McAvoy’s Case: The Dilemma of Truth Vs. Harm
In a highly commercialized and competitive news-cycle, the Atlantis Cable News anchor Will McAvoy and his team gave out a promise to their audience. Speaking in the name of Atlantis Cable News, McAvoy assured that they will commit themselves to reinstate truth, integrity and honesty in their news. “We’ll be the champions of facts, and the mortal enemy of innuendo, speculation, hyperbole and nonsense,” announced McAvoy. Then one day, Will McAvoy interviewed Sutton Wall, a black homosexual man who works as a teacher and is a former deputy chief of staff of Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who is known for his racist and homophobe ideology. McAvoy’s insolence during the interview depicts a dilemma of truth versus harm in context. In the name of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, aggression lies at a very critical point. There is a danger that arguments for the greater good will justify doing harm to some people (Ward, n.d.).
One of the core obligations in journalism is seeking the truth, but that doesn’t mean that it is the only core obligation, respect is another key concept in journalism. The SPJ code of ethics declares that journalists should balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Journalists should respect and tolerate their subject’s perspective despite its controversy or contradiction to what they believe is right. If a journalist challenges and demoralizes the loyalty of individuals towards others, even if they appear implausible or politically motivated great harm would be caused. First, the journalist would lose his credibility by looking subjective and intolerable of other opinions. Second, he would be invading the freedom of choice, and as he disrespects people’s opinion they will in return disrespect his opinion because after all how do we know what’s fundamentally right? If the journalist truly believes that he/she is right he/she should try to influence the public’s opinion by reason and evidence, not by attacking the subject matter. What McAvoy did is attack his interviewee, hinder his attempts of explanation and refute hurtful stereotypes on him in rage and fury. So what if Sutton supported Santrom? The two might have different perspectives, and McAvoy might have the better version of this perspective but that doesn’t make Sutton iniquitous for holding a different opinion. The Consequentialists might say that this act is ethical because McAvoy has a duty towards the bigger mass rather than the interviewee, but why do we have to choose? Why can’t McAvoy own his duty towards his individual conscious, his promise to the audience, the interview partner, and the obligation towards society at large all together?
At some point we can’t say that McAvoy was fundamentally wrong or didn’t serve the purpose of his job. According to Consequentialists, the right thing to do is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, even if that involves actions that are in themselves unethical (Ward, 2011). Thus, according the consequentialist theory McAvoy was reporting and disseminating truthful and relevant information. He was simply stating Sentrum’s racist beliefs that reject two important groups of people in the society, those of color, and homosexual individuals, in attempt to promote causes beneficial to society. In their defense, McAvoy was educating and informing the public to enhance their capacity for critical judgment. This theory would also argue that although the approach that McAvoy used was rude, but do we really have to be nice at all times? If the message we are trying to deliver is crucial for the people of the country, and if we might save the country from a potential racist, homophobe president should we avoid debating the issue to look after someone’s feelings?
The non-consequentialists on the other hand would argue that ethical behaviors are grounded in basic rights and moral duties, even if they produce negative outcomes for some (Ward, 2011). According to them, no human being should be used or abused to reach a higher-end, and that is exactly what McAvoy did to Wall. McAvoy didn’t value fairness, he wasn’t fair with Wall, he kept on interrupting him when he tried to explain himself. Moreover, McAvoy didn’t value freedom as well, since he undermined Wall’s freedom of speech. Fairness and Freedom are two main aspects that the non-consequentialist value most and that McAvoy undermined. On the other hand they also value truth, which McAvoy tried to achieve, but in a hurtful and unbalanced manner.
Therefor you can believe that McAvoy’s behavior was ethical or unethical depending on the school you follow. However, in my opinion, McAvoy caused harm in seeking the truth, he violated some standards of the ethical code. One of them was that he didn’t treat his source with respect, however he reduced him to the color of his skin and his sexual orientation, and reinforced how Sentrum thinks black and homosexual people are disgusting and less than men. This didn’t just humiliate Wall, but also every other black or homosexual person watching the news, which means that he also didn’t meet another code of ethics which is showing compassion for those who may be affected by the news coverage. Moreover, McAvoy lost credibility when he disrespected Wall and attacked his opinion, considering respect and tolerance are two core principles in journalism. He also psychologically harmed his interviewee and caused him to lose his job and used him as a tool to send a harsh message considering Wall met the double standards of Sentrum’s stereotypical approach. If the man being interviewed was Santorum, perhaps McAvoy’s overreaction might have been more justifiable. A journalist must be able to balance between his subjectivity to the matter and his quest for revealing the truth. McAvoy shouldn’t have tackled this matter in such subjectivity. Forcing his perspective on Wall reveals a sign of weakness and exposes his ineffectual communication skills, which makes him less credible as a journalist who vowed to depict his show in the up most professionalism. AJA code of ethics doesn’t allow journalists to emphasize on race, gender, sexuality, etc. (Pressure on journalists, n.d.). As a professional he should be aware that the subject of sexuality and race is a sensitive one and should be approached differently. He should’ve at least gave Wall some space to defend himself, eventually he did but only after Wall asked him to shut up.
References:
Couldry, N. (2013). Why Media Ethics Still Matters. In S. J. Ward, Global Media Ethics, Malden, MA; Oxford and Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell., pp. 13–27;
Ward (2011) ‘What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 38;
Ward, S. (n.d.). Ethics and the media: an Introduction.
