Ace in the Hole

1. In "Ace in the Hole," reporter Charles Tatum uncovers a compelling news story when he stumbles upon a man trapped in the rubble of a mine collapse. As a journalist, what responsibility (if any) did Tatum have in helping to rescue the trapped man? What are the ethical considerations faced by Tatum in his pursuit of the "big story"? What should he have done differently?

Technically, Charles Tatum had no responsibility to rescue Leo. As a person with a conscience however, one would think that Charles Tatum would do everything in his power to help. Not to say that he couldn't still get a story. He just should not have emersed himself like he did. The ethical condsiderations that Tatum faced included playing with a man's life, further corrupting the political base of the town, attacking a woman, and trapping (or playing with) the emotions of family, friends, and plain citizens who just wanted the news. I think that Tatum should have reported the story. It was a good human interest story, but it should not have become his "big story." I think Tatum should have taken himself out of the story. He should have simply reported the facts, not created fiction. It was also wrong of him to hinder the other press' ability to report on the story.

2. A carnival-like atmosphere develops amidst the sensationalized media coverage of the mine collapse. Do you think that this 1951 film's depiction of the media offers an accurate representation of how some tabloid journalists operate today? Are there are recent examples you can cite in today's news media coverage?

I definately think that there are corrupt journalists out there who, like Tatum, are always looking for their "big story," and don't think or care about the consequences. At times, the press seems more like a carnival, there for entertainment only, than as an information outlet. The best example I can think of are the press who surround famous people. They take advantage of every mistake they make and sensationalize it to capture attention.