In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

160 the ethICs of ContrACts, ConsCIenCe, And CourAge In the InsIder David LaRocca Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe) takes his wife, Liane (Diane Venora), to dinner with Mike Wallace (Christopher Plummer) and Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino) at an elegant Manhattan restaurant. It is the eve of Jeffrey’s taped interview with Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes, but she doesn’t know that; she thinks they’re just out for a special dinner. When Jeffrey, at last, confirms the purpose of their visit to New York, Liane storms away from the table, embarrassed and alienated, and Jeffrey follows after her. With irritation and impatience, Wallace asks: “Who are these people?” Bergman replies sternly: “Ordinary people! Under extraordinary pressure, Mike. What the hell do you expect? Grace and consistency?” This scene, like so much in Michael Mann’s The Insider (1999), dramatizes individual attempts to weigh the apparently contradictory demands of an ethical life and to commit to action despite fear, doubt, and confusion. Bergman’s question can be turned on ourselves: What the hell do we expect of others and of ourselves? Would we presume to be any more or less graceful and consistent than the Wigands? The dinner scene is one among many in the film that amplifies the way in which The Insider is a study of two professionals—principally a scientist and a journalist— trying to do their jobs well, trying to determine what it means to do so while also negotiating the terms and conditions of marriage. Contracts The film begins with cloth over our eyes. As viewers, we begin blindfolded, not sure where we are and moving onward to an undisclosed location. We The Ethics of Contracts, Conscience, and Courage in The Insider 161 are taken to a place where our view of things is obscured (sometimes wholly, sometimes partially) and, in fact, discover that we are not in one place, but many. There are many contexts or worlds in The Insider: the corporate office, the newsroom, the field (where interviews are given and taken), the laboratory , the courtroom, and the bedroom. Each context involves its own rules and implies differing (often competing) responsibilities; each place demands that one has a sense about how to conduct oneself—how to speak and listen, howtoidentifythetermsandconditionsforaction, howtonegotiateorknow when to cease negotiation, how to discern the truth or achieve resolution. The primary ethical dilemma at the core of the film’s narrative is whether to be a whistleblower or not, and it is something that Wigand and Bergman struggle with in different ways. The dilemma emerges because Wigand and Bergman have to contend with two kinds of contracts. Wigand’s contract is referred to as a confidentiality agreement, and it is written in robust legal language, which for most people means obfuscatory prose. When one needs a lawyer to understand a document, chances are that language is not being used in ordinary ways. The cloudy description contributes to a general sense of confusion and anxiety because one doesn’t exactly know how to abide by the contract, even if one wants to. Bergman’s contract, in contrast, is not something that is imposed on him, but rather something he adopts. And just as it is not clear that Wigand is bound by a confidentiality agreement until questioned about his work, neither is it clear what kind of journalistic code Bergman ascribes to. Perhaps his code is not definitively codified but rather derives mainly from the accumulated knowledge of specific incidents, including his training and practice as a journalist. In this way, many aspects of his journalistic ethics are tacitly understood—meaning they are unsaid but nevertheless binding. Even so, there are institutions—such as the Society of Professional Journalists—that clearly state the nature, definition, and conditions of journalism’s code and invite all journalists to adopt and abide by it.1 Despite the explicitness of such a “code of ethics,” there remains much that is unclear in the code. For example, one of the line items is: “Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.” Obviously, one has to know what constitutes an unethical practice in order to expose it; the criteria for such judgment are not provided. Strangely, this code of ethics does not mention the principle that gains explicit attention in the film and might be considered the core standard for all journalistic integrity: don’t burn your sources. In practice, this means a journalist makes a promise—an implied contract—to protect the names and identities...

Share