Truth Vs. Harm

In the extract of the HBO series The Newsroom we are looking at, the News presenter Will McAvoy, is interviewing, Sutton Wall, the assistant of electoral candidate Rick Santorum (Sorkin, Season 1 Episode 6: Bullies, 2012). In a previous episode, McAvoy confessed to his viewers that during their program they failed to report, or misreported, more than one news story in favor of gaining more ratings, but that they saw the error of their ways and will now only broadcast what will advance their goal of having a “well informed electorate”. (Sorkin, Season 1 Episode 3: The 112th Congress, 2012) In his promise, McAvoy announces that he will respect quite a few of the clauses stated within the code of ethics of professional journalists, including: “Report and disseminate truthful and relevant information, Promote causes beneficial to society, Educate and Inform, Protect interests and needs of society against abuse and Provide context for each news story” (Society of Professional Journalists, 2016). Going back to the interview we are discussing, McAvoy aggressively questions Wall in the name of all these values and in order to get to say “the truth” (Sorkin, Season 1 Episode 6: Bullies, 2012). Opinions vary when it comes to whether this interview was ethical or not. The main question being asked is whether Will McAvoy was right to insist on having the last word in his interview with Sutton Wall?

In my opinion, Will McAvoy broke many of the points stated in the code of ethics of professional journalism, the first being one he promised to uphold which is share his own opinion as well as informed opinions that are different from his (Sorkin, Season 1 Episode 3: The 112th Congress, 2012). By interrupting Wall at every turn and refusing to let him avoid a certain question, he stopped him from being able to voice his opinion. According the non-consequentialism theory of ethics, deontology, “What is important is not some goal, or the result, but protecting the process — the right to free speech” (Ward, 2011). Indeed, McAvoy’s goals behind this interview were that the electorate, in particular the homosexual and black communities among it, should know the truth of the candidate’s positions on them attaining their rights, as well as the reason that would make a man both black and gay such as Sutton Wall work for him. These goals could be considered just, but, the goal is not always what matters, how you reach it is as important. In the end, McAvoy did reach those goals. His viewers were clear on Rick Santorum’s position on homosexuality and knew that Wall believed that Santorum is the only one among that year’s candidates whose views on abortion are the same as his own. Not all people can agree on everything and in this case Wall and Santorum found themselves teaming up to defend a common cause regardless of their diverging views towards other causes.

In addition, McAvoy’s questions were seeped in prejudice based on things the former Senator said on camera or to the press, and left no room for Wall to give a diplomatic answer, and even when he tried to he was interrupted. McAvoy in a way imposed his opinion on viewers since the only thing he would let them hear from Wall was what he would let him say which was only what agreed with the image he wanted to give of the electoral candidate. This same action also breaks another clause of the code of ethics which states that a journalist should “Refrain from incitement of hatred, inflammatory speech” (Society of Professional Journalists, 2016). Indeed, McAvoy did not just incite a hate speech but gave one himself when he attacked Wall under the excuse that these were Santorum’s words. By doing so he even broke a third clause stating that a journalist should “Treat sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public with respect” (Society of Professional Journalists, 2016). In other words he abused a human being to achieve his end, which is another behavior non-consequentialists do not approve of (Ward, 2011). Simply because he does not understand or agree with Wall’s position in this election, does not give him the right to disrespect him.

Some people would agree with McAvoy’s position, saying that this could have been avoided if Wall was able to stop him, and was smart enough to not let him get under his skin. Moreover, a utilitarianism view of ethics agrees that what McAvoy is doing to this one man is benefitting millions of homosexual and black citizens all over the United States of America, so since this benefits more people than it harms McAvoy’s methods are justified (Ward, 2011). This opinion does possess a kernel of truth. However, Wall did indeed try to stop McAvoy by telling him that “this is a preposterous line of questioning” (Sorkin, Season 1 Episode 6: Bullies, 2012), yet McAvoy kept insisting on it, and in an attempt to move on from this topic Wall gave his interviewer the answer he wanted. The news anchor later on realized that he should have stopped right there since he got what he wanted from this interview, as previously stated. But this was not enough for Will McAvoy, he kept on attacking his interviewer till the man started yelling on live television. The shot of the black newsroom employee’s head snapping up at this attack shows that even though the attack was directed at Wall she was hurt by it regardless, one could assume that if she got hurt many of the viewers could have been as well. So McAvoy ended up harming the same people he had set out to benefit. At the end of his speech Sutton Wall had finally been able to equal the playing field. Viewers had gotten what was necessary to understand Wall’s position and were aware of the opinions of Santorum the way McAvoy wanted them to. Stopping here would have the program reflecting and promoting public debate on this matter, which is another thing on the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics (2016). Nevertheless, McAvoy insisted on having the last word. By asking that final question, the apparent goal of this interview shifted from McAvoy wanting to give his viewers the truth about presidential elections candidate Rick Santorum, to McAvoy simply wanting to prove that his opinions were right. That final goal is not one utilitarianism nor deontology, consider enough to justify attacking a man’s life choices, opinions and race on live television.

To sum up, Will McAvoy started his interview with a goal which was in line with the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics and the way he went about achieving it was defendable from a consequentialist point of view even if not from a non-consequential one. But after achieving this goal he kept going and by doing so, broke all the codes of ethics he vowed to uphold, and lost the justification utilitarianism first granted him. To answer the question asked at the beginning of this essay, no I do not believe Will McAvoy was right to insist on having the last word in his interview with Sutton Wall.

Ward, S. J. A. (2011). What is Ethics? from Ethics and The Media. Pages 40-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Related posts:

Groovy is an object oriented language based on Java platform. It is both a static and dynamic language. Iwerful, optionally typed and dynamic language, with static-typing and static compilation…