Was Will McAvoy right to insist on having the last word in the interview with Nick Santorum’s assistant?
The Newsroom is an American arrangement which organizes a troupe cast and recovers the political sensational occasions they experience. The aim behind this series is to rehash the news and comply with the ethics of media. They emphasize on the standards of media ethics which are truth and precision and avoid gossips and rumors. McAvoy, the journalists, promised people to tell the truth and accept others opinion and respect the freedom of speech. According to McAvoy humans become elite when news is helpful with regards to mankind instead of being just machines getting and making the news. According to Couldry (2013), truth is intricate and hard to reach so journalists should put effort to deliver the accurate news to people. One of the main principles of journalism ethics is care. Coudrly (2013) clarifies the concept of care as being committed to tune in and listen to others and cherish the right of freedom of speech. In addition, objectivity and reasonableness are the most imperative qualities. Will and his team try to implement these principles and aim to be the heroes of certainty and enemies of rumors. In the interview with Wall, Santorum’s assistant did McAvoy fulfill his promises and abide with the ethics and morals?
To start with, McAvoy abides to the standard of accuracy and exactness. He covers facts and true evidence of his argument and provided information. The goal of McAvoy is to show the contradiction in the relation between the senator and his assistant. It is noticed that Wall is a gay black man. So the journalist tries to demonstrate the bolstered competitor is homophobic and supremacist. To achieve this, he drives Wall to talk about the conflicting promise to Santorum which is, how can a gay black man work for a homophobic and racist? Unfortunately, the talk drives to a new path and crossed the main aim. McAvoy wasn’t able to move aside his personal opinion and control his verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Will kept on hitting the man with aggressive personal questions and did not respect his personal space. Despite that Will was very aggressive, he also did not allow him to answer or defend himself. So he did not take into consideration his dignity instead characterized him as a gay and black man. While Wall was welcome to discuss his own convictions and why he upheld Santorum, he was just made inquiries about his applicant’s convictions he could do only differ with. Wall was not able to answer the multiple questions Will hit him with except when he expressed that his decision about working with Santorum was studied well and thought about. Wall was able to separate between his own personal beliefs and his profession. This shows how mature and professional he is in his work. He was able to work with a person whom he disagree with on the level of personal issues. The journalist performance can be divided into two parts, the first part of the interview shows the principle of truth; however, after the interviewee’s respond and the constant aggressive talk he failed to find a find a balanced and crossed the thin line that prohibits him from attacking his interviewee.
The consequentialist point of view would state that McAvoy is correct. He just made forceful inquiries to demonstrate the world and the interviewee that his choice to speak to a homophobic applicant is opposing and risky for him and for the society . Wall’s sexual belief was abused and presented to each American viewing the news, he was attacked for his skin color but if it led to change his mind and persuade people that his choices are wrong then at this point McAvoy can be right. Whereas for the non-consequential approach, McAvoy violates it by not abiding to the morals and ethics. He does not take into consideration Wall’s personal life, his right to defend himself and even his freedom of speech and thoughts.
The freedom of expression is one of the most essential rights. Everyone has the right to express himself if it does not affect others negatively and respect others opinions even if they contradict his. When searching for the truth crosses the red lines and dignity of others and makes a journalist attacks another person’s private life, then it should end. McAvoy purpose was not to interview Wall to discuss his own beliefs and sexual orientation but to discuss the program of the candidate Santorum; however, this interview was taken into another side and was just to attack Wall. Every person has the right to express his/her sexual orientation under his consent. Journalists should understand carefully the private life of others because attacking them won’t make them reach the truth ethically. Objectivity is the key to solve the contradictions and explain them.
In this interview, I think the harm was more than the truth. Wall was attacked for his skin color and sexual orientation. His private life was exposed for all American and McAvoy did not stop at this but insulted his career as a teacher at the end of the interview. He showed that if a person is black and gay then he can not be a good teacher. At some point Wall is blamed too for letting McAvoy take the discussion to such path and his answer for the last question about whether he finds himself a good teacher or not made him lose the argument. Theoretically, McAvoy was the winner. He won his argument even though his method was very aggressive and unethical. He did not abide by the media ethics and morals and lost control over himself. He also failed to fulfill his promises for people about keeping private life and non-sense aside and concentrating on revealing the truth. On the other hand, McAvoy also harmed his reputation and credibility.
McAvoy could have won the argument in a better way by being more ethical and respectful. If the discussion was not controlled he could have stopped when Wall defended himself the second time and came back to discuss the main points about the purpose of the interview. In addition, McAvoy could have provoked his interviewee to reveal the truth but in a smarter way without attacking his private life and dignity. McAvoy’s aggression was unethical and made him disregard Wall’s answers and respond. So he should have been less aggressive to reach his point and make his interviewee more comfortable.
In conclusion, there is a thin line between revealing the truth and harming others dignity. McAvoy should have used the golden mean to find a middle line in saying the truth without harming others. This interview also shed light on a very important issue that societies still did not get rid of which is racism and homophobia. It is essential for people to know their obligations before just calling for their rights or practicing them.
References:
N. Couldry, Ethics of Media, “Media Ethics, Media Justice” , 2013
S. Ward, Ethics and the media: an introduction,”Introduction”, 2011
