Frank Capra and the image of journalists in American film - Entertainment

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Nov, 2002 by Joe Saltzman

Newspaper editors seldom have first names, or, if they do, no one much remembers them. They are married to their jobs, and nothing else matters. Editors are shown to be thorough professionals, contemptuous of reporters who can't make deadlines or miss stories because of booze or incompetence. The story is always more important than the people involved. The success of the newspaper, its triumph over all competition, is more important than anything else. With few exceptions, when the paper is threatened or when it's just a slow news day, morality, ethics, and everything else be damned. Just get the front-page story that will humble the competition. These editors live for their jobs and will do anything to make sure their daily paper is a success, no matter what the personal cost, no matter how many lies or distortions or fakery or elaborate schemes it takes. The end always justifies the means. Nothing is more important than getting the public to buy and read their newspapers.

The publishers and media tycoons. In Capra's world, the hardworking male or female journalist might do anything for a story, but by the end of the film, he or she usually does the right thing, even if it means giving up his or her job. By contrast, Capra saved his venom for the owner of the newspaper, the publisher, and the media tycoon. They are among the most vicious media villains in all of cinematic history. They are the ones who create the moral chaos in which reporters and editors struggle to survive.

Most of the big-city publishers in movies are greedy, hypocritical, amoral businessmen and -women who, in the words of journalist-historian Howard Good, spouted "smarmy journalistic platitudes to dignify circulation stunts or camouflage unholy political ambitions." The unrepentant scoundrel ends up being the media tycoon, the publisher, the man or woman with all the power to manipulate public opinion for his or her personal benefit. Evil publishers destroy the public trust and put their own political or financial gain above all else.

There were hundreds of journalists and newsrooms on the screen and in novels before Capra and his writers took over the genre, and there were hundreds of journalists and newsrooms on the screen long after Capra stopped making movies, but few films have had the impact, or the staying power, of a Capra production. Of the thousands of newspaper movies made in the 20th century, few have been seen by more people, especially on television and home video, than Capra's. Many of the images of the journalist we see today are descendants from Capra films, reinvented through the years in movies and television. They were repeatedly copied when the pictures were popular, and they are now part of our culture, ripe for reincarnation in the 21st century.

The basic image of the journalist from the silent days of the movies to the media-drenched days of the early 21st century is that of the flawed hero fighting everyone and anything to get the facts out to the public. The reporter or editor could get away with anything as long as the end result was in the public interest. The journalist could lie, cheat, distort, bribe, betray, or violate any ethical code as long as he or she exposed corruption, solved a murder, caught a thief, or saved an innocent. Most films about journalism end with the reporter or editor winning the battle, if not the war. Some journalists--war correspondents and investigative reporters--may have acted more like soldiers or detectives, but they usually lived up to good journalism standards, only to be killed at the end of the movie.