Media Law and Ethics First Assignment
McAvoy is trying to respect his pledges to transform the news into a transparent, impartial and valuable source of information that provides the naked truth to all US citizens. He is hosting the former deputy chief of staff to Rick Santorum, former senator of Pennsylvania who is planning to run for presidency.
The former deputy chief of staff is a teacher, both black and gay and also is acting as an adviser for the campaign of Rick Santorum.
The host started his questions by asking the guest about what he thinks of Rick Santorum’s statement back in 2005 to the New York Times magazine. Santorum said that gay marriages threaten his marriages and all marriages in particular and that it also threatens the traditional values of the country. Taking into consideration the guest’s identity and sexual orientations, the interview went to be aggressive because the guest accused McAvoy for reducing him to his skin color, sexual orientation and showcasing him as a very vulnerable and despised person.
Here comes the big question, did McAvoy have the right to insist on getting an answer from the guest or should he has stopped before crossing some personal red lines?
It is the main ethical duty of media to provide society with truth and nothing but truth. However, there is no truth without harm and there is no harm without truth (News Media Ethics and Practice). In such delicate circumstance, the audience has the right to know everything about each candidate. At the end of the day, they are making a huge decision; they are choosing their president, their representative for four years. However, it is also the media’s duty to not scorn or present any offensive image of anyone. If we look at what happened from the utilitarianism point of view we can say that what McAvoy did is totally justified and acceptable. The end somehow justifies the means (Ward (2011)); he couldn’t find any other way to make Wall answer the question. Wall just said that he cannot name a way in which the Senator’s marriage was threatened by gay marriage. McAvoy then used some provocative questions in order to make Wall elaborate. Finally the deputy chief exploded because he couldn’t take the insults anymore. We get to know then more about the Senator’s shameful look towards gays especially with the last question. Earlier on in the interview, Wall was so calm saying that he does not agree with all of the Senator’s beliefs especially towards the gay community and said that Santorum is treating him well. However, at the end he confessed that the Senator doesn’t even think that he fits to be a teacher. Obviously here it’s a big scandal; it looks like Wall was trying to protect that man and some dirty deeds that he has committed.
Now if we look at this from a non-consequential point of view, Mcavoy should have stopped directly after when Wall said that he does not agree with all of the Senator’s beliefs. He is a professional person and he actually mentioned that in the video. He got a portion of the truth without having to hurt anyone (Ward (2011)).
Looking to the fact that Will has made a promise to provide a better quality of news, he couldn’t have stopped. He kept on insisting for clear answers and he got what he wanted at the end.
Now still one issue to solve, could Will have gotten what he wanted without offending the guest?
It’s a no in my humble opinion, even though if he showed some more understanding and sympathy with the guest, he could have not gotten the results he wished for. It’s a very sensitive situation and apparently Wall was under huge pressure to protect and promote a guy that looks at him in a very inferior way. It is almost impossible for someone to speak bad about what he’s promoting. It was like what McAvoy mentioned in the beginning, Santorum was the bully and Wall was just too weak to admit that he has been bullied. Sometimes bullied people would go and separate themselves from the world. They just want to be left alone, they don’t dare to speak up because they think that we live in a society where there is no justice, powerful people are not punished but rather punish who stands in their ways. The smart thing about what McAvoy did is that he provoked his guest in a way that forced him to defend himself. When someone’s dignity is broken, he doesn’t fear more about the consequences and he admitted the truth about the Senator. McAvoy clearly crossed too many personal lines but at least he helped Wall to get out of his miserable situation. The world through media will definitely sympathize with Wall and change the way it looks at the Senator.
Finally I have to say that hitting someone’s dignity is not at all acceptable in the world of media ethics. However, in this specific case it made somehow a hero out of McAvoy. Personal freedom should be above everything and this specific case can be seen as exceptional because Will has provoked Wall to break free from Santorum’s slavery (News Media Ethics and Practices). However, it could have gone as a total disaster and put an end to McAvoy’s career. He just needed to have more evidence and that would make it easier for Wall to talk.
Sources:
“News Media Ethics and Practices.” Pew Research Center, 18 Oct. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/topics/news-media-ethics-and-practices/.
Ward (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
0h=(�,
