Will McAvoy versus Ethical Journalism

Truth. Impartiality. Humanity. Accuracy. These principles are four of the core fundamentals of ethical journalism. They are not debatable or negotiable. Taking that into consideration when analyzing whether or not Will McAvoy is an ethical journalist, the ethical decision making process may begin.

Will McAvoy, a supposedly considered ethical journalist, promised his crowd that his newsroom will ensure a well-informed electorate because nothing is more important than that in a democracy. His promises, if applied, guarantee an extremely credible, trustworthy, and non-biased newsroom. However, the implementation of McAvoy’s promises was rather different. This was encoded in his interview with Sutton Wall, a black, homosexual, teacher and deputy chief of the Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who is oddly, a homophobic and racist man. Wall works for a senator that labels gay men as ‘disgusting’ and considers gay marriage a threat to his own marriage and any other heterosexual one. In this interview, McAvoy did most of the talking, asked the most rhetorical questions, and did not give Wall the chance to explain his point of view until the latter’s patience reached its peek, and thus he clarified himself very bluntly. Yet, even when Wall stood up for his dignity, clarifying that Will should not dare to judge a human being based on his sexual orientation and the color of his skin, McAvoy still wanted to bring him down and asked a final question about whether or not Santorum believes in Wall’s capability to teach.The answer was no. This ‘no’ lead Will McAvoy to his goal of winning the argument.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), McAvoy, like any other journalist, has a duty and obligation to abide by the their code of ethics, one of which states that a journalist should be cautious when making promises and has to certainly keep his/her promises when said (SPJ, 2014). But, did McAvoy’s actions correspond to his duties? Did he really benefit anyone in his conflict with Wall?

From a conventionalized perspective, according to Ward (2011), “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” (pg. 38). Thus, in this case, and digging more deeply into the interview, did it really serve anyone’s interests? Did benefit any of the electorates with any well-informed news as promised by McAvoy himself? From this point of view, it did not deliver any useful information. It did not benefit much people except for benefiting firstly and mostly, Will McAvoy, the argument winner. It was of his own interest and eagerness to win over Wall. The interview turned into a conflict between a journalist who wants to prove himself right in front of all the audience.

Yet, non-consequentialists clarify that ends do not justify the means and human beings shall not be abused in any way to achieve a higher end (Ward, 2011). Therefore, McAvoy, from an deontologist’s analysis, is unethical. He attacked Wall, disregarding all values, morals, and codes of ethical journalism and aspiring to reaching his higher end (winning the argument). He was rude in insulting Wall, did not abide by SPJ’s code of ethics, and maltreated his interviewee.

From a “virtuous” perspective, Will McAvoy was not ethical at all. He completely neglected and disregarded the moral character within him, and thus, his ethical character. Instead of finding an ideal balance or “golden mean”, he was rather driven by his own thoughts and personal arguments/opinions.

When we compare all three theories, take into consideration all circumstances, and analyze the benefits and harms of the situation, all the approaches agree that Will McAvoy is completely unethical. He disobeyed the moral contract he has with the media and with society as a whole. He also infringed the contract he was with his ethical journalistic self (virtually speaking).

In conclusion, the whole interview was an unnecessary conflict that shouldn’t have been aired for three main reasons. Firstly, the interviewee should not, under any circumstance, be manhandled and abused. Secondly, McAvoy broke his promise of turning the newsroom into a highly-standardized, credible one, and thus, he disobeyed one of SPJ’s code of ethics. The third reason is that Will McAvoy’s actions cannot be justified in any way. Did he serve any useful information for the electorate? Did he benefit a part of society? Did he abide by the journalist’s code of ethics? Did he even keep his promises? The answer to all of these questions is NO. Will McAvoy was not ethical, and all theories see him as such.

References:

Related posts:

Developer of investment services Dmitry Orlov became an advisor of Serenity Financial. Serenity Financial has a new advisor! Dmitry Orlov has joined the project supporters..

I thought it would be a fun project to create a bike wine route of Bosnia. The official wine route website lists the locations but has no route. It’s not very user friendly, plus the Mapquest OSM…

Have you ever considered how document handling and processing can impact your business and the effect this can have on an employee’s average working day? If you’ve ever lost important documents, you…