Friday, June 06, 2008

The Josh Wolf Debate: Ethical Reasoning

Complex situations of applied ethics may often arise for those who work in the media field. The nature of their involvement with issues of social concern requires a good understanding of normative ethical theories and an ability to analyse meta-ethics. A case study of Josh Wolf provides us with an opportunity to discuss the moral consequences that can arise.

In July 2006, Wolf was jailed in terms of civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in the USA. Josh Wolf is a freelance journalist. In July 2005, Wolf attended a protest against the G-8 Summit in San Francisco, where he videotaped demonstrators. He later sold some of his footage to a local television station and posted some of the contents, entitled "All empires must fall" (2005), to his internet blog.

The Federal Prosecution were of the opinion that unreleased footage of his out-takes would assist in identifying demonstrators who vandalised a police car and injured a police officer. Wolf refused to hand this footage over to the Federal Grand Jury

During the process of the appeals that followed, Wolf offered to allow the Judge to view the footage, in order to demonstrate that there was nothing to hide. This offer was refused and the Appeals court procedures continued for almost two years.

Finally, during mediation with the magistrate judge, Wolf agreed to hand over the footage and he was released. Although the Federal Jury had the tapes they required Wolf was not required in terms of the mediated outcome to personally testify before them.


This case study presents a number of ethical and legal issues that need to be considered. These include the following:

  • Was Josh Wolf unbiased and balanced in his reporting?
  • Were his actions true to the principle of altruism?
  • Was he actually a journalist, and entitled to protection from being compelled to give evidence?
  • Should the Federal Grand Jury be able to compel citizens to give evidence?
  • If he had not been jailed, would the resulting precedent have given blanket protection to everybody who writes and publishes on the internet?
  • Was the final mediation granted by the Court of Appeals, which led to the resolution of the case, a fair outcome?

It can be argued from the perspective of ethical theorists, that Wolf's actions are not justifiable. Wolf either had a duty to provide evidence and to comply with the subpoena to testify before the Federal Grand Jury, or needed to justify his refusal on sound principles of ethics during the Court of Appeals process.


Josh Wolf's motivation for failing to comply is obscure; apparently based on self-interest and violates the values of utilitarianism. From the standpoint of John Mill (1968), the claims of the protesters Wolf supports have to be subordinated to the greatest number of people. The greater number of people in the USA prefer to live in peaceful society where police cars are not burned and officers of the law are not subjected to assault.


Bowie's "fundamental moral principle" (1985)...or respect for other persons was violated when the police officer was attacked. As the federal laws of the USA are in place to protect the greater number of people, the Grand Jury was legally and ethically correct in requiring that evidence be provided for examination.


Kant's principle of categorical imperative is universally found within the rule of law, which is in place for the common good. Individual lack of compliance with the law is a direct challenge to the norms of any society. The Court of Appeals exists so that these challenges can have a fair hearing.


The Court of Appeals were correct in their decision to incarcerate Wolf during the appeals process. They are also required to be obedient to the rules of action. One important factor is that Wolf's association with the suspected perpetrators of the crime could have compromised the outcome of the case. As Abelson et al pointed out in the History of ethics, (1967), obedience to a rule of action "expresses the golden rule to be found in all great religions and has been incorporated in....modern systems of ethical theory."


Wolf might argue that the USA is not a Christian nation and that Judeo-Christian ethics do not therefore apply to him as an American citizen. Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the 1st Amendment in a letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, was that it is a "wall of separation between church and State" (January 1st, 1802). Nevertheless, the criminal and federal law of the USA pertains to conduct specifically mentioned in the Christian Bible and are based on the Christian ethic of "loving thy neighbour as thyself". The Appeals Court, the Federal Police and the Federal Grand Jury are all agents of the public and it is their duty to uphold the ethics of the greater society.


When arguing moral consequences, I propose that Wolf was not balanced and unbiased in his reporting. The methodology of objectivity involves the journalist having the capacity to report a set of facts "without their own perceptions and opinions colouring the report' (Morrison, 2002). In an interview with Frontline News (2007), Josh Wolf said "Transparent journalism has a lot more ability to gain true trust with its viewers than those striving for objective journalism." In the same interview, he would not go so far as to state he is an "anarchist", but did admit to being anti-capitalist. His objection to releasing the footage cannot therefore support any claim he has that his actions are altruistic. His political beliefs and his empathy for the protesters nullify his credibility.


The ethics of egalitarianism would initially seem to apply to Wolf, in that he was reporting about a minority group of protesters. His refusal to hand over evidence that may have incriminated members of this minority group indicates that Wolf had "entered into a social contract to minimise harm" to them and their ideals. (Rawls 1971). However, Wolf failed to follow through his ethical reasoning in that he did not step "behind the hypothetical veil of ignorance" and therefore, Wolf, as a self-interested moral agent was unable to act impartially and without regard to his own cultural bias. (Day, 2000)


There has been debate on whether Josh Wolf was a legitimate journalist as he was not accredited to any professional media organisation. Given that there is no federal protection that applies to journalists being exempt from giving evidence, the question as to whether he was or was not a journalist should not impact on this case.


It would be hard for Wolf to claim confidentiality as a reason for not releasing the footage, as the video was filmed in a public demonstration. Without the defence of confidentiality, Josh Wolf is just an ordinary citizen and he therefore had a moral duty to provide evidence to the courts when called upon to do so. Whilst this viewpoint may seem to counter Aristotle's Golden Mean, in that it appears to an extreme in itself, the very existence of the Appeal Court Process allowed the ethical decisions to "take the shape of the twists and runs of this" case. (Leslie, 2004). The mediated outcome of the case and the release of Wolf from prison provide an excellent example of how the Court of Appeal applied the practical wisdom of Aristotle in reaching a mean relative in this instance.


Josh Wolf left the court with no option but to jail him for contempt when he refused to comply with the subpoena. The Federal Grand Jury is not in a position to assess each individual situation ethic. Relativism has no place in a justice system. It would be impossible to administer the courts if each person had the self-determination to declare that what is right for the majority of society need not apply to them. This would foster anarchy and in this instance there are far-reaching implications in setting any legal precedent that grants protection to citizens who publish independently on the internet.


Mark Doremus and Karen Slattery point out in We need to talk (2006), that "a distinction must be made between a professional journalist and ... anyone else with access to an audience. If all citizens can have a claim to free speech under the law... then no one would be obligated to give evidence in a wide range of situations. When everyone counts as a journalist, no one really counts – because the granting of privilege would become impractical".


The practical application of the law is not always easy to balance against the philosophies of ethics. The human race has debated the issues of ethics and order for centuries. Whilst the law tends to take a pedantic stand, ethics are debatable philosophies that lend themselves to grey areas. That they are inextricably linked together reinforces the need for professional ethical codes in order for journalists to be better able to assess their own objectivity


References
Abelson, R., & Nielsen, K. (1967). History of ethics. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 81-117). New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press


Bowie, N. (1985) Making ethical decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill


Day, L. (2000). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (3rd ed. PP 53-74). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.


Frontline. (2007). Interview Josh Wolf. In Frontline news war. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from WGBH Educational Foundation website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/wolf.html


Leslie, L. (2004) Mass communication ethics: Decision making in post modern culture (2nd ed., pp 85-87). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin


Mill, J. S. (1968). Selected writings of John Stuart Mill (M. Cowling, Ed.). New York: New American Library.


Morrison, A. (2002). Objectivity. In J. McGregor & M. Comrie (Eds), What's news: Reclaiming journalism in New Zealand (pp.56-71). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.


Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. (pp 30-31). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.


Slattery, K., & Doremus, M. (2006, October). Ethics: We need to talk. In The digital journalist. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0610/ethics.html


Wolf, J. (Producer). (2005). All empires must fall [Motion picture]. United States. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from
http://joshwolf.net/freejosh/

38 comments:

Term Papers said...

Well I am totally agree that The practical application of the law is not always easy to balance against the philosophies of ethics. The human race has debated the issues of ethics and order for centuries. Whilst the law tends to take a pedantic stand, ethics are debatable philosophies that lend themselves to grey areas. That they are inextricably linked together reinforces the need for professional ethical codes in order for journalists to be better able to assess their own objectivity..

Term papers

美利 said...

Better late than never. .........................................

大年初一 said...

當身處逆境時,要能忍一時之氣,吃一時之苦,並及早確立自己的目標,總有一天,你會嘗到那甘美的果實。........................................

毅綠 said...

喜樂的心是健康良藥,憂傷的靈使骨枯乾。........................................

楊怡均 said...

人有兩眼一舌,是為了觀察倍於說話的緣故。 ..................................................

PhilCrispin0626清民 said...

I love readding, and thanks for your artical.........................................

BlancaMcleroy1230 said...

原來這世上能跟你共同領略一個笑話的人竟如此難得........................................

協盛 said...

好棒的地方 我一定要常來~~~^^~........................................

dare713llflagg0 said...

世間事沒有一樣沒有困難,只要有信心去做,至少可以做出一些成績。 ..................................................

重俐 said...

認清問題就等於已經解決了一半的問題。.............................................

韋于倫成 said...

人間好話,要如海綿遇水牢牢吸住..................................................

志文 said...

我從來不認為不同意我的看法就是冒犯........................................

怡迪怡迪 said...

先為別人的快樂著想,是超人;先為自己的快樂著想,是凡人;使別人不快樂,自己也不快樂的,是笨人。..................................................

啟定 said...

Variety is the very spice of life. ............................................................

SadeRa盈君iford0412 said...

責人之心責己,恕己之心恕人。........................................

韻枝 said...

Make yourself necessary to someone...................................................................

玫友 said...

你不能改變容貌~~但你可以展現笑容................................................................

又來 said...

河水永遠是相同的,可是每一剎那又都是新的。....................................................................

夏康如 said...

成熟,就是有能力適應生活中的模糊。.................................................................

雲亨雲亨雲亨 said...

人生是故事的創造與遺忘。............................................................

茂慧茂慧 said...

來給你加油,幫你推一下喔~期待你的下一個更新,謝謝..................................................................

JasonBirk佳琪 said...

認同您堅持和認真的態度,加油!支持你............................................................

楊儀卉 said...

好的部落格,希望您能繼續堅持!!!............................................................

雅俊芬凱陳許 said...

you got it!i like it!!!............................................................

彥安 said...

真是感人肺腑的文章~~......................................................

呈婷呈婷呈婷呈婷 said...

祝你人氣百分百 請繼續幫我們加油打氣..................................................

余憲希余憲希 said...

好的blog值得一推再推,要愈來愈好哦!!!!............................................................

吳淑芬吳淑芬 said...

如果你批評他人。你就沒有時間付出愛............................................................

翁書豪李佳宏 said...

Make yourself necessary to someone.............................................................

黃子軒 said...

覺得自己能不能做到,其實只在一念之間。.......................................................

雅王任 said...

世間事沒有一樣沒有困難,只要有信心去做,至少可以做出一些成績。..................................................

佳呈均慧 said...

時間就是塑造生命的材料。

張鴻黃淑娟水 said...

走召糸及言贊白勺口拉............................................................

蘇介蘇介妤妤蘇介妤蘇介妤 said...

好熱鬧喔 大家踴躍的留言 讓部落格更有活力..................................................

孫邦柔 said...

獨居時,要反省自己的過錯;在社會大眾之間,則要忘卻別人的過失。..................................................

怡靜怡靜怡靜怡雯 said...

我們能互相給予的最佳禮物是「真心的關懷」。.................................................

阿袁袁袁袁華 said...

當最困難的時候,也就是離成功不遠的時候。..................................................

瑞蕾 said...

you got it!i like it!!!