Introduction
Lynne Dale and Susan Barnett, ABC reporters, got jobs at two Food Lions using bogus identities and applications. The two employed hidden cameras and microphones to record videos of operations, including redating expired meat and grinding expired meat with new meat during their brief employment. Food Lion filed a federal lawsuit against ABC in Greensboro, North Carolina, for trespass under North Carolina law. The company claimed that ABC obtained the material for the program using illicit newsgathering tactics. This paper is based on the analysis of the actions of the two reporters concerning the existing ethical standards.
The Problem
The scenario happened in North and South Carolina in November 1992. Two news reporters misrepresented their professional and educational histories on their resumes and concealed their existing status. According to the complaint, the flaws include employing illicit methods to gain employment at the organization. The journalists could have gotten what they sought through other ways, and they should have tried them first.
Affected Party
Food Lion grocery was affected because of this undercover; they incurred a lot of damages as the report that was obtained tarnished the company’s image in the public eye. Due to the damages caused, as per the Judge’s opinion, ABC was found guilty of disloyalty, trespass, and fraud by a jury in December 1996. Food Lion was given 1,400 dollars in compensatory damages and 5.5 million dollars in punitive penalties for fraud by the jury (Reporters Committee for freedom of the press, 2012). In addition, the court granted 2 dollars in minimal damages for breach and trespass of allegiance. The punitive award was lowered to 315,000 dollars by the United States District Court (Reporters Committee for freedom of the press, 2012). The reporters were affected because there existed other legal ways in which they could have accessed the Food Lion premises other than the dubious ways.
Case Facts
Based on the undercover reporting of two of its reporters, the defendant aired a show regarding the plaintiff’s unhygienic food handling methods. Because the reporters acquired access to the plaintiff’s business based on fraudulent resumes and hid their work with the defendant, the plaintiff sued for unfair trade practices, fraud, and breach of contract. Plaintiff was awarded a small sum of money in the trial court. Still, the trial court determined that it could not collect damages for loss of stock value due to the publication of the story; losses could not be related to the defendants’ deceit. Both parties appealed, with the plaintiff arguing that the limited damages should be paid and the defendant asserting that no fraud had occurred.
Three Ethical Theories
To determine the appropriate ethical response to the dilemma situation, some of the ethical theories that are effectively applied to the case include, firstly, utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism that focuses on the outcome. The act by the two reporters was that of utilitarianism; they wanted greater benefit to a large number of people than concealing the secret of the company from the public (Mintz & Morris, 2017). Secondly, as opposed to utilitarianism, deontology as a theory is not based on the consequences but rather on morality as per the set of rules. In applying the theory of deontology, information for the report was obtained via illicit newsgathering means by ABC reporters. Lastly, virtue ethics is also a significant theory that applies to this scenario and illustrates the preferred action that should be taken. As per the meaning of the theory, instead of performing one’s job to get positive results, moral philosophy emphasizes the significance of character and virtue (Johannesen et al., 2008). Therefore, it should be considered whether the actions of the two reporters were honest and true.
Recommendation For Solving the Dilemma
Based on the three ethical theories, I recommend two virtues to solve the case. Virtue ethics and utilitarianism are two ethical theories that justify the actions of the two reporters for the benefit of the greatest number of people. Because of virtue ethics, reporting and exposing the company to the public was an honest situation; hence can be justified by virtue ethics. Additionally, utilitarianism supports the acts of the two reporters; the information on the company was beneficial to the public; therefore, the two reporters should not incur any fines as per the theories. The news reporters expressed utilitarianism by deciding to expose the illegal production process at the company; this information benefited the greatest population.
Predictable Consequences
Predictable consequences for my recommendations mean that the two journalists will not face any charges; this is not in line with North Carolina law. Since the two journalists used illegal means to access the company premises, they should be responsible for their actions, but according to my recommendations, they should not. Therefore, the recommended ethical theories ignore and encourage acts such as unfair trading practices, the beaching of duty of loyalty, alleging fraud, and trespassing in North Carolina law. Additionally, the worst consequence that could have happened.
Best Argument Against Recommendation
Due to the conflicting situation resulting from my recommendation, the best argument against them is that state laws should be considered above ethical theories. As much as the theories can be applied, they can only be applied without state laws. In this scenario, the two ABC reporters will face the consequences because the laws allow for other alternatives to collect the information concerning the company.
Reasons For Sticking with My Recommendation
I would consider sticking to my recommendation because they offer the greatest benefit to the public. The company should face the consequences for its unethical practices in its production sector. These unhealthy acts must have ceased upon exposure, and for Food Lion Grocery to become functional again, it must provide justifiable results on the health status of its raw materials and products. The two ABC journalists should not be fined because they did a great job unearthing the situation that would not have been revealed justifiably as the reporters did.
Conclusion
In conclusion, journalists should also avoid using undercover reporting unless it is the only method to obtain information and all other options have been explored. Even though they expressed acts of utilitarianism and virtue ethics, according to the law of the state, their act was illegal. Considerably, the heavy fine was lowered, considering that their information was also of greatest help to the general public.
References
Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in Human Communication. Waveland Press. 6th ed.
Mintz, S., & Morris, R. (2017). Ethical obligations and decision-making in accounting: text and cases (p. 624). McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 4th ed.
Reporters Committee for freedom of the press (2012). The Landmark Food Lion Case.