Seemingly every biopic takes some liberties with the story. That Eastwood went with a juicy rumor is perhaps untoward, but compared to things like JFK and any film depicting a conservative Republican, this seems pretty nitpicking.
Because she was a journalist is why all these other journalists are suddenly aghast at an unproven allegation being depicted in a Hollywood film.
They can dish it but God forbid anyone ELSE toss a small dose back in their direction!
We know that some media and government people use sex to get ahead. Kamala Harris for one. Gen. Petraeus had a problem with his ghostwriter. This stuff happens.
The “outrage” of Eastwood including such stuff in his movie rings pretty hollow. I notice that this “outrage” does not seem to be accompanied by any “mea culpas” from either the Media or the FBI that “Yeah, we did gratuitously ruin a man for no good reason. Maybe we shouldn’t have done that.” I detect a real lack of remorse there. I guess they’re too busy being upset that a dead reporter’s reputation may have been tarnished.
Eastwood does quality work. If it was in the film, you can bet there’s a reason it was in there
From what I have read about her, she did act and dress in a very slutty manner so it is not really a stretch to suggest that she exchanged sex for favors.