Talk:Absence of Malice

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Defamation#Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)|defamation]] The anchor (#Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

Paul Newman plays the son of a long dead Mafia boss, (Michael Colin Gallagher), who is a simple liquor warehouse owner. Frustrated in his attempt to solve a murder of a union head, a prosecutor leaks a false story that Newman is a target of the investigation, hoping that he will tell them something for protection. As his live begins to unravel, others are hurt by the story. Sally Field, the reporter, is in the clear under the Absence of Malice rule in slander and libel cases knowing nothing to trade to the prosecutors. The D.A., Feds and the police set her up to write the story that explodes his world. Now he's going to do what ever he has to do get even, Newman must regain control of his life on different ground. Absence of Malice strikes out against the rights and the privileges of the press. The movie suggests that sometimes the press doesn't do their research as well as they should and that they don't worry about who they hurt. The problem is that nothing that Sally Field's reporter does in the film is her fault. Corrupt sources and a justice department run by injustice hardly seem like the fault of the media and yet in the end, the press gets the brunt of the blame, while the flaws with the law are lessen by a Wilford Brimley cameo and a number of red herrings.

A bit simplistic. The point of the story was that the reporters just wrote what was fed them without digging further to develop the same "facts" from another approach (it's called CYA but all too few news media outlets do it). The reporter who replaced Field when the paper got burned turned around and did the same thing--she let her subject write the story. You think the media is blameless but I think it was an unusually perceptive screenplay. Usually the only time the news media gets dinged is for being insensitive to widows and other grieving people. Absence of Malice happens ALL THE TIME. It happened to me, but I didn't have the wherewithal of Paul Newman's character to get even, nor the inclination.

Mafia?[edit]

Is it appropriate to refer to someone named "Gallagher" as the son of a Mafia boss? My sense is that "Mafia" used without modifier, implies specifically Italian organized crime, whereas Newman's character would appear pretty clearly to be of Irish background. Might we perhaps used "organized crime" instead? john k (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by journalists[edit]

Absence of Malice was reviewed extensively in publications by journalists, and it's still assigned in journalism classes.

This entry contains reviews by standard movie reviewers, who are treating it as entertainment, but it didn't have any reviews by journalists about the journalistic issues they deal with routinely.

If you are a journalism student who came to this page, perhaps you could find a good review or two and add it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen "prosecuted"[edit]

You're coming up on 3 reverts on the issue of Rosen being "prosecuted". You should point to a spot in the script where it shows he's going to be prosecuted, or you risk being accused of edit warring. For your use, here's the section of the script where you should be looking for a reference to support your POV:

Rosen - That's really too bad. I'm sorry. He's a nice guy.

Wells - He just forgot about the rules. What will you do after government service?

Rosen - I'm not quitting.

Wells - You ain't no presidential appointee. The one that hired you was me. You got thirty days.

You should also check the section on edit warring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Zooks527 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wells says "I´m going to have someone´s ass in my briefcase" at the beginning of the inquiry. He meant he is going to prosecute someone for this to make sure it will not happen again on the orders of the department. When he did put Rosen´s investigation file in his briefcase after everything was over and looked furious at Rosen, he told him he will be the one who will be prosecuted for what has happened, because everything was his fault. Additionally he fires him on the spot to make sure such leakage will not happen again, as he promised he would. Arderich (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a continuous series of reverts on whether or not Rosen was "prosecuted" as well as fired. Prosecuted does not seem to be supported by the script.The script is available here: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/absence-of-malice-script-transcript.html and here: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=absence-of-malice The entire section on Rosen's dismissal follows:

Rosen - That's really too bad. I'm sorry. He's a nice guy.

Wells - He just forgot about the rules. What will you do after government service?

Rosen - I'm not quitting.

Wells - You ain't no presidential appointee. The one that hired you was me. You got thirty days.

Regarding the last revert, you stated on your talk page:

Wells says "I´m going to have someone´s ass in my briefcase" at the beginning of the inquiry. He meant he is going to prosecute someone for this to make sure it will not happen again on the orders of the department. When he did put the file in his briefcase after everything was over and looked furious at Rosen, he he will be the one who will be prosecuted. Additionally he fires him to make sure such leakage will not happen again on the spot, as he promised he would. Arderich (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"[S]omeone's ass in my briefcase" is ambiguous. It can mean firing, prosecution, or some other punishment. Stating he "promised" to prosecute someone is ambiguous. Wells' last statement to Rosen is "You've got 30 days." It seems unlikely that he would give that warning of a prosecution. It is, however, typical language used in a firing, espeically when he explicitly asks Rosen for his plans for "after government service". Note that he does not ask for plans "after prison" or the like. Rosen also does not take it as a threat of prosecution, as he states he's not "quitting".Zooks527 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability page: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." It does not seem unreasonable to ask for a citation to the script that does not require assumption or to quote your own commentary "clearly implied" that Wells is referring to prosecution. Zooks527 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed, that you are the one, who always erases "and prosecutes" in Absence of Malice. I don´t know, why you do it, but Wells clearly said before the inquiry "I´m gonna have someone´s ass in my briefcase". That´s a clear indication, he was going to prosecute someone for what has happened, while he also said during the inquiry, that he also intended to limit the damage caused by this event. Because of those reasons, he prosecuted Rosen for having run a bogus investigation with all the corresponding specifications. The hard look on his face, after he did put Rosen´s investigation file in his briefcase is clear indication of what he intended to do without remorse since he saw him as the main culprit in this scandal and, additionally, he also fired him on the spot for having leaked information as part of that bogus investigation to prevent something like this from happening again. Arderich (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do it because there's no indication given in the script that he's going to prosecute. He doesn't say it's going to be in the press release, he doesn't say he's going to do it. Your comments on a "hard look" is speculation, not proof. Burden of verification is on the person adding material. Effectively, "Prove it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence Zooks527 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is condemned to do it. The justice department is pissed off, because Rosen investigated the D.A. without telling the department creating such a shitty investigation on the way. Welsl is also forced to tell to everyone what has really happened since this has also become a public issue. He knows, once this comes out, everyone will want Rosen to be prosecuted and he already implicitly said, that one way, or another, prosecution is inevitable ("I´m gonna have someone´s ass in my briefcase"). He was sent by the Justice Department (internal affairs) to find out the culprit and deliver his findings to them to begin prosecution. When he puts his investigation file in his briefcase he says implicitly the following "...and everything is your fault and that´s why you will be the one who will be prosecuted". Rosen implicity understands and, in humiliation, puts his head down with the hope of still being in his post until then in the hopes of stilll being able to redeem himself until then, but Wells robs him even that by firing him for having leaked information. That is shown between them in the scene.Arderich (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps getting reinserted that Rosen "is prosecuted". It's not shown on screen. It's not stated in the script. It's not stated that it's goiong to be in the press release Wells describes. All the witnesses are released and leave the building with no one going before the grand jury. None of the process needed to prosecute someone is shown or stated. It's either straight speculation or original research to keep adding "and prosecutes" without a script reference, item shown on screen, or reference to an outside source (an interview with a producer/screenwriter/director/etc.) showing that it's been done. Without those references, there's no justification to keep adding it.Zooks527 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "and prosecutes" once again. While this discussion really belongs on the article talk page, you're not responding there and are instead doing it on my personal talk page. You should review the following articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Please state (on the article talk page, not on either of our personal pages) where a reliable published source for your contention that Rosen is prosecuted can be found. Zooks527 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Absence of Malice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173432/http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2004/12/pagesix200412.print to http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2004/12/pagesix200412.print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film genre[edit]

Shall we call Absence of Malice a romantic thriller drama film or is it just fine as is? --TMProofreader (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I just tried to look up this film in Wikipedia and got redirected to the page 'Actual malice'. This is because WP has this page on the film 'Absence of Malice', and also has a redirect page from 'Absence of malice' to 'Actual malice'. If you're not ultra strict with your capitalisation when searching, or don't read the drop down box carefully, it looks like there is no film page. Anyone object if I move this page to a new one called 'Absence of Malice (1981) film'? The 'Actual malice' page probably needs an About hatnote template, too. Or is there a better solution? Masato.harada (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]