Sunday, February 05, 2006

A Shot in the Dark

An interesting question. A laundry list, you say? Well, I will draw a lot of this from the blog right before me. He or she had several good ideas. Then I'll add a couple of mine.

1. The title, of course, refers to the intimate moments between Paul Newman and Sally Field, "shot" being alcohol. This would be number one on the laundry list. But who can blame her? Paul Newman is quite a catch. The point is, you never dip your pen in the company ink. Umm, actually that doesn't really apply here, but you get the picture. She got personally involved with a story, and look where she ended up, SHE MET WILFORD BRIMLEY!!! Wow, what an honor. He lives in Lehi, you know, where I live. I don't think he's very kind, actually. Anyway, moving on...

2. Field read the files on Elliot's desk. As we discover in the end, he meant for her to read them, but that doesn't mean that she should have. I remember this exact type of question in JCOM 1110. I can't remember what my answer was, but I don't think I would have done it in this case. I don't know. Maybe if I was desperate.

3. I don't know if this really counts, but Field compromises her judgment by drinking alcohol when with Newman. Is that really allowed? I guess if she knows what she's doing. It just seems a little iffy to me.

4. Field writes the story about Newman's friend, who had an abortion. A tough decision to make, I'll be honest. I don't know if I would have done it. I don't think so. But then again, she did have feelings for Newman, and I don't think she thought that the consequences would be so drastic.

5. She reveals the name of a source to Paul Newman.

6. Lastly, when Field is meeting with Brimley and those other people, she chooses not to disclose the name of the detective. A GOOD ethical choice. And neither of them got into trouble for it.

The one I find most controversial is obviously the first one. Yes, Paul Newman is mighty handsome, but couldn't she have let that wait until AFTER that was all settled? In this way, she was playing into his hands, not that that ended up being a bad thing, but still. As someone eloquently put it, she was "sleeping with the enemy" whether or not he would do her harm. First rule of journalism, don't libel. Second rule of journalism, NEVER GET PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH A SOURCE***Unless it's with Paul Newman...

1 comment:

Aggie Blue said...

jenopus writes:

"Yes, Paul Newman is mighty handsome, but couldn't she have let that wait until AFTER that was all settled? In this way, she was playing into his hands, not that that ended up being a bad thing, but still. As someone eloquently put it, she was "sleeping with the enemy" whether or not he would do her harm."


Doesn't journalism have an ethics code that forbids sleeping with one's sources? Hmmm. In this movie, the enemies list was continually changing, wasn't it.