Truth vs. Harm: The Last Word
The Newsroom Interview
The entire subject that started a big conversation and that I will be taking a stance on circles around the notion of what is ethical, what is morally correct, and completely based off a fictional television series, “The Newsroom”. In one of the episodes, the main character Will McAvoy airs himself on a News Channel he works on, putting himself underneath the light for the entire nation to watch stating how he has been taking part of hyping up terrors, scamming the public on election cheats, and made-up controversy. He then publicly announced that from now on he will no longer do that. Instead will be giving the people at home the objective truth, no more lying, scamming nor helping certain politicians in times of need, he will be delivering the people real news. “Nothing is more important to a democracy than a well informed electorate” (The Newsroom). Up until then everything seemed fair. Until the situation was put under the test when Will McAvoy interviews the Senator Nick Santorum’s assistant Sutton Wall. Being a public figure in elections period, Wall agreed to answer a line-up of questions by the news anchor. McAvoy, as promised, wanted to get the ultimate truth out of him in order to expose the Senator for his homophobic beliefs rather than what he is trying to show people through his assistant who happens to be of colored skin and gay. The interview ended with McAvoy giving the people what he had promised by disregarding codes of ethics for journalists and completely ruining his image as a bully rather than a respectful journalist.
From a non-consequential or deontology point of view McAvoy’s behavior during the interview is deemed within the lines of ethics. If anything, what Will McAvoy did during the interview is exactly what deontology supports. He stuck to his statement towards the people by not breaking his promise and delivering them the utmost truth he could no matter what consequences would follow. However, from the consequential point of view the means of right and wrong are conflicting. Consequential theory is justified considering the bigger picture and what is good in life. “Look to the relevant effects of our actions on the world” (Ward, p. 36), and in this specific situation you could look at it in two different ways. It was justified if you think about the basis of journalism and your duty towards the people. If you think the people at home deserve to know the truth no matter how it is given for their own good in order to know how to vote for during elections, then it is justified in the utilitarian theory. However, it’s not completely justified in that same ethical theory if you think about the offense his attitude of asking questions was being delivered. Not only was it harmful to the senator’s assistant, it might have been harmful to the LGBTQ community and people of color who do not appreciate to be put under pressure based on their sexuality nor the color of their skin.
As McAvoy stated, he could have ended the interview way earlier, but instead decided to continue to a point where it became harmful to the interviewee just to get the truth out of him. Instead of continuing in the same path he started in, McAvoy completely got lost in the idea and excited about his good deed that he started firing questions, some personal, as a bully would. And that is where McAvoy’s dignity got hurt: because he got scared of people viewing him as bully rather than a respectful and truthful journalist. By getting the last word McAvoy proved that even after the backlash he got from Mr. Wall, he still did not truly care about what he did to him, and that is quite understandable. Mr. Wall is a black gay assistant to a republican senator who has publicly spoken against people of color and their social status in life, and against homosexuals, during elections period. As someone in such a unique position in the public eye, Sutton Wall should have been prepared to the questions and backlashes that he would receive from the public during such a sensitive period in time.
That still does not hide the fact that McAvoy completely disregarded some codes of ethics for professional journalists such as avoiding conflict with the interviewee, try to balance the public’s need for information and harm, and always keep in mind the people who might feel disrespected (NPPA). McAvoy broke too many principles when it comes to journalism ethics, and he did not know how to distinguish the difference between telling the truth and getting too personal which might lead to harm. It was not the questions that might have harmed Sutton Wall, but the way the questions were asked (and edited live in the newsroom). As a journalist, he should never show subjectivity and that is what happened during the interview. Will McAvoy raised his voice, started cutting the interviewee, and asking questions that only back up one main idea, and nothing else.
He delivered the truth with the price of harming Sutton Wall with his verbally aggressive attitude. He could have simply gotten the answers he needed by asking the brutal question in a less direct way, however his brutal need to keep his promise shined further than the bigger picture for the elections.
What Will McAvoy did was justified in the sense that he wanted to give people complete information about the Senator of the country, that was the starting point at least. It ended with him exploiting Senator Santorum’s assistant Sutton Wall just to prove a point which ended up harming his dignity and harming Wall. The public’s need to know the truth of things during such a sensitive period does not justify a journalist’s harmful actions. McAvoy wanted to show people that there are still some truthful journalists out there, but instead showed the harm that comes with being a hundred percent truthful and almost emotionless. That is not to say that McAvoy wasn’t put in a sticky situation from the start, he was. However, McAvoy should have always remembered his role as a journalist on a broadcast news channel in front of millions of people and as Couldry said “the digital media environment is one in which all of us have ethical responsibilities” (Couldry, 2013, p. 190), and that is to say that not only should have McAvoy remembered his position in that moment but should have Wall, and the people live editing should have used their skills in switching from one camera to another to make things look better for the sake of their own channel, but they too, were only thinking about the amount of ratings that would come from this interview if it were to seem more intense than it truly is.
References:
Couldry. (2013). Media Ethics, Media Justice.
NPPA. (n.d.). Codes of Ethics.
The Newsroom (n.d.). [Motion Picture].
Ward. (n.d.). Ethics and the Media.
