Truth Vs Harm

We live in a world where media elites keep growing, where the world of news is becoming more commercialised by the minute, and where, unfortunately, the truth can be staged. News Anchor Will McAvoy and his team took a daring step in addressing this issue with an apology, followed by a vow of fulfilling their duty as journalists, and that is: Telling the whole truth. “From this moment on, we’ll be deciding what goes on our air and what’s presented to you based on the simple truth”, it is with these exact words that Will McAvoy had promised to serve nothing but the truth to his audience. Then, came the day where McAvoy interviewed the campaign Advisor of candidate Rick Santorum, Professor Sutton Wall.

The SPJ code of ethics imposes on journalists to discretely reflect to their audience the full truth as an essential duty-based act. However, it also imposes to treat others as human beings deserving of respect, and to balance the information against the harm of others, which helps us identify that the key values here, and particularly in the situation of this interview were the truth vs the harm. However, it is important to know that as sincerity and accuracy are virtues of journalism ethics, care is also one. (Couldry, p 190).

In this interview, Will McAvoy’s intention was to deliver the truth, or at least what he claimed to be doing, by exposing the homophobic ideology of Rick Santorum, however, every step he took along doing so violated the ethical duties he, as a journalist has to fulfill. He was serving a greater cause, in the most unethical way. He reflected the truth from an “Elitist” perspective, where aimed to expose the homophobic claims of Mr. Rick Santorum, while using Sutton Wall as a vehicle in doing so. Mr. McAvoy not only insulted, but also dehumanized Mr. Wall by only defining him with his sexuality and his race, which itself is an assault to the black, gay community, because he managed to disregard the fact that this person and community grant an education, have political stances, and have causes they wish to serve even if that means disregarding their sexual orientation and private lives. Of course, exposing the truth and revealing these homophobic claims is quite important, however, that does not justify the aggressiveness and the harm the McAvoy had done along doing so, in which he served his main ethical duty of telling the truth but also managed to ignored his most important ethical duty, not only as a journalist, but also as a human being with a conscience, and that is respecting others, because in ethics, our conscience is a major role player. (Ward, nd).

From a consequentialist perspective, perhaps the anchor’s act of telling the truth, and basically serving the majority of society is more important than hurting the dignity as well as the feelings of Mr. Wall, whereby his actions as well aggressiveness in the interview can be justified ( because in this theory, it is okay to sometimes lie or be unethical in order to serve a greater ethical goal for the majority).

However, from a non-consequentialist perspective, more weight is emphasized on the fact that Mr. McAvoy dehumanized Mr. Wall which is an act that this theory completely refuses, since its main aim is to keep a promise one has made (which is something Mr. Wall was claiming to be doing), however, every step of doing so should be ethical, which McAvoy failed to fulfill.

However, even though Will’s behavior aligns with only one of these ethical perspectives, however, it can’t be denied that McAvoy’s behavior violated the main principle of ethics itself, which stands for maximizing the positive outcomes, and minimizing the harms as much as possible for the sake of society which McAvoy may have failed in doing so.

Disrespecting other people’s dignity can never be justified, even if that involves exposing the truth in doing so, which is why Will’s actions can never be justified or excused, even if his intentions were exposing a candidate’s homophobic claims and acts, which means that he may have benefited society in showing them the truth, but he also managed to insult a big community of the same society as well.

However, there is no doubt that McAvoy could have dealt with this situation differently, whereby he could’ve allowed Mr. Wall to express the reason why he chose to stand next to Santorum, especially concerning the issue of abortion, and why he specifically chose to be the advisor of his campaign. Then, Mr. McAvoy could’ve asked him about the reason he chose to support a person who doesn’t approve of his marriage, whereby he can allow Mr. Sutton to express his opinion and defend himself, and he would’ve exposed Mr. Rick Santorum’s homophobic claims to the public in a respectful manner.

References:

● Ward, Stephen J.A (2011) “What is Ethics” in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 35–40

● Couldry, Nick (2013) “Media Ethics, Media Justice”; in Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice, Cambridge, Polity Press. 186–210