Richard Jewell Movie

Post Reply
xandorxerxes
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:43 pm

Richard Jewell Movie

Post by xandorxerxes » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:34 pm

Disclaimer: Was in Atlanta when the bombing happened (though too young to remember anything substantive) and false narratives against journalists grind my gears.

TL;DR: Movie attempts to tell the story of an innocent man that was initially a suspect of the FBI, that the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on. Movie claims the FBI and AJC ignored evidence to push their narrative and wanted to tell the man's story. AJC counters that everything they reported on was factual, and that the movie takes actions they did that helped exonerate Jewell and attribute it to Jewell's lawyer. Warner Brothers counters saying they did 'research,' AJC and many others point out that they did not. Don't pay to see it.

Longer version:

I encourage everyone not to see it. It portrays itself as a historical reenactment of the 1996 Olympic bombing, but it's almost entirely fictional and designed to spark anger at the FBI and journalists. It smears real life journalists, one of whom is already dead, and both of whom were cleared in civil court. When you lose in civil court, you really had no case to begin with.

Olivia Wilde defended herself saying she talked to people close to the character she portrays (Kathy Scruggs), but all of Scruggs' friends and family claim they never talked to anyone - despite one of them proactively reaching out and offering to help. The other journalist who is still alive (Ron Martz) wasn't contacted either.

As an example, the movie has an entirely fictional FBI agent that they have Scruggs solicit information from with sex. By all accounts this is wildly out of character, and obviously them having her do so with the fictional agent as opposed to one who was actually involved is how they get around that. It helps that she's dead.

Warner Brothers released a statement claiming that they did 'research' and wanted to provide the story to exonerate a man whose life was ruined by the investigation. The Atlanta Journal Constitution countered with:
[The AJC's letter] further goes on to state that the AJC was pivotal in leading to the exoneration of Jewell, saying that the FBI’s version of the facts would have been logistically impossible for Jewell to have made. The letter said that the story pointing out inconsistencies in the FBI’s investigation was run on the front page of the paper and helped to shift the direction of the FBI’s investigation. However, the letter also said the film omits this detail and “substitutes that true fact with a false and fictional narrative in which Mr. Jewell’s lawyer (not the AJC’s reporters) is depicted unearthing the logistical problems.”
And:
The letter continued, saying that the filmmakers met with the paper and with an editor who worked with Scruggs, but that information the filmmakers gleaned from the meeting went against the movie’s established narrative was not considered.

“It is evident the meeting was a mere pretext and that any information that deviated from or was inconsistent with the film’s planned thesis was ignored,” the letter stated. “Such conduct evidences purposeful avoidance of the truth, supporting a finding of constitutional malice.”

Digital Masta
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:56 pm

Re: Richard Jewell Movie

Post by Digital Masta » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:44 pm

This comment has nothing to do with the movie but Michael Malice has a very poignant statement about the media/politicians in regards to factual statements. Basically that they often say things that are factual but not truthful.

Fact: I said, "She's an idiot"

Truth: I said, "If she keeps letting him get away with manipulating her this way then everyone will say she's an idiot."

xandorxerxes
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:43 pm

Re: Richard Jewell Movie

Post by xandorxerxes » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:11 pm

Digital Masta wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:44 pm
This comment has nothing to do with the movie but Michael Malice has a very poignant statement about the media/politicians in regards to factual statements. Basically that they often say things that are factual but not truthful.

Fact: I said, "She's an idiot"

Truth: I said, "If she keeps letting him get away with manipulating her this way then everyone will say she's an idiot."
The media definitely uses biased language, but I don't think any of the major news organizations are going to try something like what you wrote there. Maybe in an opinion article. Actual reporting usually backs up any statements or just provides actual quotes, and proper quotation provides context around a given statement. Politician ads on the other hand...

Where did he write/talk about that? I'd like to read/listen, it's a topic that interests me.

Movie definitely goes a whole league farther. Blatant disregard for the truth, but still tries to claim it is. Unjustly smears others in condemnation of unjust smearing.

Post Reply