Blog Post 1: Truth VS. Harm
Today we live in the world of competitive new media where only ratings matter. These institutions provide information that would satisfy the audience rather than offering them genuine information. That is why McAvoy and his crew promised the US citizens to recreate the news, where the truth is always told and rumors and scams won’t be looked upon. They proclaim that democracy does not come from the people who receive the news but by the ones who are well educated. Moreover, McAvoy talks about how important it is to respect and accept different opinions from other people. He also states how useful news is in the human context, that it is not just about writing and watching the news (The Newsroom).
McAvoy had held his promise of telling the truth up until his interview with Sutton Wall, Rick Santorum’s assistant. The way he acted led to questions whether he broke his promise or not. In the interview, McAvoy’s objective was to deliver the audience sincere and honest information about Rick Santorum’s heterosexism and racism. It was clear that McAvoy wanted to prove his point and was determined to show the true opinion of the Republican by asking Sutton wall insistently and repetitively questions regarding the fact that he is a black gay man and he isn’t even supported by Senator Rick Santorum. In this interview McAvoy wanted to have the last say, was it the right thing to do?
McAvoy would interrupt Sutton Wall every time he tried to express himself, McAvoy would also use rhetorical questions that frustrated Sutton. Obviously this is unethical and isn’t an act that we would expect from an interviewer, especially that he is a journalist that is sticking to his opinion and not listening what the other person has to say. At some point in the interview Sutton Wall had no choice but to admit that he thinks that gay marriage can’t in any way threaten Santorum’s marriage. At that moment McAvoy had the higher ground, he was in a superior position. Furthermore, their body language completely changed. McAvoy could have stopped the interview after he gained the information he wanted but decided to proceed with the interview which later on led to Sutton to act aggressively.
Even though Will McAvoy’s behavior on national television was deemed unethical, it could be backed up in the non-consequential or deontologist point of view. Deontology’s ethical theory explains that whatever one must do in order to keep their promise it will be deemed ethical. And that is exactly what McAvoy did. He did not want to turn his back on the viewers that he had promised to offer nothing but the truth, especially during elections period. That is also why his actions could be partly justified by the consequential theory or utilitarianism that states whatever is done for the greater good, is deemed ethical. However, this issue depends on how McAvoy or those to judge him perceives it, as the greater good is divided into the public seeking the truth no matter the harm, and those who fall under the black gay community who might find harm in such words.
What ended up happening is that Will McAvoy’s ego took over him while interviewing Wall, and began to test how far he could go asking questions in order to get that truth, that it slipped from his mind that he would be harming the interviewee’s personal life, which of course, explains Wall’s aggressive reaction. Even after Wall’s reaction, McAvoy still felt the need to show the viewers that he is a professional journalist thus got the last word. Nonetheless, this does not mean that McAvoy did violate the code of ethics for journalists. Some the codes he violated are “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage… Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment”, and that journalists must avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any unavoidable conflicts (SJP). As a professional journalist who understands the meaning and the importance of his job, McAvoy needed to be more careful. As Couldry mentioned “we need to care about the consequences that follow when what we say is circulated” (Couldry, 2013, pp. 194–195).He should have been aware that he could have gotten the same outcome he needed, which was the ultimate truth, without mixing in his own feelings of greed, and dignity. Will’s dignity is what got hurt, wondering where his job could take him after this interview.
In conclusion, McAvoy should have acted in a more professional manner and should have found a golden mean between revealing the truth and respecting Will’s dignity. McAvoy harmed Will’s and this type of act is not supported by the main ethical theories in the code. He should have stopped the interview when he received the information he was pursuing and leave the final word to Wall by expressing himself.
References
Couldry. (2013). Media Ethics, Media Justice.
SJP. (n.d.). Code of Ethics for Journalists.
The Newsroom (n.d.). [Motion Picture].
