Deceitful Writer - Ethics and Problems in Mass Communications
In 1979, Jeffrey MacDonald, a military doctor, was awakened by his wife’s voice screaming for his name. His version of the story was that he slept on the sofa that night, and four hippies under the influence came into his house and stabbed his two daughters and wife. His lungs were punctured from several stab wounds, but there was no blood evidence, or evidence of a struggle in the living room area where he was asleep. With countless inconsistencies and no witnesses: he was convicted. Until this day, MacDonald maintains his innocence. In prison, he hired journalist and author, Joe McGinniss to tell his side of the story. McGinniss worked side by side with the prisoner and even had access to case files during the investigation. In 1983, McGinnis published his book “Fatal Vision” without any anticipation or permission from MacDonald. To MacDonald’s surprise, the book stated that he was a “narcissistic sociopath.” MacDonald then sued McGinniss for fraud, claiming that he pretended to believe in his innocence only to gain access to information to publish his own story. Should journalists be allowed to “deceive” sources to find a “greater truth,” especially when that truth cannot be proven?
McGinniss relied on the authorities to arrive at his conclusion that MacDonald was, in fact, guilty. He followed the investigation closely. This was legal, but, was it ethical?
The question: “What’s your problem?” can be answered with the following question:
Should a journalist betray the trust of his source in order to reveal a greater truth?
Like the text mentions, most of the moral dilemmas are based on “right vs. right” situations. The journalist was convinced that the prisoner was guilty, so he wanted reveal to the public what he learned during his investigation of the case. But, the journalist was hired by the prisoner to write the story about his innocence, and not his guilt.
Why not follow the rules? McGinnis was not supposed to “use” his source for his own benefi t. This is not a behavior that the Codes of Ethics would approve, but McGinnis thought some of his values were in confl ict with each other, so he decided to choose only one of those values. McGinnis was fi ghting between his duty as a journalist to abide by the Codes of Ethics, and his personal beliefs about the prisoner, and the people who he thought deserved to know the truth. Instead of publishing a book without consulting my source, I would have followed the Rotary Four-way Test from the justifi cation model. First: Is it the truth? McGinnis had no way to confi rm that MacDonald had actually killed his two daughters, and his wife. Even the judge had trouble making this decision, and there was confusing evidence about this case, which allowed space for many mistakes during the investigation; plus, MacDonald had no history of violence. He was also accused of cheating on his wife with other women, but, infi delity doesn’t make you a cold blooded killer. I would have left space to give MacDonald the benefi t of the doubt, because some people show grief and sadness in different ways. McGinnis judged the prisoner’s distant and cold reaction to his family’s death. McGinnis was judging the prisoner by his character traits only. This goes back to the statement that: “our best judgements are based on our experiences, but what if our fi lters are different?” What if MacDonald had only one way to react to a tragedy, and crying was not his way? I would have answered the next question:
Is it fair to all concerned? I would assume that the only person McGinnis thought was inside the list of “concerned” was MacDonald. I would say that: “all concerned” includes MacDonald’s family and friends, the journalists’ family, and the wife’s family. I also assume McGinnis thought it was fair because he was convinced MacDonald is guilty. I would have kept my loyalty to myself, and understand the fact that I am not a judge, I am not God, so I cannot betray my source. If I was in McGinnis’ position, I would have expressed my opinion about MacDonald’s guilt, and quit my job as his writer in order to publish a book containing my analysis of his personality and the case files. The next question from the justification model asks if this will build good will and better friendships. I would say McGinnis believed it did. He probably perceived that he would be praised as a journalist, and as a finder of the truth. But I would say, that even if this brought me thousands of dollars for selling my book, I would feel as if I betrayed myself, and destroyed my friendship with myself. Then, will it be beneficial to all concerned? It was beneficial to McGinnis only, and to the people who enjoyed reading this story. It was also beneficial for the company who edited the book, but not for MacDonald. This makes me think if McGinniss was intending to reach “noble ends or self-serving ends.” I would think it was only about himself and that he stood at the lowest stages of moral development, only to receive a reward.
Who wins, who loses? I see no gain for MacDonald after this incident. I only see McGinniss making a lot of money out of his book, and people being entertained by a case that not even a judge can decide for certain. If you identify McGinniss loyalties, you would say that he was only loyal to himself in a selfish way, and did not respect his integrity. You can also say that he stands at the level that asks: “What’s in it for me?”
“Keeping your word is a matter of loyalty, while truth is a value that might conflict with loyalty.” Here, we see that McGinniss did not keep his word. Also, we find that James Carrey doesn't think that media should be a special class in society. So, why did McGinnis he get access to case files? This also proves that he was only thinking about himself.
At the lower level of moral development, we fear punishment, and want to receive rewards. At a higher level, our empathy grows. Empathy and loyalty would play a role in my decision to quit my job as MacDonald’s writer, let him know where I stand, and write the book on my own, without his help or access to case files.
If I were to follow Gilligan’s steps, her first stage concentrates on “caring solely about the self at expense of others.” McGinnis wanted the recognition, and the best seller. He did not consider stakeholders. I wouldn’t go to the extreme of self-sacrificing my opinion (supposing I thought MacDonald was guilty,) but to create a balance between what is fair to all involved, and fair to my convictions and career. The correct decisions might not always be in our best interest. I would have decided not to betray my source, because I want to be able to sleep at night, without thinking about how much harm I could bring to someone else. Even though my reaction would not be sentimental, because I would have probably disliked MacDonald, I would still react in an unsentimental way, and respect my profession by keeping my word. According to the text,
loyalty is a value, but considered separately from other values. Obligations to people are separately from our other values. “Keeping your word is a matter of loyalty, while truth is a value that might conflict with loyalty.” Also, “telling the truth means accurately reporting the facts, and may harm some of the people to whom we are loyal to.”
What’s it worth? Was the journalist telling the entire truth? Did he tell the audience how he got to his conclusion that McDonald was a “narcissistic sociopath?” What was his word to his source? According to the professor, understanding our values helps us understand what motivates our behaviors, and our values drive our behaviors. Some of our nonmoral values are personal independence, financial security, and friendship. In the media, or relating to this case, this would mean that McGinniss has to beat other newspapers or journalists, sell the
book, or gather a large audience to think like him. Moral values would be truth, fairness, freedom, or compassion. My values in this case would be truth and fairness. I would not be able to feel comfortable around myself knowing I did not tell the truth, to my source, and to the readers. Perhaps McGinniss was influenced by his environment, and the country where he grew up. Was his failure to keep his word to his source due to the fact that “Americans rank personal achievement higher than other countries?” Some values found in the media Codes of Ethics are:
Social responsibility; minimizing harm, accuracy, truth, honesty.
Freedom, avoiding conflicts of interest.
Tradition, conformity and security, being good citizens.
I don’t think McGiniss followed any of these guidelines when he decided to publish his book. Schwartz said that values com from people’s need to resolve two major conflicts. Conflicts between individual outcomes and social outcomes. I also want achievement and power, and they are very important to me, just like they were for McGinniss. But I would want to achieve power by “being” an ethical person, like Aristotle would say, and by telling the truth. In chapter seven of our text, the question asked is “what is truth?.” I would say that McGinniss used the coherence theory to identify the truth. I would have used the pragmatic and the correspondence theory. If I wrote a different book than the one I was hired to write, I would tell my employer, because it’s what corresponds. If my opinion is that he is a sociopath, I would quit my job, let it go, and move on to write on my own. Sissela Bok asks if there are alternative actions to resolve the dilemma without lying. I would argue that there is no need to go further than this step for McGinniss, because there was no need to deceive anyone. But this statement protects McGinniss' decision in a way: “Journalists may say that deceiving some people to tell a story that uncovers a greater evil is justified.” The problem for me is that it all goes back to the fact that McGinniss has no way of proving that Macdonald was guilty, especially because of how controversial this case was
with so much confusing evidence. I would always give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it’s what McGinniss was lacking, compassion. Maybe he should have used the veil of ignorance, to stand in MacDonald’s shoes and think for a second that he could be innocent.
It is clear that honoring privacy might mean compromising other values as well. My priority is to be fair, and to tell the truth. I would not compromise these values, and I would not allow my source let me into his life, hire me, trust me, and then betray him and myself in the process. I also think that this relates to the fact that there is a difference between “what the public has the right to know vs. what they may be interested to know” as a story. This story comes at the expense of someone’s privacy, and I would have respected that. Again, unless there was a “greater evil,” but there is none in my opinion, because I’m not a judge or God to say that MacDonald is evil.
Bok said that privacy is a protection from unwanted access by others, and McGinniss had access to MacDonald’s life, but only as a writer and employer. So this was a violation of privacy. I would consider this as a propaganda of my ability to tell a story, or as my ability as an investigative journalist, not as a way of revealing a greater truth.
One last thought: Is selective truth ethical? McGinnis’ information to the public was transparent, because he told the readers that he spent time with MacDonald, but it wasn’t ethical. Transparency is essential in my life in order for me to say that I respect myself.
Who’s whispering in your ear? Ethical dilemmas come up “when multiple duties compete.” The philosophies or set of moral principles that provide me with my moral compass are: William Frankena, Bernard Gert, but most importantly, Aristotle and Kant’s Imperatives.
Doing ethics is more than predicting the outcomes. And, according to Bentham, “utility based ethics focuses on the results, seek to do the most good or least harm possible in a situation.” This approach does not help me, because this case involves more than just the right and the good or minimizing harm, since there is only one person involved. William Frankena and his theory of obligations relates more to how I would react in this ethical dilemma. Aristotle considers virtue and character as key concepts in ethics. We should seek what is right and fair, and “be ethical.” I consider that keeping my word to someone is to be ethical, and it also means that I am not inflicting harm or evil.
We might think that we did the right thing whenever a favorable result occurs, this mimics the effects of “conditioning” in psychology. Meaning, McGinniss betrayed his source, and as a result, his book became a best seller. He probably did something unethical in the past, and his results where positive or profitable, so he thinks his decisions are ethical. But, what will do the greater good? or the best outcome for people? “A journalist prima facie duty to protect a source might compete with his duty to tell the whole truth,” only this time “the whole truth” involves the journalist violating someone’s privacy. I fell in love with Kant’s Imperatives and this is what mostly drive my decision making:
“Must be universal and apply to everyone, beyond our own personal desires. No excuses. If you're not willing to make whatever you decide, a universal law for everyone, then don't do it.”
How is your decision going to look? “What if the source then told some little lies to gain access to the stories you're working on?” I would want to maintain my integrity as a journalist because I want to become a trusted writer. I don’t think I can justify my lies just because they are acceptable to other people. McGiniss’ lies were justifi ed because they were accepted by the people who were persuaded by him. McGinnis used MacDonald’s character to persuade the audience that this was the revelation of a greater evil. Therefore, also using the pathos approach to appeal to people’s emotions. Emotions from people who wanted to read a tragic story. Credibility is important in journalism. Being accountable and transparent make you someone who is credible. I don’t think that McGinniss has any credibility even if he is the writer of a best seller. I would have decided to be transparent with everyone, and tell MacDonald that I wrote a book about his guilt. I would have provided justifi cations for my action to resign as his writer, this way I would feel that I am credible in the eyes of everyone who would want to hire me in the future.
References Black, J., & Roberts, C. (2011). Doing ethics in media: Theories and practical applications. New York: Routledge. Kelleher, T. (n.d.). Lectures. Retrieved from https://ufl.instructure.com/courses/342522/ modules THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER THE JOURNALIST-I. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/03/13/the-journalist-and- the-murderer-the-journalist-i
Comments