Running head: ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES Analyzing Ethical Dilemmas in Media Practices Mitch Land, Ph.D. School of Communication and the Arts Regent University 1 ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES 2 Analyzing Ethical Dilemmas in Media Practices Ethical or moral conflict arises when principles and values collide. For example, when covering a crime story such as the Boston Marathon bombing, a reporter must decide whether to name victims and take photos or videos of the dead and injured. Immediately, the principles of truth, liberty and humaneness must be considered. Will emotional and psychological harm be done to the families and victims if their injured or slain bodies are depicted graphically? Does the non-moral value of getting the story first or publishing prize-winning photographs of the tragedy – thus responding to the demands of truth and liberty – justify violating the principle of humaneness? That is, the reporter is compelled to present the facts to the readers and viewers and may argue from a First Amendment perspective that she not only has the obligation to present all the facts to her viewers, but she also has the freedom granted her by the First Amendment. Immediately, the reporter will realize that her editor or producer expects her to do her job; the newspaper or broadcast network, management and stockholders expect the same. Indeed, both the expectations of her readers or viewers and the economic welfare of the company compel her to consider all stakeholders. How does she make the best decision in such an ethical crisis? On what basis does she prioritize the competing principles/values and stakeholders? In both editions of our book, Contemporary Media Ethics, I discuss the Potter Box model named for its contributor, Ralph B. Potter, professor emeritus of social ethics at Harvard Divinity School.1 This model features four quadrants: 1). The empirical facts or definition of the situation, 2). theological perspectives, 3). Decisions or affirmation of basic loyalties and 4). Ralph B. Potter Jr., “The Logic of Moral Argument,” in Toward a Discipline of Social Ethics: Essays in Honor of Walter George Muelder, ed. Paul Deats Jr. (Boston: Boston University Press, 1972), 108–109; and Ralph B. Potter Jr., War and Moral Discourse (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1969), 23– 24. 1 ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES 3 Modes of ethical reasoning. Clifford Christians and his associates renamed and rearranged those four quadrants thusly: 1). situation definition, 2). values, 3). principles, and 4). loyalties and suggested that the Potter Box applied in this way could offer a framework for moral reasoning as decision makers work through an ethical dilemma.2 The basic idea is that the decision makers would focus on the essential facts, and then consider the principles and values that compete to create the ethical dilemma. Then, as they further examine the various stakeholders concerned in the situation, they would arrange the principles and values in order of priority as they consider the primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders (See Figures 1.1 and 1.2).3 As I taught students how to apply the revised Potter Box through the years, this vexing question often came up: “On what basis does one prioritize the principles and values, and then stakeholders?” Something seemed to be missing from this model. The model needed a philosophical base. Indeed, everyone makes decisions in life on the basis of a worldview, especially when it comes to moral choices. That worldview could alternate among a religious philosophy, a utilitarian framework, or in some cases, mere egoism. The Point-of-Decision Pyramid introduced a philosophical foundation to the model. Imagine taking the Potter Box diagram at its midpoint and pulling it up into a three-dimensional structure with a foundation (See Figure 1.3).4 Rather than four panels, this three-sided pyramid model assumes that principles and values can be considered within one panel. The principles we applied in the second edition are the following: 2 Clifford G. Christians et al., Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, 9th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2012), 3–7. 3 Mitchell Land, Koji Fuse and Bill W. Hornaday, eds., Contemporary Media Ethics: A practical guide for students, scholars, professionals in a globalized world,” 2nd Edition. (Spokane, Wash.: Marquette Books, 2014), 37. Potter Box adapted from Christians, et. al, Media Ethics: Cases in Moral Reasoning, 9th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2012), 3-7. 4 Mitchell Land, Koji Fuse and Bill W. Hornaday, eds., Contemporary Media Ethics: A practical guide for students, scholars, professionals in a globalized world,” 2nd Edition. (Spokane, Wash.: Marquette Books, 2014), 38-39. ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES 4 truth, humaneness, justice, freedom, stewardship, harmony and diversity. Principles provide the guideposts for what is right and wrong; values can be thought of as ”principles applied,” because they define what is good and bad. I like to view values as principles in action. It’s also imperative for media practitioners especially to distinguish between moral and non-moral values. In other words, the professional values of getting a story first, interviewing the most authoritative sources, publishing compelling images and making profit are non-moral values. They’re important to guide professional journalism practices, but the journalist must be careful not to allow non-moral values to trump moral values. The Point-of-Decision Pyramid Model applied should begin with the decision maker’s worldview—or the philosophic framework that will inform the analysis as he or she reasons from the case facts through the prioritization of principles/values and then to the stakeholders. In addition to demonstrating utilitarian, communitarian and non-western philosophical frameworks as foundations for moral reasoning, we must remind students, professionals and educators of the importance of the Christian worldview as the most appropriate philosophical framework for analysis. The decision maker should then move from one panel to the next to make the most informed decision possible. It’s worth citing this process verbatim from the text: First, the case facts give rise to the ethical dilemma by cutting through extraneous details to expose the raw nerve of moral crisis. The gradual exposure of essential facts helps reveal the angst of conflicting moral principles and values. This leads to the second step, the relationship of principles in terms of stakeholders and loyalties. By moving back and forth from the stakeholder panel to the principles ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES panel—all while constantly considering case facts in the first triangular panel—the competing principles and values become more apparent. The second triangular panel should list, in order of priority, the principles that emerge from elaboration on the essential facts and careful consideration of the stakeholders. Because of their interchangeability, principles and values are contemplated in the same triangular panel. The third triangular panel addresses stakeholders and should list, again in rank-order, the prioritization of stakeholders in light of competing rights, claims, and loyalties as facts and competing principles and values in the case become obvious. Indeed, the initial prioritization of principles in the second panel may require re-evaluation as the analyst poses the following questions when considering stakeholders: (1) Who has the most to gain and who has the least to gain as we move toward the point of decision? (2) Conversely, who has the most and least to lose? The third triangular panel addresses stakeholders and should list, again in rank-order, the prioritization of stakeholders in light of competing rights, claims squarely situated on the foundation of a selected moral philosophy, we spiral upward through the prioritized elements of our triangular panels to the point of moral decision. The goal is to build an ethical structure that will stand after the storm of crisis has passed.5 5 Ibid., 38-40 5 Running head: ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES 6 Running head: ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN MEDIA PRACTICES 7