media literacy
the problem with flexible ethics
on MEDIA | by Logan Nakyanzi Pollard | March 26, 2025
“Curious: when did it become ethical to print war plans?”
The tit-for-tat bitchiness of our current culture is robbing us of the beautiful tapestry of real life, and the opportunity to learn from each other– and, worse than that: to lead with anything resembling authenticity.
example #1:
If you follow “the news,” you know what I’m talking about:
a magazine of note publishes what was clearly information not meant for the public, for perhaps no other political gain than well, political gain.
I grew up in a bygone era, where ‘everyone’ knew if the TV news director or EP or some big boss got a call from a red phone that whatever they were doing was a problem.
And I’m not saying who made the call, I’m saying I never had the luxury of being naive about the media– from work experience.
That said, this is indeed a fascinating historical moment.
Or, maybe it’s not that interesting.
This is what people do.
But still, I’m old-fashioned.
Not a perfect example but for the sake of argument, let’s say I found a wallet in a cab. I try to find the ID to return it, and inside there’s something compromising– not illegal, but just embarrassing. Would it be correct for me to post that information online– rather than simply returning the item, now that I have the person’s ID? What do I gain (as a human being) by embarrassing the person who has made a mistake? Have I never made a mistake? Or, do I want to catch someone in a mistake because I dislike him/her so much that all I can do is look for this person’s flaws?
What it is is this: treat other people the way you want to be treated:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:30-31
In our everyday lives, we know what is correct.
And this is why at that editorial meeting, I would have had questions:
- Who gains by the release of this information?
- Does it benefit the public? (Is this something that needs to made public– to save lives, for example.)
- Or is it meant to humiliate and bloody someone’s nose? And is that worth it? Is this what we do now (as journalists)?
- Further: What are ethics?
- Why do they matter?
- How can we engage in civil discourse?
- What is memory?
- What role does the media have in narrating history, versus shaping it?
I suppose now you know why I work for myself.
Given the pervasive “groupthink” (and by this I mean pressure to conform to a set of often irrational ideas) of our time: a reporter asking these questions could easily be out of a job, which is why I’m asking these questions– and also, so you don’t think you’re the only one.
Because I know that some of you are thinking these things but you can’t say what you think anymore– not really. (I mean you can, but then– read previous paragraph.)
Also happening: And this is a funny one, because while you can’t say what you think, others can!
example #2:
In this situation:
Strident and vacuous language around a political figure that could be interpreted as inciting violence.
My primary question: Why is this person getting airtime?
Back in the day, a provocative, possibly unbalanced, person didn’t get airtime, any day, let alone day-after-day, unless this individual were central to an important story.
By contrast, today– “we” seem to have all the time and space in the world to publicize erratic points of view– and get this, because this is the important part: amplify erratic points of view– unopposed.
Analysis:
Per the Constitution (and short of shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater, as the saying goes) I am reluctant to curb free speech. My question is around judgment in both these situations.
- In scenario #1: Yes, of course a publication has a right to publish a story– but is it ethical to do so? What is gained?
- In scenario #2: Who gains by stoking people’s anger and frustration? As journalists, is it ethical to give airtime to someone who is incendiary?
In practical terms: ethics and ethical behavior mean journalists should stay within bounds of what is deemed thoughtful, reasonable, correct. Basically, be the adult in the room.
And in both of these situations: what, dare I say: is the patriotic thing to do? What is noble? Why do we not know this anymore?
Equally: If I ask “A” of a situation; I might also ask “A” of another situation.
This is typically under the umbrella of what most people consider hypocrisy– that is, selectively choosing when to be outraged by something, and then being blind to it in other circumstances.
People sense hypocrisy innately, and detest it. So I won’t belabor that point.
I am more interested in viewing this moment as an opportunity to remember ethics and to cultivate a more genteel respect for other people– even people who you (or I) might dislike intensely– but who still have (gasp!) true merit (because they exist) and still have every right to be where they are.
There’s another way:
The fact is, we need each other.
You know this as well as I do: friends and allies validate (which is of course, lovely and we all enjoy that) but adversaries (and by this I could mean not only or necessarily people, places or things, but abstractly unprocessed emotions, self-doubt, complacency, etc.)– these oppositional forces can help you see certain things about yourself that you would not have known. If you see them for what they are they invite you to grow– to become more creative, which frankly none of us would have done if we never faced any kind of resistance in our lives.
Everyone is here for a reason, that we in our finiteness can’t always understand.
The tit-for-tat bitchiness of our current culture is robbing us of the beautiful tapestry of real life, and the opportunity to truly learn from each other– and, worse than that: to lead with anything resembling authenticity.
Another interesting point in all this– and this is veering off into another subject, but worth mentioning here, in conclusion:
True excellence comes not from the expectation of perfection, but from learning; and relentlessly improving and critiquing one’s work.
We see and expect this from professional athletes, and yet we so rarely do in other spheres of work and political life. I wonder if the politically-motivated actions of that publication, and those who support its point of view, have reflected on how they have traded in cultivating a culture of true excellence (and its embedded step of understanding that mistakes– while not desired or expected– can happen; and when they do, they can be learned from) for essentially making everything a scandal and a cover-up. {I am of course referring to not only the tone of this conversation about what happened, but the ubiquitous use of “-gate,” in our culture, and in this case, to the moniker “Signalgate,” as if this were a parallel event to the Watergate story.}
Similarly, the figure mentioned in the second example exemplifies qualities of our time: emotions and passion are on full display in place of a ration.
Most people would simply want to dial back the rhetoric and figure out what happened without the drama. And since much of this is “politicking,” it’s interesting to also note that– this gotcha stuff doesn’t work anymore; the population is not swayed.
Pro-tips:
- Journalism is a public service not a PR job.
- As a journalist, how can you facilitate better ethics in your newsroom?
If you have no idea how to do this (and still keep your job) . . . and want to talk media informed by a Christ-led perspective, click any of the buttons below.
Have thoughts? Subscribe and you may like, share and post comments via our ‘hello again’ newsletter and the comments section– dated: APRIL 4, 2025.
Join the conversation.