“Truth versus Harm”- A Critique of a Fictional Interview
By: Tariq Shami
Journalism at its core is the practice of finding and communicating information that is necessary for the public to be aware of and to understand. To that end, the ethics of this practice mirror what is required for the greatest possible honesty and unbiasedness when disseminating that information. These values therefore are the following: firstly; to strive for neutrality on all topics, and if not possible, to make clear the bias that is at play for the consumers of that news outlet. Secondly; to make clear to viewers and consumers the board of directors, and more specifically the economic conflict of interests there may be. Thirdly; To create media that in essence is telling the story of the people, not as a third person looking in, but the story of the people affected.
With that in mind, when analyzing Will and his team, there are some points that they excel at, and other where they are — regardless of intention — sourly lacking. The focus on getting to the facts and not to focus on dramatic and sensational events is commendable. Additionally, focusing on events and new stories that effect and inform the public is the direction that journalists should take in all cases, and mirror what journalism, as the fourth estate, should be doing. Nonetheless, even though Will and his team told viewers that they will not hide their own biases, they did not explain or specify what direction those biases lean towards, and what systems they put in place to give all parties the fair share they deserve. Transparency, ultimately, is the defining characteristic that is missing from the editorial policy, how they decide on what to cover and how should have been detailed clearly, and published in full. That transparency should also extent to every news story the team covers to have the best possible news story in an ethical mindset.
When we analyze the interview itself, wills end to not justify the means, none withstanding that his main aim — the publicizing the hypocrisy of the republican candidate, and the hypocrisy of the aid — does not justify the way in which he attacked the interviews personally. Will created conflict that resulted in the subject being turned into why — on a personal level — does the aid support the republican candidate, not what’s useful to society and the public knowledge: is this candidate qualified to be the president. By being that aggressive, he offended and hurt the professor, did not add anything to the public knowledge, and was either unable or unwilling to see that. His mistake, may it be ignorance or pride, obscured the only reason for being so aggressive; in pursuit of the truth. If Will stayed on topic, it would be debatable to be aggressive, since these attacks would be put to much better use if against the candidate, and about policies, rather then personal beliefs, even if those personal beliefs aren’t ethical.
In an ethical sense, specifically using Stephan’s J.A Ward’s “Ethics and the Media” as the basis to analyze this interview, Will has failed in both regards. Taken from a consequentialist perspective, Will both did not give enough information or “truth” to justify the use of such aggressive and hurtful techniques of personal attacks. He also did not live up to the virtues outlines by Ward to be impartial: “It requires persons to transcend egotism and give fair consideration of the interests of the others” (Ward, 2011). Will did not achieve that detachment from his egotism. Likewise, when his behavior is analyzed through the lens of non-consequentialist perspective, his actions and personal attacks are in essence wrong, and do not justify his pursuit of the truth, irrespective if he achieved that goal or not. His actions did not meet the criteria of being “So act that you use humanity, whether in your person or in the person of another, always at the same time as the end, never merely as a means” (Kant,1929).
To get to the crux of the matter, if we are seeing the interview from an from a consequentialist perspective, journalist should able to do harm in pursuit of truth only if two criteria are met: that the harm is produced only as a side effect from exposing the reality of a situation or truth, and secondly, if the action that is being exposed justifies the level of harm a journalist is inflicting. Journalists should not vilify a man for jaywalking, and scrutinize every aspect of his life, likewise a corrupt president should be questioned aggressively and his life details publicized and scrutinized by the public at large. This can loosely follow the U.S system of public persons being open to more scrutiny. (Bamberger, 1978).
References:
BAMBERGER, M. (1978). Public Figures and the Law of Libel; A Concept in Search of a Definition. The Business Lawyer, 33(2), 709–727. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40685856
Kant, I., & Smith, N. K. (1929). Immanuel Kant’s Critique of pure reason. Boston: Bedford, Part 1, Chapter II, Book 1, 17–52 Retrieved April 28, 2019, from https://kantwesley.com/Kant/CritiqueOfPracticalReason.pdf
Ward, S. J. (2011). Ethics and the media: An introduction. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from https://elearn.lau.edu.lb/bbcswebdav/pid-301460-dt-content-rid-909212_1/courses/JSC_419_11_201920/WARD_Objectivity.pdf
