Professionals working within the media occupation face ethical issues within their work environment. When such professions have the ability to explain any situation, the ethical values involved, principals involved, then they can make rational choices of what is good and bad (Moir 18). Using the guidelines that philosophers have suggested, professionals can make ethical choices that are justifiable morally. This essay is a focus on reaching an ethical decision in a media industry using the Potter box model. It analyses issues that emerge in making decisions in the corporate world; in particular, whether to print an interview carried out on an actor with remarks that are blunt. The case is interpreted using this model and a decision reached given at the end of the analysis.
In applying the potter’s box model to solve ethical dilemmas in the media industry, the situation involves an actor Brad Pitt who is invited to an interview for his upcoming film project. He arrives at the interview location and, though exhausted, answers the entire interview questions well until he is asked about his relationship with a film director whom he is working with. This director is a young female perhaps whom he is alleged to have a secret relationship with. Brad makes an honest comment about the question but his remarks are derogatory and unprofessional. Later after the interview, Brad’s agents call the media house demanding that the part of the interview with the blunt remarks is deleted from the final interview which is to be aired. The question here is the most rational ethical decision to take regarding this request. Air the interview unedited which, in this case, will hurt the actor’s personality and limit the access to interview the actor by the media house or edit the parts and save the actors public image and have unlimited access to him for interviews.
In the case of Brad and the media house, varied values are applicable. The media must respect the rights of its clients including Brad. He has a right to what his private life and what is printed or broadcast about him. The media house must also be fair in what is to be aired about personal lives of those it has secured interviews with. But on the other hand, the media must be a responsible corporate that must inform the citizens on all that they need to know about a person, situation or object it features. The media must retain highest standards of integrity as it pursues to remain in business. It must not display outside influence on what it chooses to air to the audience. The information it dispatches to the outside world must be accurate and for the benefit of all involved (Christian 12). Unfortunately, in all these duties by the media, there exist choices with both benefits and costs. Choosing to be truthful, the media will have limited access to the actor for future interviews and being honest will mean it retains its professional image
The ethical principles that are involved in the Brad’s case for making the ethical decisions include one that states that media must be honest and sincere to the public. They have a moral duty to truthfully reveal all information about the behavior of the actor (Master and Heresniak 51). This is Kant’s Categorical imperative that states that a right is a right and must be exercised even in the extremes conditions. Every part of the interview is a right of the public to get accurate information about Brad’s attitudes. Aristotle’s mean of finding a fair and reasonable agreement for a legitimate claim is also in view for both parties. The media house and Brad must negotiate for a compromise on either to air the contents of the interview on the light of the complications involved of image, trustworthiness and accuracy.
In making a decision regarding the ethical dilemma involving Brad and the professional in the media house, the following duties must be evaluated since they have a bearing on the final decision that is arrived at. Brad has a duty to his conscience. Before making any remarks, whether in his right status of mind or not, he must understand he is solely responsible for all his actions and thoughts. He can either own up to the mess he created, allow the interview to be aired as it is and then make a public apology for his remarks. A media professional has a duty to the media code of conduct. The codes of conduct state that such professionals must be honest, truthful, and fair and must have integrity in carrying out their duties. They must be loyal to the media organizations that they work for. The media house has a duty to its audience to ensure that the information they dispatch to the world is accurate and truthful. The audiences have a right to a story explicitly. It must not be selective so as to distort the real intent of the story. In this case, the media house has a duty to release the interview understanding the ramification such an action would cause either when it is edited or unedited.
Given all the issues discussed in this case, including the media values, ethical principles and loyalties of the various actors, Aristotle’s mean ethical principle best suits to solve the ethical dilemma posed. This principle states all the parties must find a common fairground through compromise. Brad and the media professional must be ready to cede ground and settle for a common legitimate claim (Guth and Marsh 45). This would mean that Brad’s interview is aired unedited with a view to providing the real attitude of actor to the public but also on the other hand, Brad should be given an opportunity to defend the sincerity of his remarks. This would mean another interview to counter the already aired interview or holding on the interview until such a time that they agree to air it in its entirety. Brad has a right to demand the interview to be unedited but he will be unable to run away from the duty he has to his conscience. He is naturally responsible to be truthful just as the media personality is (Christian 19). They have ethical principle to follow in respecting people and their attitude and granted the concerns, it would be best for the parties to negotiate a mean through airing the interview unedited with a follow up with a public apology on the same media.
In conclusion, considering all the ethical issues arising in this kind of a scenario, I would suggest that this interview be aired unedited and demand that the actor, Brad Pitt makes an apology to the public for his derogatory remarks he made during the interview. Despite the fact that the actor must have made the comments while he was not in the right status of the mind, the media company has a reputation to guard against outside influence and the public right to all information. To maintain a professional outlook and protect the image of the media house, it would take courage to exactly show the audience the whole interview, so the moral standing of the actors is displayed to the masses.
Work Cited
Christian. Media Ethics:Cases of Moral Reasoning. New York: Free Prsess, 1994 pp. 10-20
Guth, D. W., & Marsh. Public relations: A values-driven approach. Boston:Allyn & Bacon, 2013 pp. 30-50
Master, M. and E. J. Heresniak. Ethics at Work: The Disconnect in Ethics Training, Across the Board 39(5), pp. 51–52.
Moir, L. What do we mean by Corporate Social Responsibility? Corporate Governance 1,2. MCB University Press, 2001 pp. 16-22
