Ethics Case Study #1: Animals Rights/ Race Case

Rachel Sayers Media Ethics Tutorial (Winter 2012) Prof. Mary Rogus January 26, 2012

Ethical Issues
Behind every crucial decision, there are often several smaller choices vying for ones attention and consideration. As the Executive Producer overseeing the case of animal rights and race relations in Green Bay, Wisconsin it is even more imperative than ever that I carefully calculate all of the ethical issues underlying the coverage of this story. Because my station will be the first providing coverage, I know that my initial impact will be quite substantial when compared to stories that follow. For this reason, I have taken the time to carefully calculate the moral dilemmas that such a controversial story presents. Impact in the Hmong Community The first issue is in consideration of the extensive Hmong Community residing in Green Bay. The film presented by PETA is sure to reinforce several of my communitys preexisting stereotypes about Asians consuming canines as a form of food. While this may not necessarily be true, I have to consider the impact of airing a tape in which the illegal buyers are Asian, especially when the community holds a considerable amount of Hmong residents. How would this affect their personal businesses? Would the rest of the community begin to shun this already reclusive minority? Showing the Moment of Death Also pertaining to the decision to air the tape, I have to consider the integrity of showing a video that depicts the animals moment of death. Would current dog-owners be offended by such an image? Is it possibly too graphic for younger viewers, or is the 10 pm slot late enough not to warrant such considerations? Does the actual image of death add to the story in any way, or is it simply sensationalizing an already horrendous act? Accepting a Favor from PETA The motives behind PETAs involvement are also rather sketchy. I have to consider what PETA has to gain with the breaking of the story. They went very far out of their way to make sure this particular kennel owner was found guilty and I have to wonder why they went through so much difficulty to secure the controversial tape. Should I accept their exclusivity or is that merely a form of payment, which all of the ethical codes clearly reject? Perhaps I should refuse their offer and allow them to share their story with other news outlets as well. Political Motives of the District Attorney The District Attorney also has quite a bit to gain from the breaking of this story. He or she was rather rash in their decision to issue an arresting warrant, so I have to assume there was some sort of gain behind their actions. How I present their involvement in the story can have a great impact on his or her political career, as well as public opinion of law enforcement, which means I must carefully consider how I portray their actions.

The Absence of a Statement from the Kennel Owner In an effort to remain fair, I usually include statements from both sides of the issue, but in this case I have a completely one-sided story. I must choose if it is fair to run the story without so much as a statement from the accused. I must decide if it is ethically right to accuse the kennel owner on public television without a rebuttal of any sort. I give the owner no opportunity to defend themselves and I must decide if this creates too great of an injustice, even when the evidence is so clearly stacked against him or her. Personal Bias & Newsroom Bias I must also take into account my bias, as well as the internal prejudices of the rest of my news team. I may be so outraged at the abominable treatment of the animals that I am completely overlooking the kennel owners right to remain innocent until proven guilty. And there is also the altercation with my station photographer to consider; does my team have a score to settle with this man, which would produce a very evident conflict of interest? Background Information The little information my team was able to uncover about the kennel owner is rather controversial and quite consequential to those involved, but because I do not have time to re-check all the information, I must decide quickly how relevant each is to the story. Just how much of the information should be disclosed? For instance, by introducing the University of Wisconsin into the story I could, very likely, have a huge impact on their current research program. If their name is linked to the mistreatment of animals, I can be almost certain that they will lose private funding. The Mood How I present the mood of the story will also have a huge impact on how the story is received by audience members, as well as how any follow-up stories are produced. I could condemn the owner and play on people's sympathy for animal rights, knowing that the general public has a soft-spot for domestic animals. I could defend the kennel owner by justifying his right - and that of the Asian community - to adhere to their own cultural beliefs. I could refuse to sensationalize any part of the story and produce it strictly as a hard news piece. Or I could try and focus solely on the animals who were harmed in an attempt to find the rescued dogs new homes and raise awareness about animal cruelty. Acknowledging the Role of PETA I must give credit where credit is due, but just how much should I broadcast about PETA's involvement with both the initial tape and the consequential investigation. Should I reveal to my viewers their instrumental role in the take-down of the kennel or is that, quite simply, playing into their publicity game. Are they vying simply for media presence and if so, should I give it to them? Conclusion In the end, I must decide whether or not to air the undercover footage, how much to air and if I should disclose the involvement of PETA, the District Attorney, the Asian population and the University of Wisconsin. I must rationalize my choice to acknowledge or ignore the altercation between our station and the accused, and I must deduce just how the mood of the story should be played out and how much background information should be included. I must take into account who my news anchor will be, how long the segment will last, what time-allotment it will receive and what footage will be shown. Then, once I have my ultimate summation of data, I can air the segment.

Internal & External Factors

Political
The District Attorney

Why did the DA choose to act so impulsively? Was there an internal or political motive behind his sudden decision to issue a warrant? For instance, did he know that with my station involved his actions were sure to make the news, thus warranting him a positive boost in public opinion? He may push me to air the story as soon as possible.

Social

The Hmong Community

How will the airing the story factor into the surrounding Asian communities? The undercover tape seems to stereotype the entire Asian population, therefore the ramification for airing such a stereotype may translate into lower sales for Hmong citizens businesses. They will want me to exclude the undercover video, and any information that would link their culture to the practice of eating canines.

Economic

University of Wisconsin

The choice to run the story may lead to bad publicity for the University because they were associated with the accused kennel owner, which may translate into reduced research funding. Because of this, they may push me not to expose the name of the kennel, or any information that may link them to the story. The Humane Society The local Humane Society who took in the 180 rescued dogs will now be facing significant financial strain taking care of them and attempting to find them homes. They will push for me to air the story so I can publicize that these dogs need good homes.

Legal

The Court System

Because the story is so controversial, how I air the story may greatly impact the courts ability to find unbiased jurors when the kennel owner is brought to trial. The way in which I present the information can greatly impact the publics opinion, therefore, they may ask me to attempt to remain as fair and balanced as possible, or possibly not cover the raid at all. Kennel Owners Because such a high-profile case may result from your news coverage, other kennel owners may see their rules and regulations brought to the forefront of political agendas. There will most likely be a public push to instill harsher laws towards all dog kennels, which kennel owners will be unhappy with. Because of this, they may push me not to air the story at all, or in the very least to downplay the severity of it.

Competitive

Ratings

As News Director, I am in charge of making sure my newsroom succeeds, which means I must keep the ratings higher than my competitors. In order to do this, I will want to run the story that will get me the most viewers.

Parties & Stakeholders

PETA

Myself (Executive Producer) The Other Employees of the Television Station Owners/Stockholders of the Station The Kennel Owner All Other Kennel Owners Pet Owners The Injured Photographer The District Attorney The Asian (Hmong) Community The Abused Animals Other News Stations The University of Wisconsin The Local Animal Shelter The Judicial System The Asian Couple in the Undercover Film

Key Ethical Values

Public Trust RTDNA: Journalists first obligation is to the public it serves, and news organizations should never attempt to oversimplify the issue at hand. They should attempt to make their coverage as multidimensional as possible by accurately reflecting the diversity of the community. In addition, by serving the public first reporters must fight to ensure that the publics business is indeed conducted in the public eye. SPJ: The public has a need to be enlightened with thoroughness and honesty. This means giving the public full access to all the information, as it is the publics right to know. NPR: In order to garner public trust, journalists must avoid all forms of outside influence. ASNE: Serve the general welfare of the people above all else. This means informing the public in a way that enables them to come to their own conclusions. Truth RTDNA: A journalists job is to pursue the truth aggressively and present it accurately. They must clearly label the origin of all material they provide. NPPA: Resist all staged photo opportunities (including undercover scams) and never manipulate the audience. SPJ: Always question sources motives and test the accuracy of the information you are given. Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
4

NPR: Always attempt to use only first-hand reporting. Journalism should be conducted in the open. Journalists do not misrepresent themselves. Fairness RTDNA: Fight to make the news significant and relevant to the public. Showcase both sides of the issue, meaning you will include the viewpoint of all parties involved. SPJ: Make sure all aspects of your report do not misrepresent. This means avoiding undercover or surreptitious methods of gathering information but if you must incorporate them, be sure to label them as such. ASNE: Make sure there is a clear distinction between report and opinion; do not attempt to make the story fit your opinion of the issue. NPR: A range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. Integrity RTDNA: News coverage should respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news. Do not encourage or introduce stereotypes to the public. Avoid any technology that sensationalizes events, as they can warp public opinion. SPJ: Show good taste and avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. Balance a criminal suspects fair trial rights with the publics right to be informed. Show compassion to those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. NPR: Take into consideration the vulnerability of those who would be impacted by your coverage. Strive to reduce harm, not cause it. Journalists think carefully about the boundaries between legitimate journalistic pursuit and an individual's right to privacy. ASNE: Respect the rights of people involved, and observe common standards of decency. Independence NPR: Do not show subjects or other third parties scripts of stories in advance of their broadcast. Journalists may not accept compensation. SPJ: Refuse all favors or special treatment. Deny favored treatment to special interests and be wary of sources offering information for favors. Do not bid for news. RTDNA: Defend the independence of journalism from those seeking influence or control over news content. Determine news solely through editorial judgment. ASNE: Avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. The American Press was made free to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in society. Accountability RTDNA: Journalists should actively respond to all public concerns. Journalists should explain all journalistic processes to the public, especially in times of controversy.
5

NPR: Correct substantive errors of fact in a timely way. If there is even a question of a doubt put forth the information for correction or investigation. SPJ: Abide by the same high standards to which we hold all others.

My Decision
After careful analysis of the above information, as well as my own moral feelings, I have decided upon the following course of action: I will not air the undercover footage. There are several factors that played into my decision not to air the undercover footage provided by PETA, the first of which is my journalistic duty to remain independent from all outside authorities seeking control or influence over news content. In this case, I believe that PETA has an ulterior motive to gain publicity from the airing of the tape, which I cannot promote. I must refuse their offer of exclusivity because that would mean accepting a favor from a source which most ethical codes, my own included, strictly prohibit. By refusing to give them the upper-hand in the footage I air, I may keep my newsroom independent. The second reason I decided not to air the undercover video footage is because of the nearby Hmong culture that is a very prevalent part of my audience. PETA, by choosing to display an Asian couple in their tape, has effectively bathed the entire Asian American culture in a not-so-flattering light. If I were to air the tape, I would be visually promoting the current stereotype that all Asians eat canine meat which would - no doubt -have a negative impact on the Hmong people. Other citizens may stop buying from their stores, eating in their restaurants or treating them with the respect and dignity they deserve. Another component of my decision was the image of death that occurred when the dog was so inhumanely shot. Although no blood was shown, I think the actual scene would be too disturbing for many of the pet owners in my viewing area. The mention of slaughtering animals for human consumption is already upsetting enough that I could not rationalize showing the actual image as well. Apart from the integral complications of the undercover tape, there is also the journalistic value of fairness to consider. Most journalists condemn almost all undercover or surreptitious reporting methods, claiming they are unethical, unfair and morally compromising. These methods should only be enacted only if there is no other way of obtaining the information, and in this case I'm sure there was another way of collecting the incriminating evidence. In conclusion, I found the video to be a poor example of pseudo journalism and would not include it in my on-air coverage of the events. If viewers truly wish to see it, I will provide access to it online - in keeping with total transparency - but I will not encourage its' viewing in any way. It unfairly stereotypes the Asian population, is unnecessarily disturbing and gives PETA a sense of control over my newsrooms' coverage. My personal photographers have already obtained footage of the kennel raid, meaning I already have camera footage for the story and do not need to rely on the controversial tape. The video adds little to an already shocking story and therefore should not be used. I will provide complete transparency. As this is a rather multi-faceted story and I do not have time to fact-check all aspects of the information, I have concluded that total transparency would be most beneficial for the audience and my television station. This would mean devoting a rather large amount of time on the story, but it is a decision that I feel I have to make. I would strive to make my coverage as comprehensive as possible, giving viewers all the facts and angles, and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. I will post all source information to the station's
6

website and acknowledge my station's quick compilation of the facts presented and the very real possibility that my news team overlooked a few things while researching the story. I will recognize the involvement of PETA, the District Attorney's office and the University of Wisconsin, except on the latter I will omit the name, referring to them simply as a nearby university. By doing this, I hope to disclose the influences on my newsroom as they reported this story, while also protecting the reputation of the University of Wisconsin. I feel that because they had no part in the kennel owner's illegal actions, they do not deserve to be punished, and including their name in the coverage would only serve to harm a relatively innocent institution. Also playing in to this idea of complete transparency, I must make it know to my viewers that my particular station had altercations with the suspect in years past. I will emphasize the fact that this had little to do with our coverage of the story. In the end, it would be more harmful to try and hide the information, then to simply put it all out in the open. According to the ASNE Ethics Code, it is the journalist's obligation to inform the public in a way that allows them to come to their own conclusions. I would do this by providing them with access to all the information, even if I feel it would harm my station's image. If I do not hide anything, then the audience has no reason to question anything my station produces. I will allow PETA to disclose the information to other news stations. Most ethical codes I consulted were fairly clear when it came to the refusal of all special favors in exchange for news. They state ethical journalists should never attempt to bid for news, which I would essentially be doing if I chose to accept. I believe that PETA's special offer to provide only my station with the tape and information is a ploy to give them the upper-hand in how I cover the issue, so in response, I will give them permission to release the story to any other news organization they see fit. By doing so, I will no longer be indebted to their organization, and I can function entirely of my own accord. Attempt to contact the Kennel Owner. The value of fairness comes into play if I choose not to include a statement by the kennel owner or one of his affiliates. It is the journalists job to report the news accurately and proportionately, neither of which I would be doing if I did not at least attempt to get in contact with the accused. No matter how incriminating the evidence may be, I have to respect his or her right of innocence until proven guilty. By giving them a chance to speak for their actions, I hope to make my coverage as fair and proportionate as possible. Add a special segment to help the rescued animals. And lastly, seen as I have already made the decision to make this a rather lengthy story, I would like to conclude with a segment on the 180 animals that were rescued from the corrupt kennel. In the name of integrity, I must see these animals helped as I would if human victims were involved in such an atrocious crime. Utilizing my rather large viewing area, I can give these mistreated animals a greater chance at finding loving homes. At the end of the day, it is about improving the general well-being of those who were harmed, -in this case the animals - and if I have the opportunity to help, then I have the ethical responsibility to.