ditor to make the call, and she was clearly reluctant to do so. Obviously, she did not try very hard, which shows not just a certain laziness but another example of the effects of cynicism--if the government is investigating Gallagher, he is probably guilty and would have nothing valuable to say. She fails to see the importance of getting both sides, though at other points in the film she claims to want to do just that. The beginning point for both government investigators and reporters is the same--certain people are simply lying, whether there is evidence for it or not.
Of course, the bending of ethical rules begins with Elliot Rosen, the head of the FBI task force on organized crime in the region. He decides to investigate Michael Gallagher, primarily as a matter of guilt-by-association--since Gallagher's father was a bootlegger and Gallagher's uncle is a gangster, Gallagher must be as well. Rosen says Gallagher seems clean, but he--Rosen--says he does not buy that. At least, this is what he tells his underlings. He tells the prosecutor that he does not care if Gallagher has done anything--he is using pressure to get Gallagher to do his job for him and bring in information on a murder, though he really does not know if Gallagher has or could get any such information. Such a practice of shooting blind and hoping that someone you threaten may be useful is ethically questionable on its face, and using the
...