Truth Vs Harm; Self-Irony
Journalists surely do not have monopoly over the truth; but they attempt to get the closest to it. The culture of journalism is transmitted through a set of ethics. Delivering news while considering the utilitarian approach is one component of this set; which means weighing the consequences of actions and decisions made and asking “What is the best action that would result in the greatest good?” Another approach is the non consequentialist which is judging the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties that are essential to the action, not on its consequences. Finally, there is a virtue based theory which highlights the moral character of ones self rather than one’s actions. Another approach Ethical climate of society imposes this set on journalists (Ward, 2011).
Will and his team promised to practice and reinforce the principles of journalism which are delivering the truth, and portraying opinions of all sorts even if they are contradictory to their own. In theory, they have promised a well rounded rationale to portray the ethics of journalism; however when they invaded an interviewee’s privacy they did not put the theory in practice. Especially that journalism is an intellectual practice and journalists are participants of this intellectual practice and they should act accordingly. I combined intellectuality with ethics because I believe that if they are journalists who are truly informed of their profession and they have acquired the journalistic skills then they would establish and reflect its ethics.
In order to practice ethics, the journalist should analyse it, practically judge, and have virtuous character (Ward, 2011).
If Will’s real aim was to highlight on the wrongdoing of the presidential candidate, then he could have done so in many ways that would not harm anyone (not even the candidate) by simply exposing factual content to the audience and not aggressively interviewing someone who is simply just a political aide- meaning he is not the villain; the real villain is out there; and no one but him should be “cornered” with questions in order for him to defend and explain his own positions; no one is responsible for that except for him and no one is to be “blamed” or faced except for him. Now, even if Will wanted to interview the presidential candidate himself in the same aggressive way that he interviewed his guest, it is not the right way to do it, however he could have asked questions that will make the news’ consumers analyse him critically and thus they will be offered information. In this case, Will won’t give mass-news and produce mass-though; instead he will present the audience with information in which they can evaluate the candidate by themselves analytically and without harming anyone.
On another note, if Will’s aim was to highlight that the candidate’s beliefs do not represent the presence of democracy in the United States; then Will should practice what he preaches by interviewing his guests democratically. He is in way demanding respect and offering none.
Some might argue that Wills behaviour came out based on a consequentialist perspective because his act was aiming for maximising positive outcomes by actually bringing out a certain truth, but in the problem of applying the consequentialist perspective here is dismissing the interests of minorities and “victorizing” the majority.
On another note, from a non-consequentialist perspective, the behaviour is not grounded by moral duties because delivering the truth by downgrading someone is not fit within morality. Wills has violated the main principles of both perspectives.
A journalist’s fundamental rights are the right to information and the right to have access to fact and opinion, however with those rights comes responsibilities which acting ethically and self-censoring one’s self. Also, when the journalist is interviewing someone he should make him express himself as freely as he can, and as wholly as he can.
When a journalist is in his journey to put out to the audience a certain truth, he should restore to his mind all the things that tend to be overlooked when we (as human) tend to rush to collective judgment and thus, here Will has completely disregarded the loyalty of an individual towards a particular politician.
Exposing the racism and homophobia of a presidential candidate of course stands as a great cause and puts Wills in a “saving the world” mode, however the way he has done it, and using his aggressive tone and most importantly, victimising someone for that cause puts Wills in a revised context; making the world want to be saved from him, and first and foremost he needs to be saved from himself. (Proof: he went to the psychiatrist after that incident.)
Will has powerful position, as he is a journalist who has a specific aim to project truth to people, and as he was attempting to do so he failed by being aggressive with his guest although he should be carefully assessing with him national issues not as a favour to his guest but as a his right.
If he were to be more careful in his way he could have shown, diplomatically that he is not passively unwilling to show support for the presidential candidate but is also actively willing to do so in public (he failed to do that because he shifted the attention to his aggression and unfairness to the guest.) On another note if he has done this interview the ethical way it should be done he could have made the “court of public opinion” have a capacity for thought and judgement.
References:
Ward, S. (2011). Ethics and the media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
