Cross Your Heart...and Hope They Lie...

                                      (source) 

There are many people in this world who believe it is their civic duty to take the world by storm and drop a bombshell of information in the name of “doing what is right.” Daniel Ellsberg is responsible for the release of the Pentagon Papers, which is one of the biggest leaks of U.S. government secrets. He was quoted in saying “It’s not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It’s that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret.” The funny thing is that it is hard to say secrets exist once someone else knows “private” information. It is also up in the air as to whether or not anything can or should be said.

Half the fun and drama in the ABC Family hit show Pretty Little Liars is knowing the numerous secrets each character is keeping from the other. The show (in the briefest description of an intricate show possible) revolves around four friends with their own set of issues and secrets they’d rather no one know. Their mutual friend, Alison, always seemed to have her nose where it didn’t belong and knew more information about each of them than any of them had hoped. She used this information to manipulate people and get things she needed or wanted threatening to expose people for who they were and what they had done. Alison inexplicably goes missing and the friends are harassed with messages peppered with information that only Alison ever knew.  The girls set out to find out who this is, why they’re doing it, how they know so much information and what they did with Alison and why. The show is based on secrets and how they usually tear people apart before ever bringing them together. It shows how secrets can be used for people, against people, to hurt innocent victims and expose truths that maybe were better off unspoken.

Secrets like this happen in real life as well. In the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton engaged in an extramarital affair with White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky. No actual, legal crime had been committed as they were two consenting adults. But a question of morals was evident as the President was seemingly happily married to his First Lady, Hillary. He had broken his vows and engaged in a physical relationship with another woman; another woman who decided to tell a “friend”. This friend, Linda Tripp, was not going to let this issue be swept under the rug. She had valuable information she felt the government and public should know.

She began recording phone calls between herself and Lewinsky. Through conversations, she found out Lewinsky had signed a false affidavit stating denial of any relationship with the president, that Lewinsky had a dress soiled with Clinton’s DNA, and that she had committed perjury in investigations concerning the President sexually harassing other female government employees. While pretending to be a “friend,” Tripp was using this information to take down the President and his administration. It had been reported that Tripp was worried the Clinton Administration was looking to get rid of her and she needed her own protection, and/or a way to make money.

                                                    (source)

This case is particular interesting as it rests on the credibility of one of the most public figures in the entire world. An extramarital affair did not break any laws; and his ability to be President, up until the story was exposed, was relatively unaffected by any information circulating about his personal life. He had maintained high approval ratings from the public, which spoke volumes about the trust given to help with issues foreign and domestic. Linda Tripp could have very well let this information go and allowed the President to carry on and perform his duties, even those behind closed doors.

It is hard to know if Tripp hadn’t exposed the truth that no one else would have come forward. In a hypothetical sense, anything is possible. Alan Rusbridger quoted Max Frankel (who oversaw the defense of the New York Times) who wrote a memo about the ethical use of leaked information. He said, “My view has almost always been that information which wants to get out will out.” On one hand, Linda Tripp could have done anything or nothing with this information. But the bigger question to ask is why did Monica Lewinsky let this information fall on unsafe ears?

                                                                                (source)

A different perspective is that of the President. After vehement denial, the proof became too solid to ignore. President Clinton could have admitted his own wrongdoings when initially approached. He could have owned up to his actions, or even lied more carefully to cover his tracks. It was only when the pressure became too much that he decided to admit that while he had been “legally accurate” in answering any and all questions, he did not volunteer certain information that gave the whole truth.

This was a heavy secret for Linda Tripp to keep herself. A public family, the nation and the world rested on this secret. If I had to put myself in her shoes, I would have to question my own motives in wanting the world to know this. Would I want to expose the President for being a lying, cheating scumbag proving to the world he was not worthy of one of the highest honors attainable? Or would I want the world to know so that I could financially benefit off of the anguish of others? How would this impact his family - Hillary and Chelsea Clinton? Would movie and book deals come my way? Would I have to legally fight to give the rights away to this story? I must admit that I am a fan of scandal and made-for-TV biopics, but I think mostly the nation needed to know its leader was not holding to his oath of office or his marital promises. It had to have been incredibly hard for the Clintons as a family to deal with something so mortifying while the world looked at them under a microscope, but this was a secret that was only going to be halted in its tracks if someone forced it that way.

                                                     (source)

Of course, in the 90s, exposing secrets was a completely different ball game than it is today. The three-sided coin of this story, Bill Clinton’s side, Monica Lewinsky’s side and Linda Tripp’s version, all had to be deciphered individually through different messages given to the public. All messages given to different news outlets with different biases and different motives. There was little room for social reaction on the level it is today with social media and its instant access to information. On top of worrying about public reaction to the scandal itself, I would have to worry about my own reputation. And I am not at all sure which Saturday Night Live actor/actress/guest star would play me in the satires of this salacious story.

John Goodman as Linda Tripp SNL

Linda Tripp attempted to take it in stride. It is hard to watch yourself be made into a fool on a show like Saturday Night Live, and be ridiculed not only for what secrets were exposed, but as a human being as well. Tripp's appearance was the prod of many jokes and her looks after having plastic surgery were poked at as well.

As a media professional with a story this high profile, it is hard to say if there is a way to NOT be entangled in the story. I myself may become part of the story just like Linda Tripp did. I think a job that revolves around scandal, is an inevitable fate. It must be taken with the territory. It can make or break a career...and a life...

                                                  (source)

Whether it’s a dramatized series, or a real-life drama, everything has different sides to weigh in on. In Alison's case in Pretty Little Liars, she may have considered keeping her mouth shut and nose out of other people's business and perhaps she wouldn't be "dead" (SPOILER ALERT: she's not actually dead). Her friends could have been less afraid of her and helped delve into why she acted the way she did and found out who/what she needed protection from before any of the mess even began. The story is still moving and is anyone's game at this point. Without the secrets and betrayal, there would be no story.

                                                (source)

In the case of Linda Tripp, honesty and betrayal go hand-in-hand. She could have easily forgotten any of the President’s scandal had ever happened, she could have made things worse for herself and others by blackmailing them to reveal their own information, or she could have done exactly what she did, which was open up about everything she knew happening behind closed doors. Monica Lewinsky could have salvaged enough self-respect to keep from being “the other woman,” she could have confessed and signed a true affidavit citing her relationship with President Clinton, she could have continued her affair and never told anyone, she could have confessed to Hillary Clinton alone, or she could have exposed Bill Clinton as a monster and played herself off as a victim. The President himself could have upheld his marriage vows, could have been forthright with information when pressed for it, could have completely lied about the affair all together or could have come up with a better strategy that would have kept him from getting impeached. Whatever x, y or z combination that could have come from this all falls back to Frankel’s words that information that wants to come out, will come out. And come out it did.

                                                      (source)

Maybe YOU'RE the Bunghole...

Understanding what is right and what is wrong is a difficult concept. A majority of the time, we need an example of one to understand the other. Understanding what is, many times comes down to knowing what isn’t. Behavior, actions, ideas and concepts are often never regarded or praised when they are right. Society as a whole is only quick to jump on what is wrong. Many base their own actions off that which they see others doing. Having someone or something to point the blame at suddenly seems to justify the actions of others. Even as adults, many like to pose the almost childish question to society of “well, he did it, so why can’t I?”

Creator Mike Judge made the show, Beavis and Butthead based off teen awkwardness and angst merely for entertainment purposes. He wanted to rattle the cages of the politically correct and give viewers some dumbed-down humor to laugh at. Quickly, illegal activity, immature catchphrases and wheezy laughing became a societal joke. Unfortunately for some, the joke was on them.

Aaron Messner was only five years old in 1993 when he set fire to his trailer, ending the life of his two-year old-sister. Authorities later came to find out that the two cartoon ne’er-do-wells, Beavis and Butthead, inspired his antics. This was the first case in a long-line of pranks that were blamed on the Viacom top-rated show. MTV denied any causal links between these instances, but worked with the network and media backlash to help prevent future occurrences (or perhaps, future accusations).

This particular case study is an excellent example of Communitarianism in ethics. This code focuses on the actions of society on the individual and vice versa. There is a back-and-forth of how individuals’ actions affect society and how society can in turn affect other individuals. Communitarianism seems to place a high importance on society looking out for its own. Ensuring we give all people the resources and influence necessary to become and remain upstanding citizens lies within the citizens themselves. In the case of Beavis and Butthead vs. the riff-raff of America, two two-dimensional and animated individuals seemingly “caused” multiple house fires, the killing of a cat and a bowling ball falling off an overpass onto a moving car below. The people who committed these actions pointed the finger at a show saying that it was good enough for them, so why couldn’t they do it too?

Who in the community is to blame is a question that may never be answered. Should the community over the guilty individual receive some punishment because of external influence, is a tough question as well. In this particular case, Mike Judge the creator did not tell these people to light the matches or throw the bowling ball. Viacom did not condone people committing violent acts against each other either. But before these incidents occurred, the media company did not put any disclaimer on the show discouraging these actions either. Neither Beavis nor Butthead had a moral compass to guide them, and apparently these viewers didn’t either.

Lawrence Kohlberg mixes ethics of justice with stages of moral development. As we grow up, we exhibit certain levels of reasoning. Children often act out of self-interest and need adults to teach obedience and consequence in order for these moral lessons to stick. We all grow into conventional levels of reasoning and understanding to shape how we view our actions and society around us. It then comes to a point where we must realize how we as individuals are a part of, as well as mutually exclusive from, society all together. In Aaron Messner’s case, he may have been old enough to understand his actions may hurt people, but not old enough to understand that until after it was too late. Can we blame little five-year-old? Should we be asking where his parents were during the viewing of Beavis and Butthead? Is it more, or less, important to ask where they were when he was in possession of something to cause a fire? Was there really a fault on MTV’s part for allowing the show to come on during a time a five year old is potentially watching TV around 7:30 in the evening? Who ultimately lacked the levels of proper reasoning? Anyone can answer this question with his or her own opinion, myself included. But it will never be more than opinion; it will never become a fact or an absolute.

Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is an interesting take on this case as well. Kant attempts to see if there are in fact any absolutes in morality and ethics. We can cheat on a test even if we know it is wrong, or we can simply not cheat at all. Our autonomy allows us to make choices even if they are perhaps not in a particular party’s best interest. Anyone has the ability and free will to throw a bowling ball over the side of a bridge onto a moving car. But should that person feel bad for doing it at all, or only because the life an infant was taken as a consequence of this person’s actions? Can we more-so blame the driver of the car for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or swerving the car causing the death of a baby passenger? These questions fall under the idea of determinism: A caused B, which resulted in C making A true because of C. With this, you can also argue that will does not have total causal power and that an outside influence has to have caused this causal chain. Would this person never have had the idea to throw a bowling ball had they not seen the show? Or is it simply easier to blame Beavis and Butthead?

It may be hard to say what is most helpful in answering any of these questions. My own personal moral compass has been oriented to point directly at myself as the cause and blame for my own actions. It is hard to remain unbiased in this case in allowing the idea that external forces are to blame for ridiculousness rather than the free will and reasoning to understand the consequences of these actions.  However, breaking down the different codes of ethics and understanding where someone may get these ideas and notions is an interesting way to broaden the horizons of decision-making. There are always two sides to every coin, but which side it lands on can make a world of difference.

**all images are active links from their source**

Taking Your Word For It

Even from a young age, the idea of wanting to trust and being skeptical is ingrained in our minds. Watching Reading Rainbow as a child always ended with children talking about and suggesting their favorite books to viewers. However, each critique always ended with "But don't take MY word for it..." 

(Source)

In today’s age, we tend to see humans and humanity as two very different and yet similar ideas. Upon meeting someone, we like to give people the benefit of the doubt. What they say about who they are, where they come from and what their opinions are becomes the basis for how we understand human behavior as a whole. Collectively, we are all quick to judge that society as a whole, or even no one in particular, has something up their sleeve and perhaps a hidden agenda that only works for their own benefit. Media is often seen as a mix of faceless corporation and the faces of leaders, spokespeople and journalists. The ideas of who or what can be trusted are blurred and confusing lines.

If I lived in my own fantasy world, my dream job would be sitting in the comforts of my own home being a blogging critic. I would love nothing more than to add some comedy, sarcasm and pithy text to my opinions on news, products, ideas, television shows, and businesses to be regarded so highly that I could make a living off blogging about them. However, with opinions comes skepticism. Deni Elliott wrote in An Introduction to Ethical Decision Making how media myths can fog a consumer’s view of ideas giving reasoning behind why all opinions are NOT all equally valid, that coming up with a right answer to an ethical issue is nearly impossible and that self-interest almost always trumps the idea of ethics. Readers would often wonder how much they can trust my opinion as a consumer that they have never met. They would question whether or not I was perhaps paid by the company to give them a good review. If too many negative opinions are given in a row, my (fictitious) blog could be seen as the place where products and shows go to get slammed and burned forcing a company to decide whether or not to take action. Bias is a fine-line and readers would become less interested in a person, or me, if they felt they have less in common with what is presented to them.

In the second chapter of Media Ethics by Patrick Plaisance, he quotes Milton Rokeach in saying that ethics is a “particular mode of conduct or that a particular end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conduct or end-states of existence.” On an individual basis, we want to believe that people are telling us the truth. We see their face and they are looking us in the eye and we have little choice but to put faith in their words and believe them. When these faces or groups become a third-party mix of capitalism and greed, it is harder to give as freely of this faith.  Plaisance also says “which argument you endorse will largely depend on which values you feel should be given greater weight in this case and the quality of your articulation of the reasons why this should be so.” If I were to actually have an opinions blog, the opinions themselves would be secondary to the delivery in which I would give my reasons behind why I felt my opinion mattered.

Credibility and popularity in this case would walk a fine-line in helping people trust my opinions. In the same Media Ethics chapter, it states “If a communicator is believed to be deceptive or dishonest, unconcerned with others’ welfare or oblivious to everyone’s obligation to use media in a socially responsible way, that communicator provides potential audiences with little or no compelling reason to pay attention to his message.” Knowing this person can be trusted is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

Recently, a court ruled in favor of a journalist who had refused to reveal her sources to lawyers about information obtained about Aurora, Colorado shooter, James Holmes. This is a perfect example of knowing credibility is at stake and making a case against a violent killer. The television channel, A&E, was recently facing a dilemma concerning one the stars of their hit show Duck Dynasty. Coming from the extremely conservative roots of the south, star, Phil Robertson, was quoted in coming out against gay rights. 

(Source)

The Internet took this story by storm with social media users giving opinions on whether or not the show should be allowed to continue at all, continue with or without him, or whether he had any right to give his feelings on such a socially sensitive topic. Journalists, columnists, bloggers and social media users alike rallied around this story. The ethical argument about whether he was within his constitutional right or was abusing his fame for his own agenda became a highlight story. Opinions are taken into account on an individual and whole basis and the average reader no longer knows where exactly to turn.

During my undergrad career, I took a semester-long program at American University focusing on journalism. The two biggest topics covered were the plentiful career opportunities as well as the ethics behind creating compelling content. We discussed journalists’ abilities to alter and manipulate photos and quotes to create a story they deemed worthy. It is interesting to see how far media will allow a story to go before it is decided it is unethical.

(Source)

Since there is no right or real answer, it is hard to say where the proverbial “line in the sand” can or should be drawn. As this current class in Media Ethics progresses, I look forward to hearing and reading more about individual case studies that fight our beliefs in ethics and morality and how it influences public opinion on news, society and the world as a whole.