The way they were going, I thought they were going to have him making the whole story up. But the only thing he did wrong was fake some tears. Is it really that unethical to do that in that world? Or am I just too cynical, thinking that they are all lying through their teeth at me?
shareQuite unethical judging from the context of Broadcast News. The crocodile tears can be viewed on two levels, one of which being a part of the criticism surrounding the behavior of those in news broadcasting/reporting, a recurring theme in Broadcast News. More prominently on another level is how the crocodile tears reversed the portrayal of Tom. The audience are meant to be on Jane's wavelength when the outtakes reveal Tom's amorality, realising they have been led astray which is pinnacle of the behavioral criticism of news broadcasting/reporting.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
Crocodile tears are part of the drama of television. Making such a minor point the crux of this movie absolutely killed it for me.
shareTimes have changed a lot in 27 years.
What he did would hardly register in this age of TMZ and so on.
Even at that time it was apparently acceptable. Jane and Aaron didn't like it, but the executives who did the hiring and firing were obviously happy with Tom's job performance. They may not have been aware of that particular incident, but they must have been aware of his shallowness and ignorance.
---
You got your mind right, Luke?
More prominently on another level is how the crocodile tears reversed the portrayal of Tom.
Was Jane also perhaps offended on a personal level seeing as she was about to embark on a relationship with this man. How could she trust a person who was so fake and shallow and quick to play-act his emotions even if they were the 'right' emotions? It just proved there was nothing honest or genuine about Tom, which was a far bigger issue than his lack of intellectual smarts.
From a professional POV I think it's rather repugnant that Tom faked tears during such a distressing news piece, effectively making himself part of the story and in a dishonest way too, besides hoodwinking the audience into believing him to be such a sensitive soul. But in the overall scheme of things it did seem such a minor part of the piece and one that certainly didn't undermine its overall integrity or power. I also think Aaron was being rather petty when he hinted that Tom must have faked the tears in view of there only being one cameraperson on his team.
That said, I still can't help thinking that the entire 'date rape' news story was a concerted and cynical, albeit canny, exercise in manipulating both his audience and Jane into falling for him. What better way is there for a man to demonstrate his sensitivity credentials than to show how profoundly affected he is by the issue of sexual assault? And surely that was what offended Jane the most, regardless of her focus on the professionally unethical aspects of Tom's behaviour. Tom was manipulating her, and the wider public's emotions, by playing the part of the emotionally sensitive guy.
[deleted]
That was pretty much the theme of the movie. Journalism, REAL journalism, is not about staging something. Jane's reaction to those tears echoes earlier in the show in Nicaragua when she reacts so strongly to the cameraman telling the soldier to put his shoes on. Jane believes that journalism has to be observational NOT getting involved in the story or stage setting-then it becomes entertainment. "We are not here to stage news" Even such a small detail became important because the shoes became important to the story.
share[deleted]