The Case of the Newsroom Affair
Christopher Wallace
Troy University
TROYONLINE Communication Law & Ethics JRN-6640-XTIA 20/T1 (Anthony)
Abstract
This paper will serve as a way to effectively communicate the reasoning of addressing a situation where two employees 9one of a higher authority and one of a lower) have relations with one another in a professional environment. This paper will use the research of Immanuel Kant to address these issues in a way that outlines what negative scenarios can come from this issue and how to effectively solve it in a way that will benefit all parties involved.
To address these issues, varying questions will be asked and assed to paint a picture of the general issue and provide a foundation for the general solution. From that point, we will address numerous instances in which the situation can get out of control if not handled correctly.
All parties involved will be described in a way in which the problem is thought out and explained from their viewpoint; to a degree to which Kant’s teachings may be applied as well and in reference to how the situation may affect them individually.
This paper will make use of a total of five external sources to support the arguments and claims made within this analysis. These will be sourced from online notes and external sites. Other sources or personal experiences may be used as well.
The ideals of this paper will be centered around humanitarian beliefs and how hold every party accountable. The analysis will breakdown why Kant’s theories are applicable and why they will matter in a scenario such as the one given.
Majority of this analysis will be centered on answering and explain questions that pertain to the situation and their relevance to Kant’s theories. how ethical is the issue of a superior living with one of his subordinates? What happens if Warren and Ladner have an argument at home and bring that to work? What issues need investigating and how will you pursue this situation? what do you do in this case?
The Initial Problematic Case
Within a newsroom, there must be equal opportunity and understanding in every area of the workforce. This is due to a high demand of teamwork and cooperation from every position within the network to accomplish tasks at hand release quality content. For a successful broadcast to be achieved, all employees and parties must be on the same page and hold equal amounts of motivation. When given a scenario such as this, we see how a scenario that may seem small for party are actually troublesome for another.
Mr. Warren is a high authority figure within the news organization and as such has gained a respect that sets him apart from most employees. This is the case before Mr. Warren befriends a coworker, Jessica Ladner, under him, which then develops into a relationship that is more intimate. Mr. Warren is also married and from this information, we can draw the conclusion that this will not produce a healthy work environment for him, Ladner, and fellow employees.
Complaints of unfair treatment begin to rise as employees now believe that Ladner receives special treatment through her intimate relationship with an authority figure over her. One can also speculate that rumors will spread amongst colleagues and employees. This will cause discourse within the newsroom and cause employee motivation to dwindle and distractions to rise. This will in turn, cause division within workforce and quality of work to decrease.
It is important to understand how Immanuel Kant’s ideals and theories help to offer a way to prevent issues such as these and how to solve them. His ideas of universal law will help to understand how all parties within an issue can be affected by one small party and the choices that they may make. “Kant is concerned with how public knowledge of and policy over the rights and freedoms of individuals in a given society are shaped by the sciences and professional faculties at public institutions.
Applying the First Imperative
One instance to argue in this case is whether it ethical for employees to see each other in intimate ways. When asking this, I believe one must also supply the reasons as to why this action could cause issues within a workforce. Since there are people who argue that employees being intimate with each is their private business, it will be important to explain why this could prove to be an issue within the workforce using Kant’s ideals.
The First Formulation of the Imperative is a categorical imperative of Kant’s. this is just one of three. To summarize this imperative, we will observe a quote by Kant: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” From this quote, we can conclude that a “maxim” is some sort of general agreement that is understood universally and without contradiction.
So, what does this mean for Warren and Ladner? Well it is understood that employees are spreading rumors and becoming upset with the results of Warren and Ladner’s actions. From this, we can conclude that there are no policy boundaries in place for employee contact in a more intimate and personal way. This produces an atmosphere of freedom for those in higher authorities to dictate what is ethical in terms of relationships and what is not.
This result will not work well in the newsroom work as people will feel as though special treatment will be given to Ladner based off her more intimate relationship with a high authority figure. This ultimately is due to no boundaries in the professional atmosphere. To solve this, there must be a maxim in place that is an understood universal law for the news station in which every employee can follow and not exploit,”-Franke M.
As director, I would instill a policy that prohibits employee dating. This action applies to all employees unless married. If married, employees would not be allowed to operate in the same department or have supervisory capabilities over one another.
Applying the Second Imperative
Within the second imperative Kant states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end,” in his book, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals. This outlines an ideal in which a person can disregard another person’s humanity or effects that may happen to that one person.
Let’s examine the case of Warren and Ladner again. Upon me discussing the issue of an affair with Warren, he is outraged. Even though, through an investigation, it is concluded that there is no sense of favoritism within the newsroom, the fact that this issue exists will still cause rumors and disruption within the workforce since employees will speculate.
Referring to the second imperative, we see that Warren tries to justify his actions by does not give regard to the employees that may be suffering from his decisions. Even though there was no sense of favoritism discovered, there will still be fear within the news station that favoritism could arise, and Ladner will receive more stories that are of higher value compared to other employees.
In this sense, Warren treats the employees as a means to an end by disregarding the effects of his actions. To combat this, I would place a cap on assigned stories for reporters. This cap would give equal opportunity to reporters as well as give an expectation to the work required of them within the workforce.
Applying the Third Imperative
The third imperative can be thought of as a safety cushion in a sense. “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” This quote states that everyone will have to be held accountable within a subject in which individual decisions that can cause issues cannot exist.
In terms of Warren and Ladner, let us imagine if they were allowed to be in an intimate relationship and so could everyone else. What issues would arise from this ideal? Favoritism would definitely be apparent not just with Warren and Ladner but with any other employees in relationships. With everyone doing this, there would not be equal opportunity in the workforce but competition that would cause division and discourse.
To avoid both scenarios, we must revisit the first imperative’s solution and outlaw intimate relationships within the organization, but on a universal level. That is what this imperative means. It is meant to set a standard that will not contradict itself and hold everyone to the same standard so that nobody can counter the decision.
References
1. Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) 2nd Edition
2. Kleingeld, P. (2019). A Contradiction of the Right Kind: Convenience Killing and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. Philosophical Quarterly, 69(274), 64–81. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1093/pq/pqy038
3. Franke, M. (2013). A Critique of the Universalizability of Critical Human Rights Theory: The Displacement of Immanuel Kant. Human Rights Review, 14(4), 367–385. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1007/s12142-013-0284-0
4. Walla, A. (2015). Kant’s Moral Theory and Demandingness. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 18(4), 731–743. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1007/s10677-015-9600-x
5. Formosa, P. (2014). Dignity and Respect: How to Apply Kant’s Formula of Humanity. Philosophical Forum, 45(1), 49–68. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1111/phil.12026