Where is the line between truth and harm?
Since the establishment of broadcast media, institutions have been in constant competition for ratings and credibility. And what a better way to reach the audience than shifting truths to fit the majority’s point of view. Shaping a truth keeps it a truth, however, a truth put in a different context will be perceived with a different meaning. As this is what journalists play upon to share their news, they face several dangers of misunderstandings, thus ethical problems. In the American series The Newsroom, Will McAvoy declare that, as a broadcast journalist, him and his team will no longer shape the truths in a narrow context to be part of the competition for views, however, he promises that they will put the news in a broader context aiming for a reality as objective as it could get. He adds that he “will make no efforts to subdue [his] personal opinion” and “will make every effort to expose [the audience] to informed opinions that are different from my own”. With this editorial comment, McAvoy promised honesty, justice, and equality.
To the audience, this ideal statement is all they need to trust in this program. Nonetheless, everything stated is only theoretical, and can surely not be easily put into practice so perfectly. Proof of this is the reporter’s interview with Sutton Wall, an American Studies teacher in the Temple University and the deputy chief of staff to Rick Santorum, who was running for the elections. The interview showed insistence of McAvoy to point out to Wall, and to his audience, that Santorum is strictly racist and hetero-sexist, while his campaign adviser himself is both black and homosexual. The broadcast journalist was bombarding his interviewee with questions and interrupting him when he answers as his words did not match with the answer he wanted to hear. This led to the backwash of Mr. Wall who had to underline his freedom of choice in an aggressive manner. Besides, the interviewer insisted on asking a final question, even after being explicitly shown that his blind persistence caused offense to his counterparty. This can only mean that he is being radical about his opinion and close minded to other points of view, which clearly contradicts his previous promise. Was Will McAvoy right to insist on having the last word in the interview with Nick Santorum’s assistant?
As stated in the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) code of ethics, a journalist must “acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.” One of the pillars of the code of ethics is to keep the truth said while minimizing harm. But where does truth exceed the borderline of harm? In our case, the interviewee does have a point in wanting to disclose the reality of the candidate’s views of race and sexual orientation, truth is not enough to excuse him from attacking his guest until the last breath. He could have proven his standing without criticizing Sutton wall’s choice, which was in fact, all he focused on throughout the interview. He did not truly want to tell the truth to the people, instead, he wanted his guest to believe that who he supports sees him as a failure. McAvoy also pronounced false claims and based his arguments on assumptions about Nick Santorum’s thoughts such as finding his assistant “disgusting” or “a sick deviant who’s threatening the fabric of society.” This in precise is not accepted by the SPJ’s code of ethics: “Journalists should: Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.”
Will should have admitted his mistake which was clearly pointed out. In contrary, he proceeded to ask Mr. Wall whether Santorum sees him fit to be a teacher. This question carries further consequences, as this program may be seen by the students of the American studies teacher and may lead to sensitive cases in the man’s professional career.
From a utilitarian point of view, the presenter is meant to speak the truth in order to help the broad audience have a grip on the situation, aiming for the greater good. As mentioned, Will did not only intend the truth, but his attack on the interviewee showed a different purpose. This makes his act unethical from a consequential perspective. On the other hand, from a deontological point of view, his aggressiveness and untruthfulness automatically stand against this moral theory as well.
There a possibility that this conflict’s roots lay in the preparations of the interview as each of the two men came with a different purpose, with a different topic to talk about. The guest came to the program to promote Nick Santorum for his views on the topic of abortion and for him as a character. On the other hand, the station has titled the interview “Santorum position on gay rights.” In all cases, McAvoy could have dealt with the truth with more respect, as in he could have taken into consideration that the man he is arguing has already taken his stand long ago, and is free to judge the candidate the way he sees fit.
References
420Rellik (2013, February 16). Will McAvoy’s Apology (The Newsroom) [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Jeff Parker (2012, August 5). The Newsroom Homosexuality [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uIpFWdFwY
Journalists, S. o. (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
