Nixon vs. . Frost is a movie based on a true story about an English presenter sees the opportunity to interview the U.S. president, Richard Nixon. Since this work aims to analyze the ethical approach to journalism, not political, we will analyze the character of Frost, not Nixon. From the ethical point of view there was no fault and that the conformation of the interview is a prior agreement and payment of four interviews that each has a different theme (Internal Affairs, Foreign Policy, Nixon: The Man and Watergate in that order). From the standpoint of ethics Frost agreement fully achieved, since the interviews were able to do exactly in that order and without any delay in the schedule.
The film begins with the rejection of all U.S. television channels to cover the costs for any channel interview and looked with enthusiasm that David Frost had any success. The reasons are obvious, it is very rare for an English entertainer whose television programs are quite frivolous, (Species Daniel Sarcos), to interfere in American politics. However, it is admirable journalistic value had this interview for the U.S., otherwise not have done this movie.
personality Interestingly frivolous and unserious that this man is making the research process with their overconfidence, compared with its investigators, and obviously underestimating Nixon, forgetting that he is a politician who is going to face and for very good or very bad that it was in his administration, a politician will always have a Machiavellian left natural to any nominee. This brought very bad consequences for his first interview in the first place because Nixon used the technique of dislodging the reporter just before starting to record, pointing out the "effeminate" in their shoes. Once distracted, Frost begins the interview with a Watergate question, forgetting that that was not previously scheduled in the agreement. But Nixon is a man ready and knew, as any good politician, dodging the question, making it extremely long answers without interrupting the reporter thus showing that Nixon had done her homework to prepare for the interview and Frost.
Frost For the second interview was a little more prepared, and there was indeed some improvement in the interview, however, still I could not hit the target. Nixon came back with the same technique of misplaced just before the interview, make long answers, with virtually the same result. At this point its investigators wanted to hang the mainmast, mainly because it had failed to get anything new or of interest to the public.
The third interview was about his personal life, continued to gain ground without any problems. Frost had not yet learned and trusted Nixon returned to his technique became dislodged and the next round virtually intact.
The night before the final interview, Nixon calls Frost by phone in a serious state of drunkenness and admits the potential importance of this interview for either. He admits that only one may shine and the other will be obscured. This call is what ends up waking up to the journalist who is sleeping in it. There is a change and immersed in investigative journalism in a serious and deep. For this last interview the roles are reversed completely, Frost learns his lesson and starts unseated Nixon. Frost Nixon manages to defeat making confessions, achieves the goal. The interview is saved and Frost manages to redeem his ethics of good journalism. In the epilogue
Frost Nixon visit to her home with a small gift, with the intent that is no rancor for the interview, demonstrating the good will of the journalist. The final message we know the difference to reflect on the personal lives of the public. If we have a well-known that we, as journalists we interviewed, no matter how a friend of ours is, we must delimit all sentimentality that can affect our work, hence the importance and projection of journalistic ethics.
0 comments:
Post a Comment