This paper analyzes the ethical responsibilities of journalists and news organizations in an era of rapid information dissemination and public fact-checking. Using case studies including Brian Williams's fabricated reporting, ESPN's credit attribution practices, and misrepresented statistics in Ferguson coverage, the author applies ethical frameworks—utilitarianism, deontology, relativism, emotivism, and virtue ethics—to demonstrate why accuracy, respect for audiences, and transparency are fundamental to responsible journalism. The paper argues that media outlets must prioritize truthful reporting over ratings and speed, treating the public with dignity and providing verified facts that allow informed civic participation.
This is the perfect topic at the perfect time. In an era where you can no longer stretch the truth, NBC's Brian Williams has become the subject of many factual jokes because of his "white lies" to the American people. The general public is holding those who provide the news responsible. As a current member of the local media in San Antonio, Texas—providing news updates for FOX29 Daytime at Nine and serving as a fill-in host for ESPN 1250/94.5—and a former national media member for Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Basketball Association (NBA), I understand that we as media members are held accountable to the general public to provide factual information about the topics we cover on television, in print, and on the radio.
With so many ways for people to fact-check information nowadays, the public is quick to turn to social media to point out inaccuracies that media members provide. By examining how utilitarianism applies to media responsibility, we can understand why "lying is wrong because, in general, it has bad consequences" (West, 2003). The power now rests with the public, who can ensure that the media is being responsible as news happens, forcing news outlets to fact-check their own stories. This places all responsibility on news outlets to provide the general public with information that is accurate, responsible, and timely.
As stated above, NBC's Brian Williams exemplifies how egoism can corrupt reporting. Egoism is "doing something [that] promotes my own happiness or helps me reach my desired goals; I should do it" (Mossler, 2013). At a time when the American people were most vulnerable—during the Iraqi War and Hurricane Katrina—Williams embellished factual information about these highly important news topics to try to engage his audience for ratings. As a result, Williams was removed from NBC for six months without pay. Although he was once a very trusted reporter, he will face a difficult time regaining the trust of the American people.
By examining how Brian Williams handled himself throughout this process, we apply utilitarianism to determine whether his acts were right or wrong in terms of their consequences. Did Brian Williams lead the American people to believe that he had done things he really had not? Absolutely. Was it morally wrong to exaggerate the truth to make people believe he had done things he had not? Yes. Answering these two questions led NBC executives to suspend him for six months.
There is an absolute ethical breach in the approach that Brian Williams took with his news stories, which misled the American people. Deontologists argue that we have a duty or obligation to treat other people with respect. By lying or fabricating stories to make himself look better, he disrespected all who watched his program. He was using the American people to get what he wanted—higher ratings.
While working on SiriusXM for two years, we encountered a similar situation involving a host on our network. Covering sports is a fast-paced, "who can score the story first" type of business. Unlike major news outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, sports broadcasters compete against one giant network: ESPN. Everyone has sources, and yes, we prefer not to reveal them, but the problem is that many of us have the same sources.
On one particular night, a source provided our network host with information first. He reported it on air, and two minutes later, ESPN also reported it. The problem: because our network reported the story first, credibility came into play. ESPN did not want to give our network credit because the sources were the same. To many within the industry, this was a huge moral and ethical issue. We are told when coming up in the industry to give credit to the first person or network that reports a story because they worked hard to break it.
Over the course of the last two years, ESPN has begun to give credit to outside sources who have reported stories first. The media's responsibility to provide news to their followers in a timely manner continues, but the moral and ethical responsibility to cite where their information came from has improved.
The internet has dramatically changed the landscape of responsible reporting to the general public. If you are a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram user, you have probably fallen for a hoax story about how a famous actor has died on a snowy hilltop while skiing. In today's society, we are so eager for fast information that as soon as we read something, we automatically assume that the posted story is real. We have become better at spotting facts, but as satire becomes more entertaining, more false stories spring up.
What would a deontologist say about the person who has duped all of us into believing that someone has died when they really have not? The person's goal is making as many people believe a story they know is not true. By having the story replicate across the internet, they feel a sense of accomplishment. This is why a deontologist would say that the person who duped readers is wrong in doing so.
People also use current news stories on the internet to "stretch" the truth about what is going on in the real world. For example, the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of an African-American male by a white police officer was absolutely horrific, but problems persisted within the news networks covering the story. Reporters gave out street addresses for their locations to get more people to their location. While "utilitarianism has a certain advantage in seeming to appeal to common sense" (Mossler, 2013), reporters in this instance did not use common sense. What they did was ethically wrong: instead of providing people with the news, they were creating the news.
On CNN, conservative African-American radio host Larry Elder and liberal African-American professor and author Marc Lamont Hill debated the state of race relations in the country. "How often does it happen that an unarmed black is shot by a cop?" Elder asked in an August 20, 2014 interview. "Every 28 hours," Hill responded. "Every 28 hours, Larry. According to the MXGM study, a black person is killed by law enforcement, vigilantes or security..."
Elder cut in, but Hill revisited his point later in the interview, saying, "But if this study bears out, and it does, that every 28 hours an unarmed black person is killed, then that also is a problem."
However, the report was not an academic, unbiased representation of these deaths. It was put together by one volunteer researcher and detailed 313 deaths based on news clips and police reports. The study arrives at one death "every 28 hours" by dividing the number of hours in a year—8,760—by the number of deaths: 313.
This situation is difficult to evaluate, not only because it delivers racial numbers that may not be true, but because Mr. Hill and Mr. Elder are respected journalists in their field. We must consider how relativism affects how these two men share their information. The question is whether such failures of understanding between the two men constitute a forceful case for relativism. With both men living in particularly different cultures within society, one may not know which is right. Our culture and upbringing have such a demand on how we think, feel, and understand that for one individual, they may see Mr. Hill as being absolute, while another may tend to agree with Mr. Elder, forcing a line of distraction from the true understanding of the overall matter at hand.
In some cases, emotivism also plays a part, especially when involving racial tension and discussing the number of deaths of one particular race. Our emotions sometimes run very high, and even though this might be a simple response, using emotivism theory quickly identifies whether or not the individual agrees or disagrees with what is currently going on. A particular phrase or even a thumbs up or thumbs down will quickly identify to someone whether you are pleased by the situation. In the response above, when identifying the incorrect number of deaths, one would be able to tell right away by watching the video whether they agree or disagree on the total number because of their emotional response.
"Utilitarianism, deontology, relativism, emotivism in journalism"
"Virtue ethics and personal commitment to truthful reporting"
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.