Somewhere, a line has to be drawn

By Yuji Vincent B. Gonzales     

            IRRESPONSIBLE journalism kills. And when it does, it does not only kill people’s dignity and reputation, but also people themselves. It ruins not only names and integrity, but also lives.

            This is the primary theme being underscored in Sydney Pollack’s 1981 film titled Absence of Malice—the ethical issues concerning journalism and the gravity of damage that recklessness in the work inflicts to innocent, ordinary individuals.  

            Megan Carter, a Miami Standard reporter who represents the population of terrible journalists (also known as “disgrace to the profession”) in the world, wrote a half-baked, immature front page story about the alleged association of liquor warehouse owner Michael Gallagher to the disappearance of a local union leader named Diaz.

            Carter, who did not even bother to verify the report she found on the desk of a mediocre FBI agent named Elliot Rosen, gives a face to irresponsible journalism. Rosen knew in the first place that Gallagher, whose father had ties with gangsters and mafias, is innocent. He intentionally left the “secret” document about Gallagher “being under investigation” on his table for Carter to see it, thinking that linking the former to the Diaz case would force him to name names of the true suspects.

            That is where the series of intertwining unethical practices of Carter began. Putting aside Rosen’s intention, stealing documents, especially those which are supposed to be “sensitive” ones, is and will always be a misdeed and an act of dishonesty. What made things worse was Carter did not check on the credibility, reliability, and authenticity of the file. And worst, she also did not bother to exert additional efforts to contact Gallagher and ask for his side on the matter before publishing the story. Yes, she did try to call him once but he was not able to answer, so her attempt also ended there.

             In journalism, the discipline of verifying crucial facts or statements (in the film’s case, one that has serious legal implications) is a golden rule, and not abiding to such is considered a mortal sin. Relying solely on unreliable, leaked information in writing a story is very unprofessional. The two-source rule is important for a balanced and objective output.

            When Gallagher found out that he made it to the paper’s banner headline, he immediately went to the daily’s office, confronted Carter, and demanded her to disclose her “knowledgeable source in the Justice Department.” Carter, however, refused to divulge her source to Gallagher. As to the anonymity of sources, there is nothing wrong in hiding their identity for the sake of privacy and protection. However, this does not apply to Carter’s case because something was wrong in the process of news gathering—the [leaked, unreliable] source was illegally obtained. Carter was not really protecting her “knowledgeable source” but herself. She was protecting her own credibility, and simultaneously, she was protecting herself from shame and condemnation on the way she irresponsibly acquired information.

            In legal terms, the phrase “absence of malice” means the lack of evil intent to harm somebody. This is what Carter and the publication’s lawyer was citing to counter argue Gallagher’s accusations to them—that they have no willful motive to destroy Gallagher’s reputation. However, the mere fact that Carter still wrote the story without evidence and without asking for the subject’s side, there was an indirect and unconscious intent to harm Gallagher somewhere along her selfish interests.  She fashioned the story into that angle despite her knowledge and awareness of journalists’ big role in shaping public opinion. She may not be directly saying that Gallagher was the murderer, but that was the implication of her story in one way or another. Yes, there was probably an absence of malice, but there was also a negligence of a journalist’s duty and conduct on the other side. The latter is as equally tragic as having malice, or even worse than that. This just proves that no matter how the law is intended for nation-building and social order, just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is morally right.

            In addition, Carter secretly recorded her conversation with Gallagher during their “lunch date” without consent. Carter was also somehow involved in a romantic affair with Gallagher. Although there is no concrete text in the rules of journalism saying that such is prohibited, it is something implied and understood that having personal attachment to sources is a big threat to credibility.

            More than fracturing Gallagher’s reputation, more than causing the liquor warehouse workers to resign, the biggest casualty of Carter’s malpractice was the death of Teresa Perrone, Gallagher’s childhood friend.

            Perrone, in her desire to clear her friend of all allegations to him, decided to meet up with Carter. She disclosed to her that Gallagher accompanied her for abortion on the weekend that Diaz disappeared, provided that her identity would not be revealed in the story. However, Carter insisted, saying that “people would understand.” It turned out that Carter is the one who did not understand the moral implications of her actions. The following day, Perrone, a devout Catholic and a teacher in a Catholic school, committed suicide after finding out that the story hit the papers.

            Carter took for granted her source and overpowered her in a sense that she abused its fragility. She ignored and disrespected Perrone’s request for confidentiality, resulting to a loss of life over credibility.

            Irresponsible journalism kills. And when it does, it sometimes does it literally.

            The worst thing that can happen to a journalist is to lose his sense of purpose. Journalists have tendencies to report or publish for the wrong reasons—for scoop, competition, ambition, prestige, meeting quotas—not understanding that they are writing about their fellow human beings, and what they write can make or break them. They do not realize the immense power and influence of the press that is on their very hands; and when they do, the damage has already been done. They are supposed to be bearers of truth, but they are gradually becoming bearers of “what is being said, what is perceived to be true, and what is simply accurate.”

            In their pursuit of stories to publish and ambition to land on the front page, journalists quite forget that their duty is not only to right but also to listen; that sometimes, they have to put their pens down and take time to sympathize and empathize with their subjects.  They are being trapped and carried away by their wrong notion of “news” and “public’s right to know.”

            The moral case and ethical issues are enough to justify journalists’ improprieties.

            There is a higher law than the law of man. And somewhere, a line has to be drawn.