Who’s the FBI Agent in “Richard Jewell”?

Sure, Jon Hamm looks like a lecherous FBI agent who might trade information for sex. But whose part is he really playing?Starmax/Newscom via ZUMA

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

Clint Eastwood’s new movie, Richard Jewell, about the man who was falsely accused of planting a bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, has gotten generally good reviews from critics but has come under fire from journalists and feminists for a scene in which a newspaper reporter offers to sleep with an FBI agent if he’ll tell her the name of their suspect. It’s such a tired—and tiresome—trope. But aren’t there two sides to this? What about the FBI agent? By chance, just as I was wondering about this, the New York Times provided a few details:

Mr. Eastwood’s film, written by the veteran screenwriter Billy Ray, follows the standard practice for movies based on real-life events by taking liberties with certain facts to speed the story along. But it uses Ms. Scruggs’s real name while giving a new one to the F.B.I. agent, raising the question of whether the filmmakers risked damaging the reporter’s reputation in their efforts to convey how Mr. Jewell lost his.

….At an awards-campaign talk in Los Angeles last month, the film’s screenwriter, Mr. Ray, said he had spoken with people involved in the case. “I will stand behind every word of the script,” he added.

There are two obvious things here. The first is that the reporter died a few years ago and you can’t libel a dead person. So there was no legal risk in using her name. The FBI agent, by contrast, is still alive and could sue for libel if he were wrongly named.

The second is that maybe the FBI agent was Ray’s source in the first place, and not naming him was part of the source agreement.

So what I really want to know now is: what’s the name of the FBI agent? And was he the source for the movie?

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate