Journalism and Public Affairs Fall 2012

Absence of Malice displays reporter Megan Carter as a journalist struggling through various predicaments in which she fights to advance her own career, while unfortunately, hurting people and making unethical decisions along the way.

One error that she made was that she did not try hard enough to make Mike Gallagher aware that she was going to release a report stating that he was under investigation.  She claims to have called once, but that no one picked up the phone.  This was not good enough.  She should have repeatedly called, left messages, and if anything, she should have left a copy of the report under his doorstep.  A reporter must always persist in trying to get in contact with the private individual they are releasing the report about in order to enable that individual to have a chance to release a comment.  The private individual can sue the reporter merely if he or she proves the reporter printed a falsehood.

The most outrageous act Megan committed was writing Theresa Perrone’s name in the article when claiming that she had an abortion and Mike was there with her and so thus he could not have possibly committed the murder. Megan was so focused on releasing Mike from being attached to the murder that she neglected her own morals and went against Theresa.  Theresa specifically told Megan that she did not want her name in that article for fear of how her family and coworkers would react.  However, Megan completely ignored Theresa’s plea and heartlessly published the article.  Theresa committed suicide and Megan became ridden with guilt.

It was also shocking how she developed a relationship with Mike.  This distracted her and caused her to lose control over her own investigation of the case, as she began falling in love with the man she was supposed to be investigating.

Christina

I was extremely moved by the Central Park Five Documentary.  It was incredibly sad to listen to the five men describe how they felt pressured and coerced by the police into making up stories about what had occurred merely to be able to go home.  By giving stories, the boys thought they would only be witnesses to the crime.

After spending years in jail and having their youth stolen from them, the men still struggled even after they were set free.  They had difficulty finding jobs and also had to register as sex offenders.  It was sad to see Raymond Santana describe how he felt that he was not contributing to the support of his household and so he began selling drugs and was eventually put back in jail and tried as a 2^nd offender.  Raymond also stated that at his age of 36, he dreamed of being married and owning a home.  Korey Wise said that no amount of money now could ever replace those years of suffering.

The film depicts that the boys were completely innocent in this case.  The boys were part of a group of about 25 boys who were roaming through Central Park that night.  One of the five stated the only crime he committed that night was jumping over a train turnstile.  The men described how they witnessed other boys creating mischief throughout the park, such as grabbing a couple on a bike and beating up a homeless man.  Also displayed in the film was a time map, in which at the time of the attack on the jogger, the group of boys were spotted to have been “wilding” in a completely separate area of the park. Thus, they could not have been involved in the crime.

I was completely shocked at how the true assailant, Matias Reyes, was able to get away with such a heinous crime when he had actually committed another assault in the park just days earlier.  His DNA was on file, but somehow never tested to the DNA taken from the jogger case.

The movie was very powerful, and hopefully will create awareness about the pain that can be inflicted on people through wrongful convictions.

Christina

Last night I saw The Central Park Five. NYC in the 1980s was very violent and dirty. I was moved emotionally by the documentary. It is very sad these boys were convicted of rape and had to spend many years in prison until someone else finally confessed to the crime. It is also terrible the way the police acted to get the confessions on the night of the crime. It reminded me of the way police do things in China. Justice is not the highest priority of Chinese police — they want to finish the case quickly, and I guess NYC police are similar. Were the boys totally innocent? A gang of 25 teenagers who go into Central Park at night is probably going to do some bad things. I believe the 5 boys are innocent of rape but perhaps they did participate in the assault on the homeless man, or the man riding a bike, or the other jogger — the boys said they only watched the violence but who knows, maybe they don’t want to admit they did more than watch.

Mari

Absence of Malice details what can go wrong when a reporter becomes the story instead of reporting it. The protagonist commits two sins in the movie:

First, in reporting the story she becomes so enamoured with her subjects that she fell in love with him. This is unethical because in the course of reporting she lost sight of the story and her job. This immersion into the life of the subject clouds her and blinds her from making sound decision about Gallagher.

Second, because she is so imbued into the life of Gallagher that she is willing to disclose her sources and talk to Gallagher about the information that helps upend the case against him.

It is unfortunate because she was filled with passion and appeared to be a great reported that allowed her heart to lead the story rather the subject.

The Central Park Five argues convincingly that, as with so many other stories of innocent persons wrongly accused, these five men were presumed guilty very early on, and it was a theme in the narrative that could not be ignored. These young men seem to be guilty of their own realities, time served solely because they were the ones that the cops managed to grab out of the park that night for causing trouble or ‘wilding’. There was no physical evidence, only their own confessions. Confessions that were made after hours of intimidation and interrogations, all without lawyers present. The police turned the five of them against one another, making up accusations and evidence. The police coerced five confessions, each of them describing another persons actions, while carefully noting that they didn’t do anything themselves. Determining the real perpetrator was not the only inconsistency in their confessions; timelines, locations and various weapons made it obvious that these were not accurate details. The film constructs a visual timeline that illustrates the impossible confessions.

The film opens with images of Central Park, accompanied by the chilling confession of the real culprit, Matias Reyes. In the scene where Reyes states, “I’m the one that did this”, the documentary is establishing the five defendant’s innocence. As historian Craig Steven Wilder notes, “Their innocence never got the attention that their guilt did.” In that moment, and throughout the film, the grief for youth and innocence lost is almost unbearable.

Megan

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.)