Pour affaire de moeurs

Like the film "Coach" starring Kathy Lee Crosby of the late 1970's, the story in this film contains a teacher being sexually active with a student. The plot would like you to think the story is more concerned with responsible news reporting and Martin Sheen's character clearly makes that case but there is something peculiar about the reporter played by Sheen. Sheen's character is not concerned about the damage done to the junior-high or middle-school age girl who was statutory raped. The station manager, played by Peter Riegert, confronts the girl and she said what happened was "beautiful." Riegert's station manager character definitely showed more compassion as well as TV ratings greed. Sheen's character, true to his real life politics, cared less about vice. One or two years later after this "News At Eleven" film was completed, Rob Lowe, at the Democratic Party National Convention in Atlanta, was caught with an under-age girl. Rob Lowe and Martin Sheen worked together on the TV show, "West Wing."

I don't know. But most obviously, this movie shows us that any filmmaker who makes a movie with an issue like child or teenager abuse or seduction should be very sure of his/her qualities. One has to be able to remain tasteful, handle it with care and truthfully. (Dear filmmaker, if you're not sure how to do this, I'd urge you to choose another story. Thanks!)

Quite obvious - writing this I'm implying that this movie is tasteless. It surely is, but not only.

The relationship between Martin Sheen and Barbara Babcock is not very bright, but interesting. The scenes between Sheen and Peter Riegert have an extremely odd, cold and sober atmosphere and thus they are in a way special. Peter Riegert's (again) odd, cold and sober way of acting perfectly fits to the tone of this rather imperfect movie ("Network" (which also has its mistakes to my mind) for poor people?). Thus he's almost good...

The seduction issue is not told very believably, rather almost graphicly. (No not really visually, but there's just too much talking about it in a too cold and TV news-like way.) Additionally, all the girls featured here are neither believable nor sympathetic. I could make some spiteful remarks about them, but I wouldn't find the appropriate words.

I would feel happier if I hadn't watched it. Still it's not only bad. The movie is right about the media, but there is just no truth in dealing with the subject of seduction. I told you what is good about it. Maybe I forgot Sheree J. Wilson, as she's really not bad at her job. I give it 5 out of 10. I just wouldn't recommend it.

this movie basically about a moral and ethical dilemma facing a popular news anchor.martin Sheen Plays news anchor Frank Kenley,newly hired by a news station flailing in low ratings.Kenley is brought on board because he is respected int thee field,and it is hoped he will bring the stations ratings up.things go well,until Frank is faced with moral dilemma,whether to go public with some information that may damage a certain individual'd reputation,or withhold the information,and not letting the public know the story,possibly endangering others in the process.Kendry is faced with 2 obstacles- rookie reporter/co anchor Christine Arnold (Sheree.J.Wilson)whose enthusiasm and inexperience only make things worse-and his boss Eric Ross(Peter Riegert)who has no moral centre and will do whatever it takes to increase ratings,no matter who gets hurt.this is a made for TV movie(1985)but it is pretty well done.good acting all around and an important issue:morals and ethics.this can be applied to life in general,not just in the news room and you can't help but think about it after the credits roll.i've said this before,i don't normally go in for issue and moral type movies,but this movie is also entertaining,and well done. 8/10

This was before the movie was over.

He got up in front of the whole city of San Diego, and he did his Edward R. Murrow style commentary.

Frank was discussing how bad he was treated by news director Eric Ross, and how Ross made Frank abandon his journalistic integrity, and surrender to Ross's demands.

Ross to Frank and others:

1) "You will fulfill my demands, and you will play by my rules, if you know what's good for you." This was for Frank to play by Ross's rules.

2) "How the hell can you do this crap to me?" This was when Frank was balancing between Gretchen Kent's words and District Atty. Joanne.

3) "This is a business, we're in it to make money, you can't always do what you want." Ross was explaining the money over journalism matter to Frank.

4) "No matter what legal documents you give us, no matter how hard you try at talking to the judge, you must first go through my human roadblocks (Ross' attorneys). Good Luck with that restraining order." This was when Joanne was trying to ban the ambush interview with a minor done by Christine Arnold.

Frank, and the good-nature people around him, said NO MORE!!!!! Frank finally worked up the courage to announce the damage Ross made his news team do to the kids at Plymouth Jr. High School and the city of San Diego.

Even though Frank was fired after that commentary, a reporter from a radio station then followed suit by burning Eric Ross.

That is a news reporter and anchor; who has conquered many challenges, controversies and questionable crap that came his way. He sure had balls to work up the courage to do what he did.

This is a real sleeper. Unless you see and understand the real meaning of the movie you may miss it or totally miss the point as it appears the one person reviewing did who claimed it was "tasteless". The true sense of journalism and its moral obligation has been lost in a sea of ratings and commercialism. Instead of objective news reporting and commentary in the we are either treated to "happy news" or the Tom Brokaw school of subjective reporting or both. It has reached the point where even so called "journalists" have been censored by station management for reporting things that might be detrimental to a sponsor or the station itself.

While the sub-plot: a high school teacher is photographing his female students nude and having sex with them - is not in the best of taste, it is the coverage of the story and the ratings race that takes place over integrity and morality associated with responsible journalism. It includes a news director whose priority of winning a ratings war is of such utmost importance that he listens in to phone calls, presents the crew with a celebration cake when the sleaze factor of exposing a teenaged girl's confession on camera wins that station the rating's race. It is this sleazy news director that at the end of the movie is finally exposed in a tactical move by Sheen that is worth the price of the entire movie. It is Sheen realizing his moral responsibility over the importance of ratings. By the way, I will not give away the punch line but it really is great.

The bottom line, the one that we all tend to miss is the fact that this mythical station would not have won a ratings war if we, the viewing public, would not have been so sleazy ourselves. This being Feb., 2000, the month of the ratings war, I still have to ponder over the trash factor that emanates from a few of our stations in the name of winning ratings. I need not mention networks or shows in question as we all know who and what they are.

By all means find a place where you can rent this little gem and take a look. View it a couple of times. Perhaps it will wake you up as well as to where quality television and news reporting has gone to.

I did not see any stars shown but it gets five big ones from me.