When Ethics Conflict
Stephen Ward defines ethics as having “three concerns: appropriate ethical beliefs, correct application, and the disposition to act ethically” (2011, p. 10), but later argues that “a discussion is ethical when it considers what is good, what is right, or what is virtuous” (p. 13). Although this seems rather vague, the core principles of journalism ethics are laid out in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics(SPJ, 2014). The Codesets out four basic principles which journalists should abide by: seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent.
In a public address, Will states that his news program will be “based on the simple truth that nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate” and the “champion of facts and the mortal enemy of innuendo, speculation, hyperbole, and nonsense” (420Rellik), so that, formally at least, Will champions the principle of seeking the truth and reporting it, but in a later episode, “Bullies”, Will seems to take his aggressive pursuit of the truth to a new level where he seems to neglect his ethical obligation to avoid doing harm.What is particularly telling is the fact that he bombards the interviewee with a barrage of questions, presumably in an attempt to expose a contradictory position of a black and gay subordinate who supports a candidate (Trump) whose views are racist and homophobic. It could be argued, however, that “aggressive” journalism is appropriate when politics are at stake. In other words, politicians should be subjected to “aggressive” journalism because what they do affects the lives of citizens. In the case of the racist, homophobic candidate, his views on gay marriage, for example, affect the lives of gays wishing to marry, and, therefore, by association, his subordinates are contributing to the distress of gays wishing to marry. They too should therefore, be made to respond to “aggressive” journalism.
But it is only as the interview proceeds that we discover that Sutton Wall, the deputy chief of staff to the racist, homophobic candidate, does not support the candidate’s racist and homophobic views, but agrees with him on his anti-abortion stance. Additionally, far from being a timid interviewee beaten into a corner by Will, he counters aggressively, waving a finger at Will and shouting: “Shut up! I’ll let you know when I am finished” (Fig. 1). So most of the interview has been steered towards questions of racism and homophobia when the central point, at least as far as Sutton is concerned, should have been about the ethics of abortion. Sutton accuses Will of reducing him to the color of his skin and his sexual orientation. So, ironically, Will’s confrontational tone can be seen as reinforcing the racial and sexist stereotype, which is exactly what he is attacking.
Two principles from the journalist’s Codethen come into conflict. On the one hand, Will is insistently seeking the truth — he wants to expose the bigotry of Santorum and his lack of fitness as a presidential candidate (which would undoubtedly lead to harm being done to ethnic minorities and homosexuals) — on the other, his attempt to expose the contradictions in Sutton’s position can be seen as an attempt to humiliate him, or harm him, on national TV. The irony is that Sutton comes across as not being intimidated even though Will seems to have crossed the line.
Both Sutton and Will seem to be operating in good faith. Both seem to be acting according to neo-Aristotelian principles, that is, both wish to contribute to “a good life for human beings lived individually and together” (Couldry, 2012, p. 190). But, inevitably, ethical considerations founded on good faith will come into conflict. From a consequentialist perspective, we should argue in favor of the approach which does least harm to most people. Does the exposure of Santorum as a racist homophobe outweigh any harm caused to Sutton by his apparent humiliation on TV? The non-consequentialist position would consider the intrinsic “goodness” of Will’s action. He tried to humiliate Sutton when the real target for his attack was Santorum. Was it an exercise in self-promotion?
My personal view on this subject is consequentialist. If Will’s interview did lead to Santorum’s failure as a presidential candidate, then the temporary humiliation of his campaign manager is a small price to pay for the benefit of not harming millions of people belonging to ethnic minorities or homosexuals. We are not talking about bombing Dresden to humiliate the Nazis, or dropping an atom bomb on Japan to shorten the war, here. Sutton, too, had prioritized his views on abortion over his views on racism and homophobia. He, too, was ethically conflicted, but his view is non-consequentialist: taking a human life in itself is intrinsically, morally wrong because the value of human life cannot be calculated in terms of numbers. It is a Kantian perspective which dictates that one should always act in a way that we would wish others to act as if it were a general law (Baker, 2008, p. 121). But Sutton’s position, equally, implies that he is less concerned with the lives of those people Santorum wishes to harm. His conscience may be clear regarding his support for the right to life of the fetus, but is it clear when it comes to defending the rights of minorities?
I do not believe that there is any way to sugar-coat the interview. It could be argued that Will should have toned down his approach, limited his eye-rolling (Fig. 2), and allowed Sutton to make his case without so many interruptions, but experience has taught us that “friendly” interviews play into the hands of unscrupulous politicians (When did Fox News ever ask an awkward question of Donald Trump?). Perhaps Will could have avoided personalizing the interview to the extent that he did by focusing more on the issues rather than on the contradiction of a black, gay man supporting a racist homophobe.
References:
420Rellik. (2013). Will McAvoy’s Apology (The Newsroom). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Baker, S. (2008). The Ethics of Advocacy: Moral Reasoning in the Practice of Public Relations. In L. Wilkins & C. G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics(1 edition). New York: Routledge.
Couldry, N. (2012). Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Polity.
SPJ. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics [Society of Professional Journalists]. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Ward, S. (2011). Ethics and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
