[Media Ethics] Truth vs Harm
THE NEWSROOM SERIES — HBO
J udgment is a decision or opinion about someone or something that you form after thinking carefully (Cambridge Dictionary). People’s judgment of an ethical case differs for they tend to share different perspectives according to their viewpoints, experiences and internalized values. In the 2012 HBO series “The Newsroom”, the 6th episode “Bullies” features a highly controversial scene between a newsroom presenter and a candidate’s representative.The newscast presenter, McAvoy, is questioning the representative, Sutton Wall, an openly gay man supportive of gay marriage, about his support to his homophobic candidate. The ethical aspect of this case could be observed from a non-consequentalist and from a consequentialist point of view.
While Wall wanted to discuss his candidate’s stand against abortion, the presenter redirects the question to what seems to be his only aim from the interview: the candidate’s homophobia. McAvoy, the presenter was constantly cutting Wall because instead of answering the question directly by either explaining why LGBT-rights and these people’s dignity is not a priority for him, Wall was constantly turning around with his answers and getting back to subjects that he would like to tackle in front of the mass audience like abortion. He was simply disregarding the topic by saying that he doesn’t have to agree with his candidate about everything. However, the newscast presenter couldn’t let him lead the narrative and was constantly getting back to the initial topic. Wall’s behavior triggers the presenter who adopts a more brutal and unprofessional strategy. Wall prioritizes his own public image and dignity over the core value of non-discrimination that he believes in. Representing a homophobic candidate being a homosexual himself didn’t seem to bother him as long as his candidate was respecting him which reveals his hypocrisy. In the end, the representative decided to alienate himself from both the black and gay community in order to stop being a symbolic target for the presenter. The harm is clear in this scene. Even the crew in the control room had realized the untolerable tension at some point. Deontology is a non consequentialist ethical behavior is grounded in moral duties, even if they produce negative outcomes for some. According to our observation, this act was ultimately unethical from this perspective. However, it could be utilitarian if it brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, even if that involves actions that are in themselves unethical. Then, was McAvoy’s goal really worth the harm produced?
At first we can see that he isn’t informing the audience as much as he wants to alert them. Everyone knew that Santorum, the canditate, was homophobic. However, the presenter here is trying to convince the audience that regardless of the cause that a homophobic candidate might invest in, like fighting abortion in this case, his discrimination shouldn’t be tolerated. In this interview, McAvoy isn’t fighting for the truth that he promises to stay truthful to in Episode 3 of the same season in which he denounces paid newscast advertisement. Instead, he’s working on the conviction of the audience. However, this isn’t a personal call as much as it is a representation of the oppressed people’s voice. He starts by taking the role of the oppressed and giving the representative the dominant role by confronting him with arguments that dis-validade his candidate’s attack on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. In this situation, the presenter seemed as touched as the homosexuals and his words were authentic and empathetic. When the presenter realized that Mr Wall shared his same views towards sexual freedom but was still attached to voting for Santorum, he decides to place Wall in the oppressed position and started giving him a sense of what homophobia could have felt like if he wasn’t privileged enough to be respected by the candidate. Although it was unprofessional to attack the guest and cause emotional distress which led him to shout in the end, the presenter had an important message to transfer and the representative should assume his position and take responsibility for his choices. The last question that Wall asked is what made the whole difference and proved that regardless of how important and respected you could be, being homosexual will directly make you less human and not in position to be a teacher for the candidate. As we can see, till that point, the interview seemed beneficial to the audience as it was revealing the outrageous nature of homophobia, but did it continue in the same sense?
There are three elements that made McAvoy’s strategy fail regardless of his powerful tools: First, referring to a sensitive topic like racism and accusing an African-American man to be working “with the racist”. Second, his disregard for the ethical separation between a guest’s personal and professional life. The representative’s sexuality is part of his personal life. However, his support for gay marriage isn’t. While the representative could have attacked Wall for accepting to be classified as “disgusting” by his candidate for supporting gay marriage, he could have still maintained the same arguments but minimized the harm. Even the last question could have been structured using the 3rd person: “Does Mr Santorum believe that a homosexual person can be a teacher?”. Third, not allowing the guest to continue his sentences regardless of how relevant they were to the topic or repugnant. That act is considered unethical within the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” (SPJ, 2016). Seeing the presenter not allowing the guest to speak automatically disvalidated the presenter’s positive intensions and shed light on his non-respectful one-man-show technique.
“What is important is not some goal, or the result, but protecting the process — the right to free speech”
(Ward, 2011)
McAvoy performed a very brutal interrogation on his guest in order to prove that homophobia is a serious issue that shouldn’t be disregarded. Despite of the discomfort and emotional distress that he had causes and the case being classified as unethical for non-consequentialists, his technique could have still be considered beneficial for the majority considering the importance of his message and the serious position of his guest as the representative of a candidate. However, his unprofessional enthusiasm made him commit three great mistakes that made the audience lose their interest for his topic and focus on the brutality of his behavior.
References
Harland, K. (2008, June 16). Practicing compassion in an unbiased journalism. Retrieved from https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2008/06/16/practicing-compassion-in-an-unbiased-journalism/
Sorkin, A. (Director). (2012). HBO. The Newsroom. Season 1 Episode 3: The 112th Congress. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Sorkin, A. (Director). (2012). HBO. The Newsroom. Season 1 Episode 6: Bullies. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uIpFWdFwY
Society of Professional Journalists. (2016, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Ward, S. (2011).Ethics and the Media: An Introduction (Cambridge Applied Ethics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977800
