Should the media participate in protests?
The freedom to peacefully protest is a right that Americans have been practicing for centuries. Protesting is a public demonstration of objection that allows people to express their opinion in hopes to bring about change in their government, society or workplace.
However, as we all have observed, these protests are not always “peaceful” and can easily turn into a riot, if not handled with care. The use of technology has also provided more ways for Americans to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Social media users are able to “protest” by expressing their opinion on a matter through a tweet or post. The definition of protest remains the same. According to Google, a protest is “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.” However, technology has provided a multitude of outlets to display this disapproval.
In the recent months, the media has been under high pressure to fairly report on the protests concerning the newly elected president, Donald Trump. His executive orders concerning immigration have spurred many protests across the nation. I also do not predict these protests to cease, considering the controversial topics the president plans to address during his term. This poses an ethical dilemma to those involved in the media. Is it okay for practicing journalists to protest “Trump’s America”? How can those in the media industry practice their freedom of expression without being accused of biased reporting? These are questions that I will discuss throughout my blog, which will concern why the media should or should not protest.
The first step in the Potter Box is the definition of the situation at hand, or the details. I am analyzing if the act of publically protesting by those involved in the media is ethical. Their public protesting could be either through physical demonstration or through social media. Those involved in this case are reporters, journalists and broadcasters.
The second step in the Potter Box is where I will determine the values that those in the media refer to when considering whether or not to participate in a protest. The professional values that I believe the media would consider are human interest, public’s right to know and the concept of the media’s role as the “watchdog”. The moral values I believe they have when considering their role in public protests are self-control, commitment and truth telling. They are taught to have the value of self-control in almost every aspect of their career. The media is taught to report the news fairly and accurately, which means excluding their personal biases and opinions from the equation. However, one could argue that this is not the case for most news organizations, but that argument is for another time. Again, this also implies the socio-cultural value of restraint is one the media considers as well.
Next, I will apply the ethical principle of Kant’s Categorical Imperative to the situation. Kant’s Categorical Imperative states to “only act on that maxim whereby at the same time you can will to become universal law.” Therefore, when considering the media’s purpose, which is to inform the public on current events both accurately and fairly or as some say “to find the truth and report it”, it is clear that truth is vital to successfully achieve that purpose. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, certain actions are always right and certain actions are always wrong. One of the actions that is always right is truth telling, which supports why I have chosen this ethical principle.
The last step is to determine the loyalties the media has, or to whom their decision is owed. This step helps us evaluate to whom the media is loyal, and how a decision to participate or not will affect those loyalties. I believe the media’s loyalties are their duty to their news station, which is their organization, as well as their duty to society.
Finally, after going through each step of the Potter Box carefully, I am able to make a morally-justified decision concerning the media’s participation in protests based the ethical principle I have chose to adhere to and the loyalties I have chosen.
Although I personally support the freedom of expression that is displayed in a peaceful protest, I cannot morally-justify the media’s participation in public protest based on the Potter Box I just went through.
The media’s role in society is dependent upon their ability to tell the truth without personal biased. This is essential in a democratic society because it allows the people to construct their own opinions and beliefs about current events. A successful democracy requires a well informed and actively participating people within their government body.
Therefore, the media cannot risk reporting untruthfully and participating in a public protest typically allows for a reporters personal biased to be seen, which could so easily put their credibility as a “good reporter” in jeopardy.
However, the Poynter article provides many different ways that reporters and people within the media can express their personal opinions and thoughts in a healthy way. One of the examples Poynter gave was having weekly discussions over such controversial issues in a safe and neutral setting like a newsroom. This allows for those in the media to express their thoughts and opinions on politics freely without being scrutinized by the public or risk their credibility in the industry.
