Ethics test.
Ethics Test 2
Below is outlined a serious issue, as the case study outlines. You are to take this case of ethics and analyze from two very different ethical approaches: deontological ethics and consequential ethics. Each approach will result in different conclusions about what should happen.
What I am looking for is for you to clearly outline the issues from each of the above approaches. What would be the main concerns of each approach to this case study? What conclusions might each approach draw from this case? Why?
A way to fail this test is to give me your opinion. I am NOT looking for your opinion here. What I am looking for is to see if you clearly understand how to think/argue from a deontological approach and a consequential approach. I am looking for you to outline the main concerns/issues each approach would consider, and why. I am looking for a cogent/coherent, well-structured argument from each approach inclusive of premises and conclusion.
This test is due to me by email no later than midnight, Sunday, November 1st.
Issue Background: Between 1999 and 2015, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart put on over 2,000 episodes skewering politicians, delivering biting critiques of Congress and legislative politics, challenging journalists and 24- hour news networks. His former correspondents have developed a number of successful offshoot political satire shows: The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee and the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Political satirists are routinely described as a trusted source of news, an increasingly important player in American elections and as shaping the attitudes of Americans towards politics. With great social and political impact, some have claimed, comes greater scrutiny and ethical responsibility. Satirists' coverage of serious topics such as the debt ceiling, net neutrality, patents or the minimum wage have occasionally been criticized as incomplete, misleading or biased. In response, political satirists have uniformly reaffirmed their role as jokesters rather than serious commentators, shifting the burden of responsibility on the media and the public. However, they have also occasionally issued corrections, updates or defenses of their original positions. In addition to considering the standards that would govern political satire, the question remains of whether responsibility for upholding these standards should be assigned to the producers of political satire or to the general public. Do these comedians have any ethical responsibilities regarding the political information they disseminate or does the responsibility ultimately lie with the consuming public?
‘I’m Just a Comedian’ Political satirists advertise themselves as mere entertainers, 1 a category that keeps them carefree concerning slander, libel, accusations of bias,2 or, as the Daily Show website used to put it, "unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy".3 One could argue that it is precisely the status of outsiders to the mainstream media world and the legal and ethical codes constraining journalists that have allowed political satirists to deliver high-quality commentary and biting critiques without fear of legal or political repercussions and that we should therefore allow comedians to stick to their defense. As Colbert once exclaimed at praise for his contributions to journalism, "Are you trying to get me fired?" However, there are a number of reasons to be suspicious about this self-description and investigate how and why political satirists are perceived as journalists.
From Fake News to Real Awards Despite these numerous disclaimers about their status as "just entertainers", satirists like Noah, Oliver or Colbert present themselves in ways very similar to news anchors and news personalities. All of these shows employ a news-like set, reporter's attire, series of images and clips from the day or week's political news, (satiric) commentary, investigative segments and one-on-one interviews with politicians and producers of American culture (writers, musicians, professors, film-makers). Stewart, Colbert and others have occasionally apologized for misleading information or issued corrections and updates to stories aired on their shows, indicating some willingness to accept responsibility for political content.4 The American public increasingly associates political satirists with journalists. In a survey asking Americans about the most admired news figures, Jon Stewart made the top ten, tied with Anderson Cooper and Tom Brokaw and 6% of Americans under 30 named Stewart as their favorite journalist.5 Upon retiring from their respective shows, Stewart and Colbert have been called the Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow of our generation and the "voice" of the millennial generation.6 A 2009 Rasmussen poll reports that nearly one-third of voters under 40 consider political satire shows to represent an alternative to traditional media outlets.7 Oliver, Stewart and Colbert have all received Peabody Awards and been recognized for their contributions to the public discourse. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart received the Peabody twice for its coverage of the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 under the headlines "Indecision 2000" and "Indecision 2004". The Colbert Report received the award in 2007 and 2011 for its episodes on campaign finance, including "Hail to the Cheese—Stephen Colbert’s Nacho Cheese Doritos 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage” and his Super PAC segments, while John Oliver won it within 6 months of the show's launch for "at times becoming an investigative journalist as skilled at interrogating his target as any Progressive Era muckraker".
Learning with Levity According to a recent academic study, viewers of the Colbert Report Super PAC episodes ranked higher in knowledge of campaign finance laws than non-viewers and even than viewers of alternative news sources.9 Similarly, viewers of John Oliver's coverage of net neutrality reported much higher knowledge about the issue, as well as strong preferences against "fast lane" regulation by the FCC.10 Both of these stories involved investigative journalism and advocacy for specific legislative action. However, both stories have received criticism from opponents for factual inaccuracy and biased reporting.11 A number of impact studies of the Daily Show describe higher political knowledge among viewers, though some also point to growing cynicism and apathy.12 In addition to their responsibility for the content of the news, many of the political satirists have publicly apologized for ethically dubious statements, such as Jon's apparent indication that he did not vote in the election. 13 As opinion leaders and active participants in the public sphere, political satirists seem to be taking their role as civic educators more seriously than they openly admit.
Ethics for Serious Satirists? If political satirists were to be bound to a similar ethical code to journalists, we would expect them to be more accountable for the truth, accuracy and impartiality of their stories as well as more transparent about their fact-gathering process. Journalists themselves do not abide by a single code of ethics, but examples of professional standards do exist. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, "ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough".14 The SPJ provides four ethical principles that they encourage all members of the media to follow in their practice:
• Seek truth and report it: Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information
• Minimize harm: Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect
• Act independently: The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
• Be accountable and transparent: Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Public Responsibility As an alternative to demanding that comedians act like ethical journalists, we might expect that the primary responsibility lies with the consuming public to distinguish between information provided by professional journalists and that distributed by comedians and entertainers. This ethical obligation of the democratic public can be manifested at the individual level, at the level of civil society, or at the level of government. Individual-level accountability implies that each viewer is considered responsible for factchecking information received from any source, including political entertainment. Each individual citizen has complete latitude to choose which news sources they trust and how to sift through the competing accounts of news stations as different as Fox News and MSNBC. Parents may scrutinize the viewing choices of young children, but responsibility remains at the individual or family-level. Alternatively, civil society can take responsibility for fact-checking political satire. A number of successful non-profit websites and organizations already provide information regarding the factual contact of news stories, particularly information concerning the electoral process or political coverage. Politifact.org has received the Pulitzer Prize in 2008 for their coverage of the national election.15 Finally, one can imagine government-support for scrutinizing the truth content of political satire through the provision of public service announcements along the line of "This product is meant for entertainment and not intended as a serious source of news."