Journalist’s Virtue

In the journalist ethics it is very important to remember and consider some ethical values when it comes to delivering the message to the public. In the given YouTube episode, we saw a journalist making a promise to his audience, that his news channel will be from now on delivering the news as it is, without any subjective changes, which might be driven by economical or commercial platforms. Mainly journalists have some certain code of conduct when it comes to delivering the news. As written in a Society of Professional Journalists, it is important for a journalist to seek truth and to report it, minimize harm, and act transparently (SPJ, 2014). Furthermore, the code states that it is important for a journalist to respect his interviewee, make sure not to use inaccurate language, make sure to keep the promises made, do not distort facts or content. Unfortunately, in a given case with a journalist taking an interview with a man, we can see that many of those core principles were avoided and misused. In search of truth that was promised to his viewers, Will McAvoy breaks some of the journalists’ core principles that were mentioned earlier. In the interview, Mcavoy did not try to minimize the harm, especially when it came to the man he was interviewing. The interview took an approach of an attack from McAvoy’s side. It especially shows at the moment when the producer asks Will to stop but he replies “We are going to do this thing”, which probably means that he will push his position further and further until the interviewee brakes, which eventually will happen in the end. And even though Will McAvoy was trying to deliver a certain message, we can say that this message was pretty much subjective and more appealing to Will himself rather than trying to understand and respect the opinion of the person being interviewed. Apart from constant interrupting, McAvoy also called a person disgusting. Even though by “disgusting”, Will was trying to make the person realized what was being said by someone else, it is still politically in correct and disrespectful to call someone that. Also the president candidate did not actually say that gay people were disgusting but rather said that he is against gay marriage, therefore we can assume that McAvoy was framing the message in order to affects his interviewee’s feeling even more. Finally, by trying to keep a previously given promise to the audience — delivering the “real”, objective news, Will McAvory did not succeed, by pushing his own point of view on a subject and disregarding other details provided by his interviewee.

In my own opinion, if will paid slightly more attention to the sensitive topics like oppression of black people, gay rights, and if he treated his interviewee with a little more respect, the outcomes of the interview would be completely different. Taking into consideration that the person is more likely to attack back once being attacked, we can assume that the black man took the approach of debate, where each side would fight to prove a point, rather than an interview. This element did not affect the interview in a positive way because to it did not have a clear message it in, nor did it lead the audience to a clear conclusion. Furthermore, the two men just kept pushing their own point, making the interview more complicated and, in a way, illogical (e.g. comparison of black people to gay people). Instead, Mcavoy could have chosen a tactic where he would address the interviewee himself, asking him if he agrees with ideas of homophobia and racism, and if no then why does he choose to promote a candidate that supports those kind of ideas. By discussing the believes rather than attacking such, Mill could have delivered a clearer message and directly brought to criticism to a president candidate, instead he focused more on the feelings and believes of the person he was interviewing.

By combining the two approaches, consequential and non consequential, Mill could have had a perfect formula for conducting his interview and staying away from aggression and failure. Consequentialism theories focus on considering consequences or the final result of an action and judging it by how much pleasure or satisfaction it brings to bigger amount of people (Ward,2011, p.38). While non-Consequentialism theories regard situations using rights and fairness (Ward, 2011, p.43). By following a consequentialism approach, Will would have to try to maximize the positive outcome of the interview for the greater amount of people. Therefore, we can say that by attacking the person sitting in his interviewee chair, or by not delivering the main message to the audience, news anchor did not satisfy many. However, following the consequentialism philosophy, McAvory would not have to try to show off the negative traits of the president candidate, because many people who support him would not like that either. However, combining non-consequentialism approach, and remembering certain right which McAvoy has a journalist, we can say that it his duty and right to deliver the news and bring the negative traits of the presidential candidate out to peoples’ judgment (as a part of a journalism investigation). Therefore, McAvoy would stay away from attacking people, yet fulfill his duties as a journalist.

References:

Ward, S. J. (2011). Ethics and the Media. Wisconsin : Cambridge University Press.

Society of Professional Journalists. (2014, September 6). SPJ. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from SPJ: http://www.spj.com