Absence of Malice is a film released in 1981 that deals with ethical issues in journalism. The story revolves around a murder case in which Michael Gallagher, the son of a deceased criminal, is the prime suspect. In the film, there are various ethical questions regarding how journalist Megan Carter reveals relevant allegations about the case. More so, his initial source on the matter is unethical in nature. One of the major ethical issues in this film involves Megan Carter and Gallagher's friend Teresa Peron. In this regard, a brief overview is given on this part of the film before giving an analysis of the ethical question surrounding it. The analysis is done using Bok's three-step model. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In this particular part of the film, Peron attempts to help Gallagher due to his suspicions of being a murderer by providing him with an alibi. She turns to Carter and tells him where Gallagher was at the time he allegedly committed the murder. Peron tells Carter that she spent the weekend with Gallagher since she was having an abortion out of town. However, as Peron is a devout Catholic, she asks Carter to protect her anonymity and not reveal any information relating to her abortion, as it goes against the beliefs of Catholicism. Nonetheless, the story was published by Carter, causing Peron to become so ashamed that he committed suicide. The ethical question in this case revolves around Carter's decision to reveal private information about Peron. Concerns raised include the alleged right to privacy in Peron's case. Even more, there is the broader question of whether an individual's right to privacy trumps the public's right to be informed. According to Bok's three-step model, the first step is to consult my personal conscience regarding my feelings about the actions that have occurred. Personally, I am sorry for the loss of life resulting from the publication of Carter's report. No one should have to die just to save face and avoid the embarrassment that comes with certain details in a news story. On the one hand, Peron confided in Carter in good faith in hopes of exonerating Gallagher from the public assaults he faced as the prime suspect in a murder case. She went out of her way to reveal actions she took that were inconsistent with her Catholic beliefs. His goal was to convince Carter that his previous report was not true. However, even after asking that the details of her abortion be left out, Carter went against her word and leaked the story anyway. Thus, she betrayed Peron's trust in her. On the other hand, I feel conflicted because as a journalist, Carter was also obligated to give the public any information related to the case. It's a shame that unforeseen events happened due to his actions. The second step in Bok's three-step model is seeking expert advice and exploring alternatives. Two major philosophical principles come to mind in this regard. One of them is Kant's categorical imperative, according to which demands cannot be subject to situational factors. There are two premises in this regard: (a) universality, in which the choices made by an individual can turn out to be universal law, and (b) respect for the autonomy of others without using them as means to achieve a certain end (Plaisance, 2007). From this principle, it emerges.