[needmorePaine]

Some of the responses from critics (from the movie's Wikipedia page):

At the time of its release, critics found little to admire. In his review in The New York Times, Bosley Crowther called it "a masterly film" but added, "Mr. Wilder has let imagination so fully take command of his yarn that it presents not only a distortion of journalistic practice but something of a dramatic grotesque . . . [it] is badly weakened by a poorly constructed plot, which depends for its strength upon assumptions that are not only naïve but absurd. There isn't any denying that there are vicious newspaper men and that one might conceivably take advantage of a disaster for his own private gain. But to reckon that one could so tie up and maneuver a story of any size, while other reporters chew their fingers, is simply incredible."[9]

The Hollywood Reporter called it "ruthless and cynical...a distorted study of corruption and mob psychology that...is nothing more than a brazen, uncalled-for slap in the face of two respected and frequently effective American institutions - democratic government and the free press."[10]

HAHAHAHA

[Borges]

When ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ was released there was some clucking among government and media figures that such a film would be used as anti-American propaganda abroad because it implies that the U.S. Senate could be corrupted.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I have read that newspaper reporters planted a few false clues during the Lindbergh Kidnapping case, so they could get more press out of it.