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/

Mass Communication and Audience Responses

How is communication with the masses mediated and how does the audience respond to the information it receives?

The key aspects that should be examined are :1 the historical concept that mass audiences were incapable to applying alternative meanings to texts,2 social scripting through media, and3 audience feedback.

It can be argued that audiences are not passive receivers of mediated mass communication, and are capable of influencing popular culture through active participation.

Mass communication is mediated, which means that the contents are remotely sourced, edited and presented in context with a view to present a dominant meaning for public consumption . However, the denotation of text and the actual connotation may differ widely.

Early communication theorists believed that the Effects Model was all that was needed to sway audience opinion. Much like a "hypodermic injection", thoughts were presented in media form and the recipients accepted them without question.

There are many 1st world war posters, originally published by the US Food Administration, we can use as excellent examples of the type of advertising that gave out a direct message for the audience consumption. These were in plain and simple language and were direct commands or demands to eat less, save more, grow more and work harder. The explanation as to why the commands should have been followed were apparently inconsequential - almost footnotes.

This presumed that the meaning was within the text and the audience had no part in the determination of the meaning. It was even presumed the audience was unlikely be able to interpret meaning, and Lippman, as cited in Chomsky's Mind control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda (1991), even went so far as to describe the audience as a "bewildered herd."

Lippman's incredibly arrogant viewpoint was nullified in the 1940s when it was discovered that a surprising number of voters in the USA had been swayed in their vote choice by the opinions of other voters. The personal influence of opinion leaders in communities meant that audiences had to be "viewed within a larger social setting" (Lazarsfeld, Berelsen, & Gaudet (1968), as cited by Tubbs & Moss, 1994) and this is one of the fundamental reasons the Effects Model failed. There is a social and cultural factor within the audience that influences media reception and this cannot be ignored.

There is a two-step flow model of mass communication because within any society, there are always opinion holders who influence those around them. Recognising this gave credence to the statement in 1928 made by Edward Bernays, that..."the public is not an amorphous mass which can be molded at will, or dictated to."(Bernays & Miller, 1928/2004).

Despite the realization that people did not blindly react to media, there is a lingering debate on the effects of mass media, with particular emphasis on the way media can influence violence in children.This has been extensively studied by the U.S department of Health and despite ongoing debate, they claim their results indicate that children learn aggressive behaviour by watching violence on television.

It can be argued that if children can learn negative behaviour through the medium of television, then so can other behaviours be learnt. Social learning through the media is being currently used quite extensively in New Zealand. For example, there are many short dramatized adverts on television about the dangers of smoking and drink driving. Whether social behaviour can be modified for socio-political purposes, or to the advantage of the mega- infotainment industry via the media is not certain and the effectiveness of such social scripting would be hard to measure in qualitative or quantitative terms.

In the 1970s and 80's, the Reception Theory was introduced. Stuart Hall, in particular, presented the idea that there are audience responses that include "opposition' or "negotiation" There will always be a dominant meaning of text, but these texts have a polysemic nature, and will be decoded by the audience. (Hall,S. 1974).

All audiences have their own opinions and these are based on cultural backgrounds and the ability of humans to select, compare and discuss opinions with others. In support of this hypothesis, are Scramm and Roberts (1971) who state that an audience is "intensively" active and "accepts" or "rejects" the media content it receives.

An excellent example of selection and comparison of dominant, negotiated and oppositional stances is to be found in an a New Zealand televised advertisement (2007).

The advertisement shows a young ballerina and a strong young man. The music and the ethnicity of the characters indicate that this advert is about smoking in New Zealand. The two young peope have their own dreams and ambitions and they wish for a smoke free country for themselves and their nation. When the video cuts to an empty ashtray, it becomes obvious that wishes do not come true. The dominant meaning therefore, is that smoking impacts negatively on our society and no amount of wishful thinking will make people stop. The message is that we need to take action against smoking.

This video is particularly insightful, as the comments posted on the Internet in response to it, clearly demonstrate the dominant , negotiated and oppositional reactions from the audience. (Mellontona Tauta, Stevowoly, & Skirtwalk, 2007).

Mellonta Tauta takes an oppositional stance to the effectiveness of the advertisement . In her post (2007), she asks "How does this ad encourage anyone to stop smoking? It's visually interesting, but conveys no real, concrete stop-smoking message, other than perhaps the banal "Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a smoke-free world?"

The dominant viewpoint is found in the a post by skirtwalk (2008), who concurs "this by far is the most elegant anti-smoking ad I have seen. Pretty cool, I just hope that it is as effective (with the audiences) as well."

A negotiated comment on the effectivness of the advert was contributed by Stevowoly (2007), where he said "I completely agree that smoking is a bad idea, but I think advertisements over do it." This post indicates he is not against the dominant meaning and merely disagrees with the content of the media.

Quick feedback from audience is a new phenomenon which has been aided by technology. This is something that Television stations and print media historically did not have.

It is not suprizing that there is some debate as to whether mass audiences can be be effectively manipulated in view of the influence of audience opinion. With the advent of the internet, I believe that the free-flow of information has helped to break the effects of any deliberate manipulation of mass audeinces. Prior to the internet, the bulk of communication flowed in one direction, or swirled around a little before flowing onward, but the internet allows for a flow of communication from two directions.

Audiences are not limited to media available on the internet. Text in all formats, from magazines, books, radio and television have become such a large part of life in the modern epoch many people could not imagine life without it. However, the feedback is always fast. Printed text can be reviewed online by anyone with an opinon and text messaging has provided a new outlet for opinion sharing in real time.

The communication we are receiving is mediated, but the audience now choose which media they want to use. Media is basically a product. No product will sell if there is not a willing buyer. The media may be a powerful tool, but it is the audience demand and audience feedback that shapes the message and presentation of mediated content.
References
Bernays, E. L., & Miller, M. C. (2004). Propoganda (New ed.). New York: Ig publishing. (Original work published 1928)
Chomsky, N. (1997). Mind control the spectacular achivements of propaganda (G.Ruggiero & S. Sahulka, Eds.) [Brochure]. USA: Seven Stories Press in association with open media.
Hall,S. (1974) "The television discourse - encoding and decoding", Education and culture no 25 (UNESCO), reprinted in Gray, A,. & McGuigan, J. (eds) (1997), Studying culture, London: Arnold.
Lazarsfeld, Berelsen & Gaudet (1944) "The people's choice", in Tubbs, S., & Moss, S. (1994). Mass communication. In Human communication (7th ed., p. 393). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. (Original work published 1974)
Mellontona Tauta, Stevowoly, & Skirtwalk. (2007, March/April). Anti-smoking tv ad from New Zealand. Message posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiuxMiwvhZY
Schramm,W.,& Roberts, D. (Eds) (1971) The process and effects of mass communications (rev ed.)USA: University of Illinois Press.
US Food Administration. (1917). Eat more eat less [Poster]. New York: Heywood Strasser & Voigt Litho Co. Retrieved January 26, 2008, from Military category Website: http://www.vintageposterworks.com/cgi-bin/quikstore.cgi?search=yes&page=search.html&category=Military&keywords=&search2=Go
World anti-smoking day [Television advertisement]. (2007). New Zealand. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiuxMiwvhZY