Truth versus Harm
It’s obvious that the TV station works against Rick Santorum’s policy, when they decided to host Rick’s assistant on air, they took him for granted for the following reasons; Rick’s policy is against homosexuality and he is a racist person “Gay marriage threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country” (Rick Santorum, NY Times, 2005) , knowing that his assistant is gay and black. The news anchor started by asking the guest how gay marriage threatened Rick’s marriage, and he seemed to be aggressive while talking to him on air. The guest replied by saying that he respect Rick but that doesn’t mean that he necessary agree with him on every single issue. The anchor continued by insisting on the guest to know how gay marriage is affecting the marriage of Santorum in a very ironic way by asking the guest silly questions. The attack began when the anchor humiliate the guest by saying that Santorum called him “sick”, than he revealed his sexuality on air and he called him “black”.
A journalist should have truthfulness, fairness and neutrality towards any news, and he/she should not be on the side of any political party. Their real job is to present the issue and the most important thing is to listen to the guest if they are having an interview. Ethics in journalism are very essential because the media is a sensitive medium that might cause harm for individuals. In this case, the journalist touched on the principle of truth versus harm, because in order to show the truth to the audience, he humiliated his guest by criticizing him on his sexuality and his race. The news team was shocked and they tried to stop Will but in my opinion, they are responsible of this harsh act because they already knew what was going to happen on air.
Will might be right about Santorum but, this is not an ethical representation of a journalist interview. His aggressive way of interviewing is not justified in the name of truth since the truth here was personal at all. According to the consequentialism approach, the act is ethical if it brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people even if some of them are harmed. In this case the guest is only harmed so according to the utilitarianism approach the act is ethical. On the other hand, the deontology theory claims that to be a professional journalist you must emphasize on the truth, justice and fair process. (What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Ward).
In my opinion, the commitment to truth must ended from the beginning of the interview and the TV crew must be aware of the result a head of time before. The moment a guest is disgraced on air, his dignity and the reputation of the TV news are both affected. Will was insisting on telling the audience that Santorum is racist and homophobic even though this is well known in the society of America, from his attitude you can feel that he is pointing on the guest much more and he wants to expose him under the eye of millions of people that are watching in their home. It seemed that Will was politically driven to attack in such way, if he was listening to the guest and launched a negotiation strategy, maybe the interview passed peacefully with no harms. To achieve Will’s goal differently, he should respect the guest by let him speak and not interrupting him to restate his claim over and over again, he must moves to a different subject when the guest replied about the gay marriage and not insisting on humiliating him. The attitude of the news anchor must be very polite and able to negotiate with the guest, crossing the red line is prohibited in the work of a journalist because according to the code of ethics in journalism, a journalist must treat the member of the public with respect, and he/she must realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power or influence. (SPJ code of ethics). What show that the aim of Will is to show power of the guest is his final question, because if he was not seeking to this path he should have stop the attack process when the guest expresses his anger towards him. In contrary, he kept calm to rejoin his energy and he asked him at the end if Santorum think he’s fit to be a teacher and the answer was “no”.
A greater sensibility towards the long-standing history of black discrimination and a more careful assessment of Will’s own power position have definitely changed the direction and outcome of the interview because Will used the discrimination as a tool to manipulate the emotions of the guest. If the interview was based on a normal negotiation about the guest relationship with Santorum and his point of view on his policy, no harm will be caused.
