what are the limits of truth ?
“I’ll make no effort to subdue my personal opinions. I will make every effort to expose you to informed opinions that are different from my own”, said Will McAvoy in his apology speech in the Newsroom. The Newsroom is an American series about news team that aim to reports the news in an ethical and reasonable way. The head anchor of the Newsroom is Will McAvoy who is willing no matter what to expose the truth. In one episode, McAvoy’s aim was to expose the truth about Santorum who was running for presidency in 2012. He has several evidences on him that shows that he’s not eligible for presidency. During the show McAvoy interviews Sutton Wall, who is homosexual and black teacher, and is a former deputy chief of staff of Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Ironically in the interview Wall is defending a homophobic racist senator. This leads McAvoy to violently show Wall and the audience the truth. Even though he proved his point perfectly, he persisted on asking question that violated someone’s personal life, until he had the last word. Did McAvoy cross the limits or does the truth have no limits?
The world of journalism and media is a reflection of the real world, and just like the real world there are rules that we should obey. These rules or principles make set the limits to what is shown to the audience where the truth is told loud and clear but in an ethical and fair way. There are plenty of core principles of journalism that journalists should follow to broadcast what needs to be told to the audience and gain their trust. According to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics (2014), a journalist must tell the truth by giving accurate and clear information. Moreover, a journalist should not be biased and should listen to different parties and opinions with respect and dignity even if these opinions are against yours. In addition, a journalist must “be accountable and transparent” for the outcome of his actions (“SPG Code of Ethics”, 2014). Such values and principles play an important role in making the process of news reporting as ethical and moral as possible.
McAvoy and his team promised to tell the complete truth as mentioned before. The team had a evidences supporting everything McAvoy was accusing on Senator Rick Santorum. They devoted their selves to telling the truth and broadcasting to the public. They did everything professionally. McAvoy reached his aim and exposed the Senator; however he crossed his limits and violated some of the core principles of journalism ethics. McAvoy obviously thought his line of questioning however this changed his attitude from convincing to provocative. His attitude made him look like a bully, and his aim shifted away from telling the, he sounded like he had personal issues with candidate, which takes us to a broken principle which is being biased and not listening to what other have to say . By this continuous line of questions, he barely left air for the interviewee. He didn’t just expose the candidate; he also exposed some personal information about the interviewee which was not part of the deal. Will’s aggressive way of interviewing wasn’t justified in the name of truth because he already proved his point; There is a danger that arguments for the greater good will justify doing harm to some people (Ward, n.d.), but he could’ve stopped as soon as he proved his point. He violated someone’s freedom by putting him under pressure and bringing up some of the personal information about his life in a live interview.
According to Ward (2011), Utilitarianism builds on the principle that “The right thing to do is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, even if that involves actions that are in themselves unethical” This point of view stands with McAvoy because if you think about it in another way, it’s reasonable to sacrifice one man for the benefit of a whole nation. On another note, from a non-consequential approach, McAvoy kept his promise and did whatever it takes to tell the truth which might sound ethical. On the other hand, McAvoy violated these theories (as explained earlier).
The commitment to truth end and respect for the dignity of others begin when it’s violating someone’s personal life. Any truth is not harming unless it harms someone else’s freedom. In a way he is saving billions of life but he did it by destroying one.
The interviewer disregarded the interviewee’s loyalty to the senator and he doubted their relationship. The interviewee made it clear to McAvoy that the senator treats him well and that he has been in good conditions with him. However what McAvoy showed is what the senator feels about people like the interviewee who is black and homosexual. So who could defend?
In addition, McAvoy bullied the interviewee’s by labeling him though it wasn’t his opinion. He was punishing the interview because of his freedom of voting or opinion. It’s pretty not acceptable to harm someone live because of his opinion. McAvoy could have avoided this mess by shifting his and giving the interviewee the right to speak. He shouldn’t have labelled the interviewee the way that candidate did. With his actions, Will seemed to have exploited his power in order to prove a point. If will focused more on the long standing history of black discrimination rather than using the guy as a bait people would find his debate valid. For a lot of people the interviewee was a victim, because he was under pressure and was pushed to the limits. Will proved his point perfectly but he violated someone’s freedom by doing that. The outcome of the interview would still be victory but rather than leaving it peacefully, he changed into a cold war zone and caused a lot of damages to himself and the black guy and the station.
References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qASo2EQjfus
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1870479/
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Ward, Stephen. (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 43 -44 (blackboard)
