Truth Versus Harm

The Newsroom interview: the root of conflicting opinions — some agreeing with McAvoy’s approach and some referring to it as “demeaning”. It all depends on what form of ethics a person follows, whether a utilitarian or deontological approach (Ward, 2011). Even then, whether one agrees with a certain theory or not, where is the limit and how far it is pushed to prove a certain point? No matter how popular the internet has become, television still remains a force to be reckoned with (Couldry, 2012). So, was “embarrassing” Santorum on national TV ethical and justified?

There is not necessarily one right answer. Both sides can be taken into consideration and are proven to have valid points. McAvoy’s way could be defended with a utilitarian form of reasoning (depending on stance on social issues) and show how it helps underprivileged black LGBTQ+ individuals in the United States. Another way of taking it is with a deontological approach detesting the way McAvoy handled the situation and takes Santorum’s emotional well being into consideration.

McAvoy had good intentions and his actions were justified, but the interview could have been handled differently. Was it ethical on the grand scheme of things, though? Maybe. It has both ethical and unethical qualities. Santorum, a homosexual, black man is supporting an ultra right racist, homophobic candidate. Something is definitely off. If the interview had not addressed the very obvious elephant in the room, people would still have an issue. The obvious perpetuation of the stereotypical black submission to the white male is quite sick. Santorum has a platform and is obviously privileged. The candidate he supports would not have an impact on his life as much as the rest of the population. He knows he is safe — it is quite selfish. He is adding to the inherent racism and homophobia already present in the United States. He is fueling hatred. And what is even more mind boggling is the fact that he is part of both communities, already marginalized enough, and is bolstering up hatred towards them by supporting a bigoted racist homophobe. He knows he would not be affected as much as the millions of less fortunate citizens. McAvoy had every right call him out and as did the audience have every right to get an answer. The amount of harm caused to the greater population of black homosexuals in racist, homophobic America is huge. If a journalist chooses to ignore this topic on the basis of deontology and ‘not being ethical’, are they really being ethical by making millions of people suffer? No only black homosexuals would suffer. Homosexuals and black people in general would suffer — further increasing the population of people affected.

People would easily point fingers at McAvoy, and rightfully so because of his tone. However, everyone chooses to ignore the fact that Santorum also cracked over a very simple and valid question. As a gay, black man supporting a white heterosexual male who goes against Santorum as a person, he should have been prepared to defend his position. He only kept saying that he is respected as a person, but speeches by the candidate prove otherwise. So, is he really respected? He should have been prepared and his childish outburst proves Will’s point.

The question on whether or not McAvoy was ethical in his approach remains subjective. He had ethical intentions, but had unethical actions. McAvoy could have used a less pointed tone. It got to the point where he was basically taunting the interviewee and it looked like straight up bullying. He could have fixed his tone, remained calm and asked his questions. The tone of the person can greatly change the way a question is received. Even if Santorum gave similar answers, he would have still been able to get answer from him if he kept going, just with a gentler approach. With the last question, McAvoy’s point was proven completely. It was a nice addition, but seemed very petty. It was like he was not even trying to get an answer to his initial question, but wanted to “win” the “argument.”

In conclusion, Will was completely right in exposing what was going on and trying to get answers for the audience, but he could have definitely handled it in a completely different manner.

References:

Ward, S. J. A. (2011) Ethics and the Media. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Couldry, Nick (2012) Media, society, world: social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Related posts:

In the dark blue shades of the morning Before dawn, when all is quiet You slip into my mind in a dream so sublime It fills my heart with pure delight The comfort you bring is consequential. To the…

Most of us like the idea of being a generalist. Doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that keeps life interesting. But if your goal is to run a profitable business, figuring out your perfect…

In this fast-paced and highly stressed world, everyone plays many different roles in his or her daily life and has multiple ways of lives that he or she can choose. As far as I am concerned, I have…