Crossing a Fine Line
By Sabrina Bouri
In the following discussion, I will be explaining why in my opinion, Will McAvoy should not have had the last word in his interview on Wall’s social issues with Sutton Wall, Rick Santorum’s campaign advisor.
We can begin by a brief reminder of what journalism ethics are in the first place. Reporting news is about offering truthful facts, stories and information to the audience. One of the core principles is to raise new and insightful debates, thus to cover interviews with subjects that can have the chance to respond to opposing opinions and criticism. Choosing the correct subjects to interview is allowing them to voice their own side of the story when they are neglected in society. Another core value expected from journalists is to treat all subjects as equal. Stereotyping and criticizing or badgering subjects alongside getting out of context, such as McAvoy did in the interview, is unacceptable and defeats the purpose of reporting the news for the public. McAvoy quickly turned the newsroom into a playground where he badgered and bullied the interviewee. To add to that, McAvoy also was not coordinating with the executive producer, and teamwork was lost alongside the initial goal of the interview put in place. Automatically this put the audience and public in a state of extreme discomfort and confusion. On another note, McAvoy let go of another journalistic ethical value, he allowed himself to cross the line and attack personal topics, probably sensitive, at Wall. Wall is a public figure, obviously, and for McAvoy to bring an end to the interview by tackling the fact that he is a professor, and that Santorum wouldn’t accept that because of his sexual orientation, is wrong. On top of that, it is also unethical for a journalist to speak on somebody else’s behalf, or assume opinions and fact. The mere fact that McAvoy’s last question cornered Wall into answering “no”, proved that the interviewer was twisting facts, personal opinions, and words to his own argument. This is why I can say that in my opinion, McAvoy’s aggressive questioning tactics, are not justifiable in the name of journalistic ethical values nor in the name of morals and truth, it was unprofessional and insensitive to Wall and the public.
From a consequentialist point of view, ethics and means are justified as good by their ends, thus making McAvoy’s aggressive interview ethical; because it simply was giving the greater majority-the public- the truth and reality. Wall’s interests, are categorized as the minority and thus neglected for the greater good.
“Promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, Jhon Stuart Mill.
The interviewer also interrupted the interviewee and ignored his producer, but that was only to get his point across. But in reality, who said McAvoy could assume that the public’s interests were to hear twisted facts and questions suggested to Wall. The consequentialist theory does not support nor backup his behavior, it wasn’t the truth McAvoy tried to bring out, it was unnecessary accusations towards his personal life that are totally irrelevant to the main subject, hence to the public’s interest. It is borderline narcissism. Moreover, from a non-consequentialist point of view, he directly violated the ethics of truth for the simple reason that he took advantage and abused Wall. He did not honor free speech either.
There may be a valid reason for McAvoy’s intentions. When it boils down to presidential elections, all truths should come out, people are voting to put a man in charge of their needs, power and safety; they have the right to know who will be able to answers a nation’s demands. While tackling sensitive subjects, such as racism and homophobia, it seemed to be contradictory for a white racist homophobic candidate to have dark skinned homosexual man take the position of his campaign advisor. But as Wall reminded McAvoy, the specification on the subject was not their personal disbeliefs and opinions, rather the shared stand on the matter of abortion. McAvoy could have put aside his personal beliefs and specified on the subject that did matter.
“Media research must analyze media as a practice…reading the social world as if it were a text is deeply misguided”, COULDRY, Digital Revolution and Uncertainties, p.30.
He could have simply applied the energetic energy on tackling the subject as to how prosperous it is to have two men of different races and beliefs (such as sexual orientations) stand side by side to fight against abortion. He would’ve brought insightful truth and interesting news to the table, where the audience’s interests were actually in place.
“Changes in audience practice… may lead to changed business perceptions that transform a media’s income…” , COULDRY, Digital Revolution and Uncertainties, p.20.
On another note, if McAvoy still did have some sort of grudge towards the interviewee he could have pulled a new interview aside with Wall, on a professional level, that could be broadcasted towards a different target audience with different interests more privately, not on air. McAvoy would’ve probably not been excessively aggressive to get his point out. If we come to think about it, if journalists disregarded the loyalty of others it would mean that they are incapable of doing their job efficiently, and are incapable of being virtuous. If journalists’ jobs turned into this, it would arise great problems in the media industry. The media is and always will be the only messenger, from government to citizen. They have to be loyal, reliable and truthful to achieve democracy and peace between societies, nations and citizens.
References
Couldry Nick ‘Digital Revolution and Uncertainties’ in Media, Society, World, p.20/30, 13/27.
Ward (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, p.40–44.
èhttp://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
