Truth Vs Harm: Studying an Interview from “The Newsroom”
The Newsroom, an HBO series, presents cases that allow the viewers to see how complicated it could be to work in the media business. One begins to question the ethical principles being applied in the different situations that the reporters are put in. In one particular scene of the show, Will McAvoy, the main character, interviews Sutton Wall, a character that plays an African American man who happens to be gay and a former deputy chief of staff of the senator, Rick Santorum, who is against gay marriage.The interview will be analyzed based on the ethical values that were taken into consideration and those that were ignored in order to weigh the outcome, whether it was all beneficial because of its truthfulness or whether it induced more harm than goodness.
According to SPJ Code of Ethics (2014), journalists are required to be truthful, take responsibility for their actions, be accurate in the information they’re giving, avoid harm, and be transparent. In the series, Will McAvoy speaks of all the mistakes that he had made in the media company and promises to become more ethical at work by referring to all the requirements mentioned before. This should be kept in mind while analyzing the tactics he used to pressure the interviewee into answering the questions honestly. Will starts off by being calm and asking general questions regarding the viewpoint of the candidate regarding gay marriage. Knowing that Sutton Wall is gay, McAvoy seems unsatisfied with the answers he’s getting about the issue. He wants to pressure him more by making the questions more personal. This is where one starts wondering whether Will should have stayed committed to the things Sutton is saying or push further and risk the chance of disrespecting the interviewee by demeaning him because of who he stands with.
Will’s questions may have the intention of reaching ultimate honesty and transparency to convey to the audience what the senator is all about, but attacking a man whose job is to represent the senator may have been the wrong way to do address the issues being discussed. Applied ethics can help in figuring out whether the interview was done morally or not. First off, consequentialism pinpoints on the importance of the pursuit of goodness, and it focuses on the consequences of actions (Ward, 2011, p. 35). For consequentialists, the ends justify the means, and the interview represents that at some point when Will McAvoy starts asking seemingly endless personal questions that focus on the race and sexual orientation of the interviewee which are both personal issues rather than ones that relate to the senator, all to prove the point of how hypocritical it seems for Sutton to work for a man that does not respect his origins. Here, Will takes advantage of the weakness in Sutton’s answers and disregards what may be sensitive to him. Second, non-consequentialism, mostly known as deontology, is all about duty (Ward, 2011, p. 41). It is Will’s duty to deliver an interview that inform the audience with full honesty the true intentions of the senator, Rick, which can justify the pressure put on the interviewee, but it is also his duty to act fairly towards the representative of Rick Santorum and realize when Sutton is uncomfortable. One can also say that it is Sutton’s duty to be honest and truthful with his answers from the start, but that is when things become gray because there are situations where one can’t seem to know how to balance values with their personal, conflicting feelings. Moreover, as it is everyone’s duty in media to be truthful, it is important to hint that the truth is never easy to say; it can be awkward and challenging which means that sometimes, things must be said even if it’s addressed roughly.
At the end, Will asks the final question that truly simplifies the whole interview in one message that shows how homophobic and racist the senator really is. This is important for people to know because he is running for presidency, and exposing such public figures is only fair and just for the people; however, having used Sutton Wall to talk about things that do not make him comfortable is what changes things ethically.
Will could have been more general in his questions instead of seeming to attack the person’s personal characteristics. Usually, silence or denial are enough answers for people to understand the hidden messages, so pressuring one to say certain things would seem like harming the person when one already knows the truth. It would all be for nothing. That being said, McAvoy could have ended the interview right when he said he would later on because it was all obvious from the start. The interviewee seemed to be contradicting himself which is sad to watch on its own. Will opens sensitive topics such as racism and addresses them so matter of factly without realizing how degrading one could feel because of the way such issues are addressed, and that was clear by the defensiveness of Sutton when addressed that way.
Daniel Dayan (2007, p. 117), a French social scientist, speaks of hospitality as making someone feel at home without expecting anything in return. Even though the outcome of the interview served the audience well, things might have turned out differently had Will made Sutton more welcomed and respected.
References:
Dayan D. (2007). On morality, distance and the other Roger Silverstone’s media and morality. International Journal of Communication, 1, 113–122.
Ward, S. (2011). Ethics and the Media: An Introduction (Cambridge Applied Ethics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–48.
SPJ Code of Ethics. (2014, September 6). Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
