logan

In the beginning of class, I was very happy that we were going to watch this film because I had never heard of it before.  I found it to be compelling and I was constantly going through the plot in my head as I watched.  Also, another important reason why I liked it is the obvious connection it had to our class as it contained important concepts that we have been focusing on.

The fact that the story centered around defamation and in particular, libel, was important because it provided our class with a visual representation of these crimes.  The film was an example for us of what to do and what not to do in that particular situation that the Miami Standard and Megan Carter found themselves in.

Megan Carter made serious errors when working.  The most important mistakes:

• Failure to contact Michael Gallagher before her initial piece on him for the Miami Standard
• Therese Perrone Matter—She failed to adhere to Perrone’s wishes about not having her name printed in the paper

At the end of the movie, I felt terrible and really sad because this story was so similar to something that happened in my own life regarding a local newspaper and news media companies here in the Capital Region.  Many years ago, the death of a family member caused unwanted media attention and further, it caused unwarranted speculation in the media.  Because it played out in the media, it was a terrible feeling having people see these things in the paper resulting in those people making their own conclusions and disrespecting me and my family in the process.  I know how it feels to wake up, go to the store or school, and see your personal business out in the open, for everyone to see.  It’s a heartbreaking feeling, especially when it isn’t true.  The media needs to be very careful when reporting.  They also need to double-check everything.  This movie just serves as a serious reminder of this.

I saw the documentary, The Central Park Five, last Thursday at the IFC Center. The one word that informally sums up my reaction to the film is “wow.” I was completely gripped by the real accounts given by the five, falsely convicted, men. These five poor boys were guilty until proven innocent. This was a complete and utter failure of the legal system and the press. The result of this you may ask? Seven to thirteen years in prison, 5 individual lives ruined, families tarnished and tortured, all in the purview of political “prowess.” After Ray Donovan was acquitted, he asked “What office do I go to get my reputation back?” Similarly, where could these men go to get their lives back? Simply stated, nowhere.

Who’s job was it to ensure the innocence of the five boys that were convicted? They were coerced into giving false statements, wrongly detained and questioned for over 26 hours, and those children who were under 16 years old were unlawfully denied access to a parent or guardian. Where was the higher power here to assert our ‘esteemed’ legal process and system? Clearly, the police officers, DA’s, and prosecuting attorneys failed. Who, or what entity, was supposed to keep them in check? The answer to that question is rather simple, the press. Instead of being the guiding light in this tragedy, the press victimized these five boys for months. The imagery of the public lynching in the film was rather ironic, as the press metaphorically hanged these five children before they ever had a chance. How could this possibly happen? I think it’s important here to write the words given by District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s office after the convictions were vacated. This one paragraph sums up the failures of the press and legal system alike:

“A comparison of the statements reveals troubling discrepancies. … The accounts given by the five defendants differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime — who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place. … In many other respects the defendants’ statements were not corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence. And some of what they said was simply contrary to established fact.”

Interestingly enough, the next morning I had a conversation with my mother about the film before she left for work. I said to her “It’s really unbelievable how the lives of these five boys were completely railroaded.” With a perplexed look on her face, she responded, “What are you talking about? You mean the five boys who raped and practically murdered that poor woman?” I went silent for a few moments, completely in shock of what she had just said. Mind you, my mother has been a court reporter (stenographer in the courtroom who writes every single word that is said) for over 30 years. She pays very much attention to important court cases (especially ones as popular as this one). So, when SHE was not aware that the five boys’ convictions were vacated, I was in complete shock. This speaks to what Craig Wilder had said in the film, “Their innocence never got the attention that their guild did.”

-Shaun

Hi all,

I watched the movie “Central Park Five” last night at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema.

It was an amazing documentary film and I was shocked that the discrimination was still deep and profound in NYC in 1989. I was also surprised that the subway was filled with graffiti; it is unbelievable people at that time commuted to work by subway.

In the film, through the interview of central park five, we learn how their lives were destroyed by the police, media and so on. Once people are arrested, their reputation cannot be recovered. For example, Raymond Santana had no choice but to sell drugs because he could not find any job.

Police, prosecutors, and media should apologize to central park five and compensate their loss. However, I am not sure how to calculate the loss. Recent case in my country, one undergrad student was wrongly arrested that he sent an e-mail with computer virus to a television company and he was captured for 45 days. Since he could not take any final exams in the university, he had to resign the university. His career and future was destroyed, but he received compensation only $6,000 because it is ruled that compensation per day is about $140…

Another statement I got interested in the movie was that this case would not become so famous and made the police hasty if it was not happened in Central Park. Since Central Park is a symbolic park in NYC, police had to settle the case as soon as possible so that people and tourists can feel safe in the city. Location also affects a lot.

KEI SHIMIZU

Hi Everyone,

• Serious NYPD errors that were facilitated by a rush to judgement without adequate investigation and evidence
  • No DNA evidence or any other physical evidence
• The Five were wrongfully “grabbed” by cops in Central Park after a night of running around the park with a larger group of kids “wilding”
• Systematic and institutional racism existed within the NYPD and the media during the late 1980s and this contributed to the quick public downfall and conviction of the Five

My conclusion is that this was a societal failure.  Many factors contributed original guilty verdict handed down for the five young men accused of committing this heinous crime.  It was clear that the NYPD was under serious pressure as a consequence of the times and this was a story that the media could jump on easily and take it as far as they did.  The fact that important institutions and the public were so quick to have a judgement on the matter was a sign of the negative environment gripping the city.  This environment caused the thoughts and actions of many people were shaped by prejudices that already existed.