Often we notice something important while looking for something else.  After watching a semi-old (1981), movie, Absence of Malice with Sally Field and Paul Newman, I checked to see what the critics might have said about it.  The first thing I noticed was several critics saying the movie was unbelievable, and could never happen, because a reporter would never do that.

I was stunned.  It hadn’t seemed unbelievable to me at all.  OK, critics are part of the media, so they would be aware that Sally Field is breaking a few rules in the journalistic code of conduct … like falling in love with a source (Paul Newman).  But, how does that make the plot unbelievable?  Lots of successful movies feature plots where somebody breaks the rules, and, usually, the rules are being broken because somebody is in love.  Rule breakers can be exciting! Sometimes rule-breakers are driven by higher values!

I decided to think more about what would make Sally Field’s rule-breaking so unbelievable to movie critics.

I have been a scientist for 40 years working in business. I have noticed some business people departing from ethical behavior, but I would say the vast majority follow the rules.  We have lots of movies about businessmen who are crooks, and about scientists who try to take over the world.  I am pretty sure there are way more evil businessmen in the movies than there are in real life.  I think the movies have scientists pegged about right, a lot of heroes, and a lot of monsters.

Bottom line, I usually don’t find a movie unbelievable when a scientist or business person breaks the rules. Because we make money, business people are used to being suspect.  Even honest business people are frequently regulated, criticized by the media, and sued.

It was dawning on me that people in the media are never regulated, scrutinized, or sued in remotely the same way business people are.  They are the 4^th estate.  Even the shaky, incompetent, talking heads on TV see themselves as high priests of the 1^st amendment.  When criticized, they usually respond by accusing their critics of attempting to censor them.

Back to the movie critics.  I believe a kind of “media-group-think” myth has arisen that the media may continue to ignore good manners and break our earthly laws against stealing information as long as they follow the rules and laws of high journalism.  Although there are a number of recent publications suggesting that modern journalists are no longer following the rules and laws of high journalism, it is an article of faith among them that they do.  Sally Field would never fall in love with Paul Newman, because that would violate a law of high journalism.

What they are really saying is:  We can’t support a story line in which a journalist breaks a law of high journalism, causes a death, puts an innocent man in jeopardy, and then gets busted by the innocent guy.  We don’t like that at all.  

Now, I am starting to feel like doing one of those absurdist rants like one of my heroes, Joe Queenan.  I would like to see a whole series of books and movies about journalists who not only feature the rude, aggressive, narcissistic behavior they admit to, but who also flagrantly violate all the rules, laws, and standards, new and old, of high and low journalism, bringing a relatively innocent nation close to the brink or ruin by following a criminal pattern of self-promoting, poisonous, biased, mendacity.

The biggest problem with my absurdist scenarios is that the NY Times would not give any of these movies a good review.  In fact, the NY Times would not give them any reviews at all.  They would likely pretend that these movies had never happened.  Or, maybe, they would pick the worst ones, and give them a few bad reviews while pretending that the better and more effective have ones never existed.

Of course, my critics who didn’t like the Sally Field movie, if they were allowed, would likely pan each movie and call it boring, saying “that could never happen”.

I think that it has.  

Categories: Commentary, Culture, Ethics