Scenario 4 – Justify your actions
Scenario 4. You are working in a country with little political democracy, covering an important political campaign. It appears that the ‘peoples’ candidate on the brink of winning will transform the politics of the country, help the poor, and reverse decades of disastrous policies implemented by the previously corrupt leaders. Three days before the poll, you discover that this same candidate has been unfaithful to his wife although he has campaigned on a moral ticket – supporting the sanctity of marriage. Both the candidate and his wife (who claims now to be reconciled to her partner’s previous marital infidelities), ask you not to publish these facts.What do you do, and from what ethical standpoint would you justify your action?
November, 22nd 2008 at 1:53 pm
By saying that the candidate should be exposed because of his infidelities is like saying that all adulturers are bad people – a statement which is not fair. What happens between husband and wife is private and not in the interest of political transformation of the country as it would only result in bias and distrust. Publishing it would slur his name and as the people’s candidate, voters could loose faith in an already corrupt and undemocratic system. Although his campaign supported the sanctity of marriage, it does no harm for people to believe in the views he expressed. The utilitarianism approach would mean that the greater good should be prioritised here and if this candidate can provide this if elected then I personally would not publish the affair.
December, 2nd 2008 at 8:03 pm
This is a typical example of the issues between a politician’s personal life and their professional life. Because the candidate has made mistakes in his personal life that is not to say that he is unfit for the job, and is in fact in all likeliness the best candidate for this election and for the good of the country. For this reason, I would choose not to print the story which would affect his chances in the election. This would have an adverse affect on the population of the country. In this way, I have taken a utilitarianism approach as I have concentrated on the greater good of the most people.
However, there is still an issue in this situation as the candidate was fully aware of his actions, and yet still campaigned on a moral ticket supporting the sanctity of marriage. According to the distributive justice model, the candidate should keep such promises as he has entered into voluntarily.
Despite this issue, I would still choose the the utilitarian approach, as the ramifications of publishing such an article would be too great.
December, 7th 2008 at 3:49 pm
This is a tricky situation as it crosses the line between personal and professional life. The culture of celebrity in which we live means that anyone in the public eye is fair game in terms of the media. Whether you’re a politician or Britney Spears, what you do in your private life is going to affect you professionally – something which this politician should have considered when he had the affair.
However, this situation is tricky. If the politician lied about this what else is he capable of lying about? Is his whole campaign a sham that he will turn his back on when he gets into office?
On the other hand, if he is genuinely whats best for this country and he is going to bring about change it’s wrong to affect the lives of so many people just because you have a good story.
Personally, when you weigh up the options the best thing to do is follow a utilitarian approach. As a journalist, yes, breaking this story is personally going to benefit your career but to sabotage this mans campaign and stop him gaining power is going to adversely affect the lives of others.
And, in the end the story will break…he might as well be in office and doing some good when it does.
December, 12th 2008 at 12:37 pm
A de-ontological approach to this situation would dictate that one should not tell lies or commit an act of infidelity because they are wrong. As such the solution would be to expose the politician. Perhaps it is too simplistic to judge someone based on these ethics however. Of course the politician’s infidelity is wrong but at the same time I have never believed that people in the public eye should somehow be more virtuous than those outwith it. I may not agree with the average man on the street having an affair but I wouldn’t condemn them.
I think in the situation I would take the virtue ethics approach and do what I thought was right when I met the politician. It would be important to me to establish whether I believed that the politician had simply made a mistake or if this lie was indicative of a greater level of hypocrisy. The important point that I would wish to establish is whether I believed the man was likely to tell lies which would adversely affect the people of the country. This would determine my actions.
January, 19th 2009 at 12:37 am
This is at a basic level a classic case of utilitarianism in action – acting for the greater good and maximum happiness of the greatest number. I would clearly be preventing the public from learning the truth about their candidate – making a judgement on what is ‘good’ for them on their behalf – and showing a certain level of moral arrogance in my decision, but I would try to use virtue ethics in this case. I would use my experience as a journalist and a member of the public – knowing how stories of infidelity can cloud the main issue and incite gossip rather than intelligent political debate about a candidate, and try to make the right decision.
De-ontological ethics may require me to do my duty – and as a journalist my duty would be to expose the truth – but as a citizen my duty would be for the best outcome for my fellow citizens.
January, 19th 2009 at 11:42 pm
Deontologically of course, I should print the truth; this man has, in committing adultery whilst standing on a moral ticket, done something newsworthy and should thus be published. If we were talking about David Cameron or Gordon Brown – both who promote their own idyllic homelife in their politics – I probably would print the story. British politics is often rife with stories of infidelities and moral dubiousness, but as we have a strong party system, I do not think the exposing of one man’s indiscretions would cause political instability.
However, if the case involved the likes of Morgan Tsvangirai, often touted as the saviour of Zimbabwe against the ruinous dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, I would be otherwise inclined. As such, I would be applying utilitarian consequential ethics. If I thought the exposing of “the people’s candidate” would serious impair the development of the country and the lives of its citizens I would not think the selling of more newspapers or the adherence to my own journalistic rules to be the greater good. There could be the case made that if he has lied about this personal indiscretion then what other matters could he lie about, and so virtue ethics could be of use. By considering each case individually and applying the consequences of past experiences, the best decision would hopefully be made.
Perhaps in both cases – British and Zimbabwean – the seemingly de-ontological approach of the French media should be applied; politicians personal lives are just that and are not to be made public. The French press were aware of François Mitterand’s illegitimate child for years, but it was not until his funeral that her existence became general public knowledge. And in any case, the French public didn’t seem to care.