In this case, I’m with the paper. There was no evidence at all that the reporter slept with a source. That was just some plot device. It would not hurt at all to put a disclaimer in saying this was fictionalized.
It is a shame because I’ve heard this is a really good movie, and largely accurate even though it is not billed as a documentary. So making it seem like all female reporters just sleep around to get stories was something they didn’t need to do.
How do you know? You would have to be her to know for sure.
If you personally are not a liar, show how the movie portrays all female reporters as sleeping around to get stories rather than one specific woman.
Do not bother trying to wriggle away from the specifics of my question, you have been on this forum for over a decade and many of us remember your posts early on in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax so we know how you operate.
Put up or shut up.
It does happen.
With her suing a LOT more people now know she might have “slept” with the guy.
I thought the movie only portrayed this reporter as having done so. Am I wrong?
The matter is open to speculation and the standard disclaimer language covers dramatic license. If that license is exercised in a way that casts politicians or journalists as whores, well, is that really a stretch? That's what really has the newspaper riled up - the broader inference.
And you know for a fact that some or all female reporters don’t sleep for the story?
Most so called journalists are pretty much scum who would blow anybody for what they call a scoop!
Ok...well just take that up with Clint!
In this case I am not inclined to go along with the AJC.
Why...it’s not like this sort of thing is uncommon. A woman using sex to elicit information from a male.
Let them prove she didn’t trade sex for information in this case, or any other.
Actually, there is.
I was the source.
She slept with me.
She was sweeeeeeeeet......