Doing Ethics in Media: Instructor’s Resource Manual
41
The Third Question:
Who Wins, Who Loses?
Who are the stakeholders, and what impact is your decision likely to have on each of them in the
short term and in the long term?
oyalty is topic of the third question of Doing Ethics in Media. Decision makers should
identify the stakeholders, and then consider the short– and long-term impact of the
decision upon those stakeholders.
Perhaps you are saying: “But isn’t loyalty a value?” Yes, and loyalty could have been
included in the fourth question’s consideration of values. However, this book separates
loyalty into its own question, because it’s been our experience that loyalty can become
As a practical matter, students should think of loyalties as a “to whom” question and
values as a “to what” question.
Chapters 4 and 5 ask students to think about things they’ve never thought about before,
and in ways they’ve never considered. Chapter 4’s introduction to moral development
L
42
Introduce four theories of moral development, taken from the discipline of
developmental psychology.
See the difficulties in choosing loyalties while showing respect to all—
including people and groups to whom the decision maker feels lower levels of loyalty.
The phrasing of the question: “Who wins, who loses?” may lead some students to think
of this question as one where there must be losers. As the question is fully explained,
students should understand “losing” in the context of the reality that not every person
43
Chapter 4
Moral Development and the Expansion of
Empathy
t first glance, students thinking about careers in mass communication may be
wondering why they are being subjected to the theories of Perry, Kohlberg, Gilligan,
and their ilk. But students who pay attention should understand—and see themselves—
once they read the chapter. Given this book’s assumption that mass media have a
A caveat while teaching this chapter: While we want students to recognize the need to
reach higher levels of moral development, avoid sounding like a revival preacher or
Learning Objectives
A successful discussion of Chapter 4 will lead students to:
A basic understanding of the levels of moral development: ego-centered low
A
44
Apply those theories to case studies that ask students to determine how moral
development plays a role in choosing loyalties.
Teaching Suggestions
We suggest these activities:
If this is impractical, find a relevant case study or discuss Practical Application No. 4, in
which students are asked to consider the levels of moral development they show in the
personal codes of ethics they wrote as part of Chapter 2’s discussion of codes of ethics.
If they didn’t write their own code of ethics, then try a variation of Practical Application
2. Work through the chapter’s key points in a lecture/discussion. (Note that the
PowerPoint contains a longer discussion of the Perry and Kohlberg approaches than
other approaches. It’s been our classroom experience that students seem to “get” the
Perry approach as they compare it to their own experiences, and the Kohlberg approach
45
society have symbiotic relationships with each other, and those relationships lead to
rules and codes for mass media.
c. A mention of the five approaches discussed in the book: William Perry’s look at
young adults’ moral growth, Lawrence Kohlberg’s look at rights and justice, Carol
Gilligan’s look at care and community, Mary Belenky’s look at how women know and
express themselves, and James Rest’s considerations of moral sensitivity, judgment,
motivation, and character.
e. Briefly discuss Jean Piaget (not in the book), who studied cognition
development in children and noted that it is necessary before emotion/moral
development can begin.
h. Move to Belenky’s “women’s ways of knowing.”
i. Conclude with Rest’s “four components of morality,” with the practical study
of schema and not the rigid steps of Kohlberg.
3. Work through a case study at the end of Chapter 4 (or use your own case) but
ask students to discuss reasoning based on moral development, not find “the” answer
Case Study Notes
46
As the book notes, the point of Chapter 4’s case studies is not to reach a single, morally
defensible conclusion. The point is for students to use several moral development
theories to identify the possible decisions that people would make, based upon their
various stages of moral development. This approach will help students intellectualize
Case 4.1) Journalism: Publish or Not: Changing Stages, Changing Sides?
It is hoped that students will identify the stakeholders: the photographer, his/her boss,
the AP as an institution, the photographer’s military father, the AP, the soldier’s family,
others in the dead soldier’s unit, the Defense Department, readers, people for and
against the war, etc. At higher levels of moral development, students will consider
values such as truth, the need to minimize harm, etc.
Using Table 4.1, answer might include:
Stage 1: Simple fear of punishment if you publish/don’t publish the photo.
Stage 2: Publish it to win awards, keep the boss happy, make money. Don’t
publish it to keep the military (or, perhaps, your dad) happy and to keep sources.
47
obligation to military families, since you were part of one.
Stage 4: Publish it because the rules of journalism expect you to publish what
you know, and because the First Amendment provides freedom. Or, don’t publish it
because you seek to show respect to the government’s wishes.
Case 4.2) New Media: Paying to Reveal a Product
Stakeholders in this case would yourself, your website, the Mango company, the
employee who lost the phone, the phone’s finder, the people who care about the
secretive company’s products, etc. The case does not mention whether you have a boss.
Taking a look at the case through Gilligan’s prism could lead to these justifications:
Stage 1: A powerless person might spend the $5,000, knowing that it might be
wrong (and even illegal) but needed to keep a job. Or, don’t do it because you’re afraid
of going to jail or angering Mango, which might work to make your life difficult.
48
stolen property.
Stage 3: You make the deal, fully disclosing your reasoning that it’s important
to serve readers by telling them about the upcoming product. Or you don’t make the
deal, but you tell the world that knowing about a product the world will see in a few
Case 4.3) Public Relations: A Stealthy Way to Cause a Scoop
Few students will recognize the scene from 1981’s Absence of Malice, in which a federal
prosecutor leaves documents on his desk and leaves the room with the expectation that
the reporter will read the file and write a story that makes the target of an investigation
Stakeholders in the case include the PR practitioner, the reporter, both their respective
companies, the company’s competitors, the journalists’ readers, etc.
Using Perry’s levels of moral development, decisions for the PR practitioner might
include:
Pre-conventional: Do it, because what matters most is gaining the unpaid
media attention you seek. Or don’t do it, because it’s wrong to tempt people.
49
more good than the small chance for a little harm. Or don’t do it, because you have a
Case 4.4) Advertising: Drop the Pitchman?
Loyalties include yourself, the athlete, the company, the athlete’s team and league, both
male consumers and female consumers of your company’s products, and society at
large. The case study asks students to offer decisions and justifications using the
Kohlberg and Gilligan theories. Lower levels of development will lead decision makers
to think about keeping/losing their jobs, and the economic considerations or dropping
or keeping him. At middle levels of development, decision makers will note that the
athlete was not convicted of anything, or that the male products are pitched separately
from the female products. At higher levels, decision makers might consider the
principle of a company’s social contract to both the athlete and to women in general.
Case 4.5) Entertainment: Send Adolescents to Fly Island?
50
The case has plenty of stakeholders: you, your boss, other workers on the project, the
network, viewers (especially children who watch the show), the children participants,
their parents, etc.
Mary Belenky’s “women’s way of knowing” might lead to these decisions and this logic
underlying those decisions:
Stage 1: You do the show, because you feel powerless to respond to your boss.
Stage 2: You do the show, because you can rely on the child psychologist and
other authorities to do the right thing.