If I had to choose an image to represent the concept of loyalty, I would choose my dog, Thor. I adopted Thor two years ago from a rescue organization and he has since grown into an attention-loving 80 lb labrador who still thinks he is the size of a puppy. One of his favorite ways to get attention is sneaking out the back door while I am trying to leave the house. However, instead of trying to run away, Thor runs to the car and waits patiently for the door to open so he can hop in. While this routine succeeds in getting attention, it also demonstrates his loyalty to me as his owner and provider. Even when he has the chance to run off and explore, Thor chooses to stay close, as he knows I am the one who feeds him, takes care of him and gives him the attention he will do anything to get.
As much as we wish loyalty could be as simple as a dog's, our loyalties as humans are a bit more complex. We often hold multiple loyalties at the same time, and the values that go along with them can compete with each other. Thomas Hobbes acknowledged these conflicting loyalties and that situations arise where we have to choose one loyalty over another.
Loyalties become even more complex when intertwined with journalism and media. Journalists and media professionals encounter conflicting loyalties regularly in their professions and have to navigate between them.
I think one of the most egregious examples in recent history of journalists choosing the wrong loyalties is the coverage of Kobe Bryant's death last year. I watched those events unfold on Twitter and observed both good and bad journalism. I think TMZ crossed a line in reporting the crash before Bryant's family was even notified of his death. Other outlets also reported false information throughout the day, rushing to be the first to report a major development. In both instances, loyalty to money and employers won out over loyalty to audiences, who depend on news outlets for accurate information, and privacy, as Bryant’s family had no time to process the news before it was all over the internet and their reactions were sought out.
In a way, the media outlets and journalists who reported false and unconfirmed information illustrated the same loyalties my dog does. They were loyal to their employers, who want to make money by being the first to report breaking news, and in return give employees a salary. They were loyal to their providers. A simple application of any ethical decision-making model would have taken into account the nuanced loyalties of the situation and may have produced a different outcome. For example, using Bok’s model to imagine possible alternatives and the reactions of all parties involved would have taken into account the voices and opinions of Bryant’s family, the families of the other victims and the audience. The journalists would have had to consider their loyalties to each of the involved parties before running the story and may not have acted solely out of loyalty to their employers.
It is clear that our loyalties as humans are more complex than my dog’s sole loyalty to me as his provider. Our loyalties interrelate and conflict with each other, especially in the world of journalism. To practice ethical storytelling, these loyalties must be acknowledged and considered when running stories about controversial or sensitive matters. Ignoring them leads to less than stellar reporting that may actually do more harm than good.
Comments