Was Will McAvoy right to insist on having the last word in the interview with Nick Santorum’s assistant?
In the realm of the commercialized and competitive news media, ratings took over media institutions. Nowadays, the information these institutions offer circulate mostly around what the audience wants in the shape they wish to perceive, rather than putting this information to well inform in a broader context. For this reason, McAvoy and his team in the Newsroom make a promise to the USA electorate to reinvent the news. Abiding by the ethical principles of legacy media, they want to speak of the truth and honesty of a moment, where rumors and exaggerated news are put aside. They declare democracy emerging from well informed and educated citizens, rather than audience receiving the same repeated order of news content. McAvoy also speaks of the importance of introducing and accepting other’s opinions. He says that “news is only useful in the context of humanity”, which puts human beings in a position much more elite than just being machines receiving and creating the news.
Up until now, McAvoy and his team promise fairness, justice, and truthfulness. But the interview McAvoy had with Sutton Wall, former deputy chief of staff of Republican Senator Rick Santorum’s and a professor of American Studies at the temple university, questioned the promises the team had made, but most importantly acts as a request to revisit the journalism code of ethics. In his interview, McAvoy’s mission was to grant people honest information about Santorum’s racism and hetrosexism, but his blind drive to speak of the unheard voices, ends up turning into a touching debate. McAvoy was determined until the end to point out the flaws of the Republican by aggressively and repetitively questioning a black gay man supporting him and his stance against abortion. Was Will McAvoy right to insist on having the last word in the interview with Nick Santorum’s assistant?
As the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics states: “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” (Page 2). Minimizing harm is one of the main goals of ethical journalism, but there comes another important role as mentioned in the SPJ code, which is “Seek Truth and Report It”. So, what is the fine line between truth and harm? If the interviewer’s purpose is to point out the truth about the Republican, does that mean that the interviewee would be domineered for his freedom to choose his own choices? Now, if we take this situation, McAvoy and his team promised to promote public debate and opinions different from their own, but at the same time McAvoy with his aggressive and conservative tone towards Sutton Wall in the interview, violated the rule. For sure, McAvoy’s motivation was to protect Sutton from being disrespected by people like Rick Santorum whom he considered a bully, but with his uncalculated aims he was a bully himself. He attacked him by calling him words like “damaged” or “ill”.
Every time Sutton Wall tried to explain himself, he would interrupt him throwing rhetorical questions at him. This not only proved him disrespectful as an interviewer, but also as a journalist who only looks at the judgments supporting his case without him being open to new prospects. He then reached a point where he practiced ultimate superiority. This is when Wall admits that he couldn’t think of a way in which gay marriage could threaten Santorum’s marriage. McAvoy puts Wall in an inferior position when his answer gets along with what he has from evidence. His body language and the gestures he performs also portray the dual in the relationship of power. Unfortunately, even when Wall had the chance to stand up for his dignity, saying that neither his choices, nor his color, nor he can even define him as a person, the anchor yet insisted on denying this recognition and again concluded with a final personal question to point out that Rick Santorum doesn’t believe in his ability as a teacher.
If a consequentialist would be asked to evaluate this situation he/she would maximize the good or the fairness of an event to the greatest number of people. In this case, exposing a public figure like Rick Santorum as a racist and a homophobic person is the only good to most people out there from homosexuals, to black people, even Sutton Wall and his family as they would break free from all the rules oppressing them. However, from a deontologist’s perspective “the end does not justify the means”, which means that using and abusing Sutton Wall to expose the truth about Santorum to the public is an unethical unjustifiable process by itself. Human rights and the principle of self-respect are highlighted and put forward by deontologists. Finally, in the virtue ethics, the golden mean which is the right balance between two extremes must be achieved. In this case, McAvoy didn’t abide by the golden mean as he was an extreme consequentialist.
As a conclusion, McAvoy should have acted more virtuous in this situation. He should have found a golden mean between saying the truth, yet respecting the dignity of others. He could have stopped when he made his point in the first place and left the final word for Wall to express himself, because the harm he has caused him cannot be justified by the main ethical theories in the code.
References
Journalists, S. o. (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from SPJ.org: http://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf
McAvoy, W. (2013). Will McAvoy’s Apology (The Newsroom) [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Wall. (2014). The Newsroom Homosexuality. (W. McAvoy, Interviewer) Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uIpFWdFwY
McAvoy, W. (2013). Will McAvoy’s Apology (The Newsroom) [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Wall. (2014). The Newsroom Homosexuality. (W. McAvoy, Interviewer) Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uIpFWdFwY
