Truth Versus Harm

Media professionals and journalists’ aim to seek truth, justice and fair processes. However, in certain situations pursuing the truth may harm some people to serve a higher goal. The media field nowadays is becoming very competitive and rating numbers are becoming important. In the “Newsroom” the news anchor “Will McAvoy” who interviewed the former chief of staff for the republican senator rick Santorum called “Sutton Wall” live on Television. Sutton Wall the interviewee is black and gay. For this reason, the editorial policy of Will and his team guaranteed with the audience to project the truth, justice and fair in their live broadcast. However, this didn’t happen during the live interview. McAvoy starts asking Sutton Wall about Santorum to find out the truth. But he didn’t take into consideration the harm that he caused to Sutton Wall. Too many personal questions were asked to the interviewee. This proves that sometimes knowing the truth may cause harm for others.

The main question is that is it ethical to cause harm for someone in order to achieve the truth? As the “Utilitarian” approach stresses on, it is allowed to break a promise or to achieve the truth even if it may cause harm for others and in the name of higher goals. This is what McAvoy did in the interview, he was seeking for the truth without taking into consideration causing Sutton’s verbal harm. Especially when McAvoy called the interviewee “disgusting” which is considered humiliating. Furthermore, stressing on the interviewee’s sexuality and skin color caused harm for this person, specifically when he asked him the last question. This threatens his career as a college instructor. When it -comes to the non-consequentialist approach it focuses on the core universal principles like truth, justice, and fair. Without causing harm to someone in the name of a higher goal. However, when it comes to the consequentialist approach which stresses on 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 (Ward, 2011, p:38). The aim here is to maximize positive results to the greatest amount of people. This is what McAvoy did in the interview he wanted to get people’s attention without taking into consideration the harm that is causing Sutton. Causing happiness to people was all his intension. McAvoy’s aggressive way in talking was targeting the truth. He didn’t pay attention to the harm caused. m issue of the presidential candidate didn’t justify what McAvoy did. This is considered disrespectful and can harm the person that is addressed, and this is what happened in the interview.

Will McAvoy’s behavior obviously supports the consequentialist approach as mentioned. On the other hand, if Will abided be the virtue ethics approach it would have turned out to be better. virtue ethics approach stresses on finding the right balance between two extremes (Ward,2011, p:43). Best example for the virtue ethics is correlated with Aristotle “Ethics is Self-Cultivation, the art of balance, moderation”. He would have asked him in a less aggressive way to get the truth without causing him the verbal harm. McAvoy made sure to interrupt Sutton every single time he wanted to answer. This proves that McAvoy is being disrespectful with his interviewee. Also, McAvoy’s way of talking and expressing his position is very aggressive. Finally, McAvoy talks in the interview in a superiority way. Which proves that he is abusing the interviewee verbally especially by mentioning his sexual desires, and his blackness.

References:

Ward (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 38;

Ward (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 43;