The film Absence of Malice starring Sally Field is a basic guideline of what not to do when it comes to reporting. She drinks on the job, is severely unprofessional with her sources, and does not know how to use a telephone to call and back up her stories. It was very frustrating to watch her make these stupid mistakes because she trusted the wrong people. She is almost too trusting, and reporters should know that stories need to be backed up by more than one person. It seems common sense that a reporter writing a story would call the person that is involved in the story. All these actions lead her to get put on the “chopping block” and even her editor does not support her. Professor Wahkisi said that good editors always back up their reporters (paraphrasing). I liked the film and it was unfortunate to watch Sally Field get caught up in the middle of a few scandals, just because she trusted what people said.
12 comments:
Taylor,
I agree with you. I too thought it was quite frustrating--even painful--to watch Sally Field (an actress who annoys me as it is) make mistake after mistake in the movie.
Concerning your last statement... Should editors really back up their reporters in every circumstance, i.e. even when they are caught up in a reputation-damaging scandal?
-Nick
There is no doubt that Sally Field's character constantly screwed up while attempting to get a story. However, I did like the fact that the movie showed that not all reporters are perfect. A lot of times in movies all you see is a reporter that does nothing wrong when attempting to catch the bad guy. This time, that was not the case.
I wasn't able to watch all of the film, so I couldn't feel the pain of watching the character Sally Field's played messing up all the time. However, I liked how the film simply portrays her as a reporter that went a bit too far to get a story that wasn't really there to begin with. It shows that journalists need to think twice before they rush to write something.
I agree that Sally Field's character left much to be desired regarding journalistic ethics. However, I maintain that her tenacity and her willingness to publish a controversial story are two qualities that could make her an excellent journalist. While she should not have broken the rules, as you said, she still displayed at least two admirable journalistic qualities in the movie.
I agree with you in everything you say. Fields' character in the movie was a terrible reporter and showed exactly how to not do her job. She was very passionate about her job and I think that her passion interefered with how she went about her work.
I think you are very right in saying that it was frustrating to watch "Megan" make mistake after mistake. Her mistakes were so obvious and her editor should have set her straight. In fact, she should have innately understood that what she was doing was inappropriate and harmful.
I missed the first part of the movie, but what I did see was suprising to me. To become a reporter a person has to go through certain schooling and should know the procedure of conducting an interview and putting a story together. Like you said Sally Field's character did not do backgrounding before her stories and did not get in contact with the people she wrote about. I agree the editor should back up the reporter, but in some cases if they screw up that bad there job should be taken.
Ryan
I like your analysis. Editors will back up their reporters when their reporters are accurate and have followed the rules of good journalism. That was not the case in this movie. In fact, the editor was more of a problem than the reporter in my opinion
Even though Sally Field was quite unprofessional, I think the movie shows how journalism has grown over time. Journalism has grown from tabloid propoganda to an actual profession. i think this is exhibited greatly in the movie by Sally Field's reporting as the movie progresses, and shows the consequences of impropper reporting.
-Dennis Piccone
I agree with the fact that you did not enjoy the movie and thought sally Field embarrased every journalist and every student that is aspiring to be a journalist. On the other hand I am going to have to agree with trentmurdoc in that I dont think that editors should always stand behind their reporters.
I also really liked the movie, but I agree it was painful to watch Sally Field make all these mistakes that seem painfully easy to avoid. It's not very difficult to double check a source or to call the subject of a story.
Sally Field's character was definitely painful to watch at times.. Could her "secret" tape recorder been anymore obvious?! on the otherhand, the movie was a good example of what NOT to do in journalism.
Post a Comment