By MASON MEDINA
The Potter’s Box is an ethics tool used by members of the media and, specifically, journalists, when writing a story. The main objective of the Potter’s Box is to determine whether or not it is ethical to write and publish a particular story.
The Potter’s Box consists of four key components. The first, and most important, component is the empirical definition. The empirical definition is used to state the ethical dilemma that a particular story presents. Without this step there is no use for any of the following components.
Many times, the empirical definition can answer a question of ethics without the help of the other elements of the box. The second component of the Potter’s Box is to identify the values in the case. This step involves identifying the parties that are affected by the ethical dilemma and determining whether or not their values coincide with the proposed story.
Values are also used to determine what ramifications come from the story. The third element of the Potter’s Box is identifying the principles and philosophies that should be applied to the story. This step consists of applying different philosophical frameworks to the story. Some of these philosophical frameworks include Aristotle’s Golden Mean.
The Golden Mean states that coverage of a story should not go to the extreme of either side of the story. Another is Mill’s Principles of utility. This states that the writer of the story should seek the greatest amount of good that a story can achieve.
The fourth step in the Potter’s Box is determining the loyalties that the writer has to uphold. This step is used to factor in writers’ loyalties in order to determine whether or not the ethical dilemmas can be overlooked and still uphold the trust of his/her readers and employers.
Once this step is complete the media can make a decision on the ethical problem that they were presented with. One case that fits in very well with the Potter’s Box is that of the recent Tiger Woods coverage.
The first step would be to define the empirical definition, which is that the coverage of Woods is unethical. It can be seen as unethical for three main reasons. The first is that it became far too personal with the publishing of raunchy text messages sent by Woods, the unwarranted coverage of his wife and children, and the glorification of his numerous mistresses.
The second reason is that the coverage distracted the media from more important issues in the world, like America’s budget crisis and the death of a British soldier who had been killed by Taliban fighters.
The third reason the coverage was unethical was that the coverage was dominated by rumors and false information. The media ran numerous stories that spoke of a Woods sex tape, nude photos and even domestic abuse of Woods, by his wife, Elin Nordegren.
The next step would be to determine the values of the news outlets that covered the story. One value that should be upheld is the viewers’ trust that the media is telling the truth. This was broken when the media reported on the rumors stated previously.
Another value that should be considered is the fact that Woods is considered a role model to children around the world. In this case, it was important to report the story due to Woods’ infidelity and the marring of his character. Another value to identify is that Woods had an image to uphold to his sponsors and he clearly failed to do so with his unsavory behavior.
The next step would be to apply some of the Philosophical frameworks discussed before. When applied to the Golden Mean philosophy, the media was wrong because rather than present fair and balanced coverage, they bashed Woods for weeks and published news that was unimportant.
This made the coverage lean towards one side too much and, therefore, unethical. When applied to the principle of Utility, the media was still wrong due to the unhappiness it caused. Though Woods did not deserve to leave the incident happy, his family did.
The media, however, made the lives of Woods’ wife and children miserable with the increased spotlight thrust upon the family. This was taking the coverage too far and, ultimately, made more people unhappy than not, including viewers who were bombarded with nonsense “news."
The last step of the Potter’s box would be to determine the loyalties that the media and writers had. When writing stories, the biggest driving force should be delivering fair and balanced news. However, in this case, it was more about money than news.
Though media outlets and journalists have a loyalty to the business and financial aspects of the coverage, they crossed a line that should not have been crossed. As soon as Woods’ family was brought into the fray, the media should have realized they had over-stepped their bounds and had now put innocent people in a poor situation.
Journalists should always ask one question; how much is too much? In the case of the Woods coverage, writers failed to do so and, thus, failed to secure an ethical balance in the coverage. This is why the coverage of Tiger Woods was unethical. |
