Absence of Malice, a 1981 film that dealt with ethical issues of journalism. The film revolves around the murder of Michael Gallagher who is a criminal’s child. The film has a number of ethical issues regarding how Megan Carter reveals relevant allegations in this case. Her first source is unethical. Megan Carter’s relationship with Teresa Peron (Gallagher’s best friend) is a key ethical issue. This is why a short overview of this scene in the film will be given before the ethical question is discussed. The analysis uses Bok’s Three Step Model.
Peron gives an alibi in order to aid Gallagher, who is being suspected of murder. She confides in Carter about Gallagher’s whereabouts during the time he is alleged to have committed the murder. Peron reveals to Carter that Gallagher was her companion for the weekend as she had an abortion outside of town. Peron is a catholic and asks Carter not to disclose any information about her abortion because it goes against Catholicism. Carter does release the story. Peron is so embarrassed that she takes her own life. In this instance, the ethical question is centered around Carter’s decision in revealing Peron’s personal information. Peron has a presumed right of privacy, which is an issue. It is more important to ask whether the individual’s right for privacy overrides that of the public.
Bok’s three-step method suggests that you should consult your conscience first to assess how you feel about what happened. Personaly, I feel sorry about the deaths caused by Carter’s article. No one should die to avoid embarrassment and save face because of certain details in a news article. Peron was honest when she confided her concerns to Carter, hoping that this would exonerate Gallagher and spare him the public humiliation he had been subjected to as a main suspect in a case of murder. She took great pains to expose her actions, which did not align with her Catholic beliefs. She was trying convince Carter of the truthfulness of her previous report. Carter released the article despite having asked that details about the abortion not be included. Peron was betrayed by her. Carter, as an investigative journalist, had a duty to make public all information pertaining to this case. Her actions have led to unforeseen outcomes.
This brings to mind two important philosophical principles. Kant’s categorical imperative is one such example. According to this, demands should not be affected by the situation. Two premises are involved: (a) universality where the decisions made by individuals may become universal law and (b) respecting the autonomy of other people without using it as a means to an end (Plaisance 2007, 2007). Carter gave details of Peron to help establish credibility in the story. Carter also should have considered the implications of publishing information on Peron’s aborted child. Peron, Gallagher and Carter should have been stated as the reason for their weekend getaway. This would be for Peron’s sake. Peron should have released the story in the event that details were needed later on by a court.
The third step in the Bok model involves a public debate with all parties concerned. Peron would likely have different opinions if she and Carter had a conversation after the story was released. Carter would most likely say that her job as a writer is to report all relevant information, and this could affect the outcome. Peron might be angry at Carter for betraying her trust and revealing private information. It would make her feel bad and embarrass her. The public will also have mixed feelings about the release. Peron would have some supporters who would support her privacy rights. Carter’s right of reporting, as well as the right of public knowledge, is backed by some.
After this analysis, I’d behave differently in a situation similar to mine. In Carter’s place, I wouldn’t reveal information about Peron and her abortion. Carter, as a reporter, I believe she had a double standard. She, for instance, did not disclose the source of her article. Peron also would have benefited from her not reporting on the abortion. Peron could reveal this information in the event that she had to give testimony in court. Peron would have avoided going into detail about abortion if she were in my shoes. If I were in Carter’s shoes, I wouldn’t have gone into too much detail about abortion. Instead, I would say that I have a doctor appointment out-of-town. That way Carter didn’t have to decide whether she should betray Carter’s trust. This case poses a difficult ethical dilemma. Carter had a duty to report the news, but it’s unfortunate that someone died as a consequence.
