Abstract
Ethics is an omnipresent concept in the modern mass media. The abundance of informational channels, modes, and themes marked by multiple media actors leads to the necessity to cross the lines between acceptable and unacceptable to attract attention to important issues. Therefore, the moral decisions that media practitioners have to make daily are subject to continuous moral reasoning that prioritizes some values or interests over others. Indeed, as generally stated by Black and Roberts (2011), while trying to preserve its ethics, media is in “the constant struggles between or among these forces for autonomy and conformity” (p. 3).
Given the subjectivity of moral judgment in media ethics, it is challenging to analyze some cases of ethical dilemmas. However, it is relevant to explore ethical dilemmas in media by applying comprehensive frameworks. In the present paper, a so-called ‘5Ws and H’ questions framework is used to analyze the case of media publications about Kobe Bryant’s 2003 sexual assault case soon after his tragic death.
What’s Your Problem?
The case under analysis is based on two articles, one written by Draper (2020) from The New York Times and another written by Henson (2020) from the Los Angeles Times. The articles discuss Kobe Bryant’s 2003 sexual assault case when the Lakers player was accused of raping a 19-year old hotel receptionist. The context is a decisive element in the understanding and analysis approach of the ethical dilemma at hand. However, the complexity of contexts related to the journalistic publication intensifies the ambiguity of the ethical issue. On the one hand, the news stories were published at the end of January 2020, several days after Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and even more people died in a helicopter crash. On the other, the sexual assault topic in these articles was brought to the front at the time when the Me Too movement and consecutive moods in the society were particularly sharp. Therefore, the intersection of the two contexts causes an ethical dilemma of whether it was relevant to discuss a sensitive and discrediting episode from the sportsman’s life in articles published so soon after his tragic passing.
Moreover, Bryant’s successful sports career and family life after the incident allowed him to become a legend who contributed to the development of sports overall and the black community. His numerous accomplishments serve as a basis for his fans and the general public to remember him as a dignified, respected member of society. By publishing stories about the sexual assault case, journalists consciously jeopardize the good memory about Kobe Bryant and eliminate empathy by accentuating his wrongdoing. Consequently, at the center of the dilemma is a collision of empathy and journalists’ obligation to address socially relevant problems. Therefore, the question that should be answered within the context of this dilemma is as follows: Is it morally justifiable to use one’s death as a reason to attract attention to the socially relevant problem by emphasizing the wrongdoings of the deceased?
Why Not Follow the Rules?
There is a universal rule of morality that requires never to speak ill of the dead. However, the media practitioners do not follow this rule to attract people’s attention to the ongoing social issue of continuous sexual assaults against women committed by rich and famous men who escape responsibility. Therefore, the media practitioners had to decide whether to commemorate the famous athlete respectfully or to use his death as a foundation for raising awareness about sexual assault crimes under-investigation. As the articles by Draper (2020) and Henson (2020) demonstrate, they chose to prioritize their assumed moral obligation before victimized women. They used the attention attracted to Kobe Bryant’s figure immediately after his death accordingly.
On the contrary, there is a code of journalism to tell the truth and minimize harm, which implies that the negative aspects of Kobe Bryant’s career should be addressed as the truth, and the harm to the victimized women should be minimized. However, it might be relevant not to follow this rule for the sake of respectful memorialization of a person whose positive contributions significantly outweigh his past mistake. Moreover, the importance of Bryant’s figure to the US sports history and the black community introduces a large number of people whose feelings might be harmed by the media’s lack of empathy. Thus, in this ethical dilemma, the moral rule necessitating remembering the good about the dead was violated to acknowledge the victims of sexual assaults.
Who Wins, Who Loses?
The stakeholders in the analyzed dilemma are multiple. Firstly, there is Kobe Bryant as a figure in US history and his family and friends. They are harmed by Draper’s (2020) and Henson’s (2020) articles because they do not receive empathy in their loss, and Bryant’s positive accomplishments are diminished. Secondly, the media practitioners at the center of the dilemma under analysis are the authors and publishers of The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. The individuals who initiated the discussion of the athlete’s discrediting past soon after his death were trying to use the news about Kobe Bryant’s death as an informational occasion for emphasizing the importance of investigating sexual assault cases related to celebrities. In such a manner, they benefit from such a portrayal of Bryant’s personality because they fearlessly violate social norms to attract attention and win popularity.
The assumed relationships between the journalists who wrote the articles and their audience are considered influencers and receivers. However, the media practitioners might be assumed the reflectors of public opinion and moral judgment, which is why they feel the obligation to speak about the whole truth about the man whose death has been a significant loss for the nation. Thirdly, women who have been victims of sexual assault, including the alleged victim of Kobe Bryant, are important stakeholders in this case. Their interests in justice and social change related to punishment for rape are met by the publication of such articles. From their perspective, remembering the athlete’s harmful behavior should serve as a reminder of the importance of non-punished crimes against women. Finally, another important stakeholder in this dilemma is the black community that is comprised of loyal fans of Kobe Bryant and the appreciators of his contribution to sports by empowering young generations and investing in sports. The consequences of the media’s failure to empathize with their loss might be a decrease in trust toward media and the amplified racial tensions.
What’s It Worth?
When justifying an alternative decision that would not emphasize Kobe Bryant’s past mistakes but empathize with the national loss of an outstanding figure in the US history, one should prioritize one’s values. The moral values that I would never compromise are kindness, compassion, and respect. As for non-moral values, my priorities are cultural and religious values. The death of a person is a case when these moral and non-moral values are most important. Moreover, the understanding that people demonstrate who they are with their actions and contribute to the world around them, as Kobe Bryant did, helps label his personality as a figure worthy of respectful commemoration.
Who’s Whispering in Your Ear?
Virtue ethics, as one of the approaches in descriptive ethics, is the school of moral philosophy that guides the analysis of the present ethical dilemma. In particular, this school prioritizes moral excellence, which, when applied to the analyzed case, implies that media practitioners should act in the least harmful way by respectfully commemorating a person who played an important role in the country’s culture. Thus, the virtues of forgiveness, compassion, empathy, kindness, and patriotism should be the leading elements when making ethical decisions when it comes to addressing stories similar to Bryant’s.
How’s Your Decision Going to Look?
In conclusion, to answer the question that was asked at the beginning of the analysis, it is morally unjustifiable to use Kobe Bryant’s death and devalue his contribution to American history as a ground for raising awareness about a social matter that discredits him. The ethical dilemma should be resolved by ignoring his past mistake for the sake of good memory as the rule of never speaking ill of the dead requires. The reaction of others to such a conclusion might raise controversy as the story does. However, the majority would agree that the allegations that the media practitioners are currently trying to impose are irrelevant in the context of the contributions Kobe Bryant made during his life.
References
Black, J., & Roberts, C. (2011). Doing ethics in media: Theories and practical applications. Taylor & Francis.
Draper. K. (2020). Kobe Bryant and the sexual assault case that was dropped but not forgotten. The New York Times.
Henson, S. (2020). What happened with Kobe Bryant’s sexual assault case. Los Angeles Times.