If you’re a high school student (or coach a team of high school students) and have a few extra hours this weekend, there’s still time to enter the NHSEB’s case-writing competition. From an email shared on the 22nd:
“Eligibility: All currently enrolled high school students in the United States are eligible to enter.
Submission Deadline: March 1, 2022
Winner Announcement: April 10, 2022
Grand Prize: The author of the case selected will be awarded a $500 prize.
Honorable Mentions: Two prizes of $250 will be awarded to other distinguished cases”
For additional details, click here. And if you accept the challenge and would like me to review a draft, just send it to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by midnight Saturday.
Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! How the Anti-Debate Is Saving Democracy has been in the works for some time, and will soon be ready for beta reader feedback. What do beta readers do? They review a manuscript at their leisure, usually over 3-to-4 weeks, then provide general impressions, improvement suggestions and feedback to help make the final product better. Suggestions can concern chapter order, tone, word choice, topics – whatever comes to mind.
What’s in it for you? Apart from my eternal gratitude, I’ll thank you by name in the book, and mail you an autographed copy. Plus you can take pride in helping spread ethics bowl! The better the book is (thanks to your generous feedback), the more people will read it, the more it will help spread ethics bowl.
Thanks for considering! No special expertise required. If you’re an ethics bowl enthusiast in any capacity, you’re invited to beta read Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! For more information, shoot me an email or use the contact form at MattDeaton.com.
In January of 2019 I shared an Ethics Bowl Public Speaking Tips article. Knowing what you’re talking about, being yourself and practicing remain the foundation of smooth, confident delivery. But back then, almost all bowls were in-person. Today, almost all are remote.
I actually wrote a book on public speaking (now also on audiobook), revised it in 2021, and chapter 12: Using Technology, actually has a section on remote presenting. Here’s an excerpt that should help whether you’re an organizer, judge, moderator, competitor or coach. There are even a few ethics bowl references – enjoy!
This handsome creature is an Urban Honey Badger, honoring an assertiveness drill in chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness. Freaky head, but his body is from a famous Socrates statue (not Rodin’s “The Thinker” – common mistake).
Whether it’s via Zoom, Citrix, YouTube Live or good old teleconference, the challenge of holding a remote audience’s attention increases tenfold. It’s tough enough for people to resist checking their phones when they’re sitting right in front of you. Imagine the multitasking when they’re out of sight.
You’ll therefore have to up your audience engagement game, but your job as remote presenter is actually easier in many ways. If it’s audio only, you won’t have to worry about your silent message (though you won’t be able to use it to your advantage, either). And while you should still prepare a clear presentation and rehearse, you won’t need to master your material quite as well as if you were delivering it in person—can always pull up reference materials, refer back to your notes, and have a timer in front of you to ensure you stay on schedule (though definitely still rehearse, still know what material is coming before it arrives).
This past January, I was honored to be invited to discuss my Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages with Chinese Ethics Bowl students. Thanks to tensions over Taiwan, economic competitiveness and the coronavirus (dang, China, you really screwed the pooch on that one), our governments aren’t the closest allies. Many consider an eventual Sino-American war inevitable. So I viewed the session as an opportunity to befriend ethics-minded future leaders, and maybe, in some small way, decrease the chances that my grandkids will be fighting China in World War III.
I asked the host if there was anything I might do or say to express my goodwill and respect, and he suggested a line from a famous Chinese poem. So my first words were, “Sheeyan chew woo yuan tchin, wa leeee, shan weigh lin.” Given my Tennessee drawl and the fact that I know zero Mandarin, I’m certain I butchered this badly. But it was supposed to roughly translate, “People can become friends and neighbors, even when they’re on the other side of the world.” The attendees seemed to appreciate the effort, and I very much enjoyed discussing argument by analogy, why we can’t base morality on legality, and other cool ideas with them. You can actually watch it yourself. Just search YouTube for “Deaton Ethics Bowl China Seminar.”
A couple of months after that, I was asked to kickoff a series of trainings for Ethics Olympiad participants in Australia. Another chance for cultural exchange, I opened by pulling out a globe. “If you were to get on a plane and fly all the way across the Pacific Ocean and land on the West Coast of the US, then drive east for 3-to-4 days, you’d make your way to the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in the great state of Tennessee, which is where I live. What do Tennesseans do for fun? Well, lots of things, but in addition to soccer and ATV-riding, my own family enjoys trips to the mountains. Here’s a picture of us swimming at Indian Boundary Lake in the Cherokee National Forest.” About that time, I (and everyone else) heard a young man who’d forgotten to mute his mic say, “No, he’s still talking about his stupid family…” Ha! The Zoom screen was filled with faces, and from the look on his, he really wanted to blend in with the crowd. But since his mic was hot, his box lit up, I stopped, squinted to read his name, and immediately called him out. “Mickey Boffsetter? My stupid family? Did you not hear the host explain that I’m a kickboxer?” I rolled my chair backwards to the desk behind me and retrieved my “Fight of the Night” boxing trophy. “Do you see this? Don’t make me come to Australia.”
I was of course smiling and kidding, and he was of course mortified—tried to apologize and make excuses. “Sir, what I meant was…” But I just cut him off and poured it on thicker, which the audience loved—they were rolling with surprised laughter.
Another remote meeting icebreaker example, I once led a series of online workshops for offices interested in improving communication. Some had interpersonal issues (aka they hated each other), so I chose a lighthearted opener: Name That Tune. The first song: a Janet Jackson B-side track from 1984, “Communication.” Some recognized her voice, but no one got the song. The second was Led Zeppelin’s “Communication Breakdown,” which a few middle-aged white dudes knew. And the last was The Beastie Boys’ “Sure Shot” from their Ill Communication album, which no one but me admitted to ever hearing, let alone liking.
By the end most of the attendees were at least grinning, everyone knew the session’s focus would be improving communication, and that I was an approachable host with excellent musical taste.
Another example: I once gave a webinar on business ethics to a mixed group of human resource specialists, website designers and managers. To get them in the ethical thinking mood, I began with what philosophers, attorneys and fans of NBC’s “The Good Place” know as the classic trolley scenario.
Imagine seeing a runaway trolley about to crash into and kill five track workers. You then notice that you’re standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto another track, sparing the first five, but killing another worker. What should you do? Stand by and allow the original five to die? Or pull the lever, save the five, but effectively kill the one?
I then asked an open-ended question. “What do you think a person in this situation should do, and why?” This led to a conversation on the differences between psychological predictability, legal permissibility, and moral rightness, and opened the participants’ minds in ways a poll or monologue never could have. When we got to the case study on employee privacy, I had no trouble getting folks to discuss, which was my goal all along.
In cases of remote audience disengagement emergency, one somewhat mean tactic is to ask a question and call on attendees by name (depending on the software, you should be able to see their names right there on the screen). Once you’ve called on a couple, everyone will pay attention so they don’t get caught dozing. But again, this is mean, so if you do it, be gentle, confess a time that you were called on and didn’t know the answer, and mail everyone chocolate afterwards.
However, all the chocolate in the world won’t help if your presentation is bad. So remember to apply the basics: thoroughly research your topic and organize your material, punch up your key points with emotionally potent examples, and practice, practice, practice. Enunciate and speak directly into the mic (confirmation that your audience can hear you is a good idea). If you’re using a webcam, your silent message is back in play, and now includes everything in the background, so make sure the camera is capturing your face and torso—not just the top of your hair and ceiling. Unless you have hair like Vanilla Ice did in the 90s, in which case zoom in on that glorious mane.
Look at the camera as much as you can to simulate eye contact. Looking at the lens rather than your screen will make your delivery feel more intimate, though the audience may not be able to articulate why.
Last, minimize background noise and distractions. With a four-year-old on the loose, my home office isn’t the most silent of studios. But Noah’s noisy playtimes are a blessing and burden I gladly accept, and the rest of the family does an excellent job keeping him quiet(ish) anytime I’m leading an important call.
In fact, the last time someone crashed a remote meeting on my end the culprit wasn’t kids, but livestock. An unseasonably warm February afternoon, I had my office windows open, and when my neighbor delivered some hay (did I mention that I live in the sticks?), his cows thanked him with moos of joy. I thought they were too far away for my mic to pick up. But their bellows of lunchtime joy echoed throughout the valley, all the way to the attendees’ speakers. “Matt, are those cows in the background?” “Yeah, sorry about that. They were hungry.”
Progress continues on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! How the Anti-Debate is Saving Democracy. If all goes well, it’ll be ready for release in paperback, Kindle, audiobook and for free in PDF right here at EthicsBowl.org in time to kickoff the 2022-2023 season. One recent development: villains!
SuperSocrates, whose mission it is to elevate discourse and facilitate the collaborative pursuit of justice, is our hero. But rather than battling abstractions, he channels the power of ethics bowl to combat specific enemies. Or such is my idea for an early chapter 🙂
Below are some draft characters. Have ideas for better names, better descriptions, better villains? Worried this is too silly? Not silly enough? Share your thoughts in the comments and thanks in advance!
Dr. Denial
Power: sewing uncertainty
Catchphrase: “What is truth, really?”
Weaknesses: investigative reporters, Snopes
Subjectivo
Power: eroding moral standards
Catchphrase: “Yeah, well that’s your opinion, man!”
Magritte-inspired Rawls art by philosopher Renee Bolinger – I have this print hanging in my home office!
Most ethics bowl teams are familiar with the four dominant ethical theories: Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Sometimes you’ll hear mention of a political philosophy such as Libertarianism. And there’s rumor that a team once tried to base a case analysis on the work of Hegel (not advised!).
However, John Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance / Original Position is a viable, underused approach (far more viable than anything to do with Hegel). It’s especially useful when a team first begins analyzing a case or as a double-check against latent bias as competition nears. How does it work?
Here’s an excerpt from Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments where I introduce the approach. Note that Rawls considered it an extension of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Kant considered his Categorical Imperative an extension of the Golden Rule. So if this feels faintly like treating others the way they’d like to be treated, it kinda is – an innovative way to imagine yourself in multiple others’ shoes. Enjoy!
Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell Chapter 10: Third Parties
Whether wealthy or broke, healthy or sick, gay or straight, people tend to prefer policies that benefit them personally. Even when we try to be objective, rich black men wind up preferring policies that advantage rich black men. Working-class whites wind up preferring policies that benefit working-class whites.
This presents a problem. Our conclusions are supposed to be the product of logic, not power. However, what if there were a way to transcend our clouding biases?
The Golden Veil
Out of the corner of your eye you spot a luxurious gold curtain floating in mid-air. Across the top reads a mysterious Lord of the Rings-style inscription. It’s not written in a recognizable language. But somehow you know it says, “Veil of Ignorance.”
Curious, you pull it aside and step past. A flash of light dims to a soft glow. You know you were just reading about abortion ethics. But you can’t remember where you were. In fact, you can’t remember much of anything about yourself—your name, race, gender, income, occupation, education, religious commitments, political allegiances, handicaps, talents, hobbies, passions, phobias. Not even your favorite flavor of ice cream.
Holding up a hand to inspect your skin color, you can only see a shade of gray. Feeling your body to determine your sex, your brain won’t say.
Dumbfounded, yet oddly at peace, you see that I’ve followed you. We both admit an overwhelming desire to discuss abortion. But we can’t remember if we’re generally for or against it, what our family and colleagues expect us to think about it or how we ourselves might be impacted by it.
You suggest that we revisit the Rate That Abortion exercise. We do, and while we’re happy with our scores, they’re definitely different than before.
We discuss the nature of the conception, the mother’s interests, the UDH’s value, the child’s quality of life and the father’s autonomy. On some level, we want our conclusions to benefit us personally. But blocked from knowing who we are, we’re prevented from gaming the analysis in our favor.
Recognizing that personal preferences should have no bearing on morality, we agree that whatever we decide behind this magic golden veil should govern our views when we return to the real world. We know that we may not like what we’ve decided here. But we shake hands nonetheless, promising to promote whatever conclusions we’ve drawn from this enlightened perspective.
20th century American political philosopher John Rawls designed this “Original Position” thought experiment as a sort of reasoning machine.[1] Issues go in, more objective than usual answers come out. His primary focus was the basic structure of society, or what a nation’s constitution would ideally guarantee. But the method can be applied to any issue, including abortion.
I’ll save the full exposition of Rawls for Political Philosophy in a Nutshell (forthcoming 2025, maybe?).The idea here is to offer his approach as a supplement. If you didn’t know if you were male or female, Republican or Democrat, Baptist or Agnostic, rape victim or expecting father, how might your analyses change?
In fact, how might your analyses change if you didn’t know if you were an impacted third party? Everyone’s interests should matter some. The question is, how much?
Give Rawls’s approach a try as you consider (and reconsider) ethics bowl cases. We all have our biases, and there’s no way to root them out completely. But imagining what we might think if we could scrub them away can get us closer to an objective perspective. Desk copies of the book are free for educators — just ask. And if a 20-minute lecture vid would help, click here.
[1] Rawls wrote several books, but for a thirty-page synopsis see his “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Summer, 1985) pages 223-251. Or find my twenty-minute lecture vid on Sandel’s Justice: Chapter 6 at youtube.com/MattDeatonPhD
The flecks of grey, the furrowed brows, the air of unspoken wisdom. Ethics bowl judges are an intimidating bunch. However, here’s a secret. Behind that aura of philosophical gravitas, judges are often the most nervous people in the room.
For one, they may be pedigreed, but are comparative amateurs when it comes to the cases. Teams (good teams, anyway) have dissected them from multiple angles, parsed the nuances and developed all-things-considered views for the entire set. They’ve anticipated objections, formulated pre-emptive replies and strategized how to respond come what may. Judges (good judges, anyway) may have read the case pool once. Those who’ve taken the time to sketch a few notes – and can actually read their handwriting – are doing better than most.
Then there’s the isolated responsibility. Teams can divvy up roles: Suzie covers the team’s general position, Sally the moral relevancies, Sam what a critic might say and a response. They’ve rehearsed, mock bowled with other teams and members knows that if one needs a little help, the others will pick up the slack. Judge collaboration is actually discouraged, each segregated island tasked with delivering an independent objective score. The pressure!
But it’s the last segment of each round – the judges Q&A – when vulnerability peaks. Everyone keenly listens to what you ask and how you ask it. Was there a hint of confirmation in her voice, of disagreement in his posture? Critiqued live and between rounds, while a judge’s role is to judge, they’re also being judged, and are hyperaware.
Then there’s the internal conflict. Part of you is tempted to use the platform to (humbly) steer the discussion towards whatever resolution you think best. Part of you wants to use your brief window to correct a glaring error or illuminate some neglected moral twist. Part of you wants to confirm your authority and expertise, indeed, the authority and expertise of the entire ethics profession.
Talk too much, and you risk coming across as pompous. “Will this guy ever shut up?” Talk too little, and you risk inspiring doubt. “Is that all he had to say?”
I share this not to inspire pity, but to reassure. If you’re a judge and feel any of the above, this is normal. Take a breath, do your best, and remember that without you, the many benefits of ethics bowl would not be possible. But if you’re a team member losing sleep over what a judge may think or ask, know that whatever anxieties and insecurities haunt your bowling experience, you’re not alone. In fact, there’s a good chance the kind volunteers entrusted to judge you are the most nervous people in the room.
While the Michigan High School Ethics Bowl is a fully sanctioned (and arguably the nation’s coolest) NHSEB regional, they don’t use the standard case pool. Instead, local folks author a set intended to be more relevant to the community. From what I can tell, most of the cases and issues are applicable nationally, if not globally. But it’s a uniquely engaging pool, with brief author bios confirming that they’re written by Michiganders, for Michiganders.
Case 4 features a hospital administrator forced to decide whether to honor a request that might complicate a delivery. The mother asks that monitoring of the Unborn Developing Human’s heartrate be disabled during a Cesarean section delivery. The crux of the conflict comes in the final paragraph: Labor and delivery “guidelines suggest that continuous fetal heart rate monitoring is safer for the fetus, because it can allow for early identification of a rupture of the Cesarean scar [a scar due to previous C-sections]—which is deleterious to fetal (and possibly also maternal) well-being. The clinician caring for this person is insistent that the guidelines for continuous monitoring be followed and implemented, but the laboring person is insistent that they will not consent to its use.”
Why a mother would want heartrate monitoring disabled during delivery, I’m unsure. But her motives are relevant to the decision. Is her request driven by some firm, foundational religious reason? (A C-section is already a very unnatural delivery, so it can’t be an objection to the technological help.) Would the monitor make delivery distressing? (Maybe a previous C-section delivery ended badly, and hearing the monitor—or simply knowing the heartrate is being monitored—would cause severe anxiety.) Whatever the case, the strength of the reasons behind her request matter.
The level of risk is also relevant. My wife delivered twice via C-section, and from what I recall, the actual surgery (not counting prep) didn’t last more than twenty minutes, if that. (This doesn’t mean delivering that way is easy or non-dangerous. She suffered a “high spinal” with the second that could have killed her.) If the pregnancy has been normal and checks suggest delivery will be uneventful, maybe disabling the heartrate monitor wouldn’t be a big deal. Maybe complications are exceedingly rare. Then again, to the extent the lack of monitoring would put her or the Unborn Developing Human at unnecessary risk of death or disability, that potential impact would weigh in favor of going ahead and taking the precaution.
It’s also the case that the medical professionals have to balance the mother’s wishes against the Unborn Developing Human’s value, as well as risks to the resulting child’s quality of life. This late in development, the UDH is not only a potential person, but in a few minutes, it will also be a birthed baby. Fully formed and possessing many features of personhood (consciousness, the ability to feel pleasure and pain, the ability to form relationships), and well on its way of becoming a full member of the moral community, more than one party’s interests are at stake. Were the woman not pregnant, we could appropriately focus on her wishes. Were the pregnancy early term, the UDH’s value wouldn’t count as much. But this late in the game, that side of the equation is much weightier.
Ultimately, I’d recommend a conditional analysis. Rather than declaring, “The mother’s wishes should be respected, end of story” or “The UDH’s value should override everything else, end of story,” a thoughtful team could say, “The administrator should decide what to do based on a) the strength of the mother’s motivating reasons and b) the risk of death or disability in light of the value of a late-term UDH.” A team could stipulate additional details and offer a tentative conclusion. But these considerations definitely need to be in the mix.
Cool case! I’m sure the Michigan teams will offer awesome analyses at the bowl next month. I had the honor of judging in 2021, and was very impressed. But for a scheduling conflict, I’d be back this year for sure.
Kudos to case author Lisa Scheiman, Certified Nurse Midwife at the University of Michigan Hospital for 29 years, and trainer of midwifes, medical students and residents, for donating her time and expertise (she also authored case #3). And thanks to the NHSEB for continuing to support the Michigan Bowl’s prerogative to do their thing. Keep doing your thing, A2Ethics!
Earlier this month the American Philosophical Association in collaboration with the Philosophy Documentation Center awarded the National High School Ethics Bowl the 2021 Prize for Excellence and Innovation in Philosophy Programs. As the selection committee put it:
“Prior to the pandemic, NHSEB was already excellent and facilitated the participation of 4,000 high school student across the country… [But during COVID] NHSEB shifted their focus to access and to on-boarding new participating high schools through their NHSEBBridge program, which evolved into the NHSEBAcademy and became an online hub for students, coaches, judges, and volunteers to crowdsource ideas about ethical perspectives, gain perspectives on cases from NHSEB experts, and collaborate to address significant ethical problems. The Academy is evidence of philosophers doing their best work in a public forum, to advance the public good.”
Bravo, NHSEB! So many contributed to the initiative’s original launch, including ethics bowl creator Bob Ladenson, former Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Directors Richard Greene and Pat Croskery, Roberta Israeloff of the Squire Family Foundation, Jan Boxill, Goeff Sayre-McCord and Katelin Kaiser of UNC’s Parr Center, and early organizers from across the country including George Sherman in Florida, Karen Mizell in Utah and Fred Guy in Baltimore.
But it’s been new director Alex Richardson and support from teammates including Steven Swartzer, Delaney Thull, Austin Foushee and others who’ve steered and elevated NHSEB through the pandemic, turning what could have been a show-stopper into an opportunity for innovation and growth.
Super congrats to Team NHSEB, including the hundreds of coaches, judges, moderators, sponsors and volunteers who are helping take ethics bowl to the next level. Thanks to each of you for moving democracy in a more civil, respectful direction. And thanks to our friends at APA for this well-deserved recognition!
Enjoy this guest analysis by our friend Coach Michael Andersen on responsible scientific journalism – something that, as Mr. A explains, is trickier than one might assume…
Hola, filosofos. Similar to last week’s case “Just the Facts,” this weekwe’re looking into the ethics of journalism with Case #2 “Trust the Science”; however, the focus will instead examine the ethical responsibilities of science reporters attempting to convey complex and evolving expert knowledge about the virus’s evolution and health advice during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Please start by reading the case and the Discussion Qs. I’ve provided two brief Pre-Discussion videos to set the stage for our examination of this case (linked below). Please watch these after you’ve read the case and consider the Discussion Qs—but BEFORE our meeting.
P.S. To continue to help you use the MindMup 2.0 extension in Google Drive to map your team’s position on a case, I’ve linked below another Thinker Analytix video called “Example: Map an Argument with MindMup.” Teacher Nate does a great job in showing you with this sample how to map out a sample argument.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ What is the ethical responsibility of science reporters when discussing something like the COVID-19 pandemic?
⦾ Is it ever ethically acceptable for science reporters to withhold information in the interest of the public good?
Pre-Discussion Resources
(Video) “What are Journalism Ethics?” @ National Endowment for Democracy. (12-10-2019) “Journalism ethics comprise standards and codes of conduct journalists and journalistic organizations aspire to follow. Principles of ethical journalism vary from place to place and context to context. The ability of journalists to adhere to ethical norms depends heavily on a constellation of often competing interests and forces they cannot control, including government interference, economic realities and technical limitations. However, standards typically include accuracy, objectivity, transparency, accountability, comprehensiveness, fairness and diversity.” [4:34]
(Video) “Ethical considerations for reporting on COVID-19” @ The International Journalists’ Network (6-11-2020). “Since the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic, more and more journalists around the world have been pulled in to report on the frontlines of the global crisis. Understanding how to confront ethical considerations is important to present a balanced, fair and accurate report of what’s happening during the pandemic.” [0:58]
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Like most Ethics Bowl cases, Case 2 “Trust the Science” may appear at first glance more simple on the surface than it actually is. Many students might be tempted to think, “What’s the big deal? Journalists should just report the best and most recent science available, cite their sources, and make it readable enough for the general public. Why all the fuss?” Yet a more nuanced picture comes into play once you study the historical, economic and psychological dynamics of journalism a bit more closely.
It would be ideal for science writers if scientific literacy in America was better than it actually is.(a) As a result, responsible journalists are faced with the issue of translating sometimes very complex research—like the epidemiological evidence of the SARS Covid-19 virus’ rapid evolution into unique (and more virulent) strains. This task is harder than you might imagine. On the one hand, translate the research in an overly simplified way, and you could be accused of “dumbing down” the evidence or glossing over important details in the scientific findings; yet, on the other hand, stay more faithful to the actual complexity of the research findings and you risk losing most of your audience or sounding “elitist.” Hitting the “sweet spot” of scientific detail in your reporting can be a formidable task, requiring a lot of back and forth with the experts whose research you cite, as well as a deep familiarity with the education levels of your reading public. Senior Contributor Ethan Siegal of Forbes recently put it like this: “This fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be scientifically literate, and the accompanying, even if unintentional, devaluation of actual expertise, is in large part why so many of us mistrust and misunderstand science today. We can correct our course, but only if we understand what it actually means to be scientifically literate.”(b) So, in addition to the writing challenges already mentioned, there’s the complication that the target concept of “science literacy” is, itself, an idea about which there’s varying degrees of shared understanding in the journalism community.
Another complication here involves the evolving standards of journalistic excellence that have shifted over time in the past several decades, together with the increasingly hyper-competitive and tumultuous economic landscape that science reporters and their editors must contend with.(c )(d) The pressure to stay afloat economically in a competitive market, coupled with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the vast distractions of the internet and social media, an increasingly-polarized American society, and especially recent hostility toward the press by populist politicians, have led to a lot of pressure to market stories as well worth your (limited and possibly hostile) attention. As the case description notes, “…even the most reputable media still rely on gaining consumers through attention-grabbing headlines and engaging content, [so] you have a recipe for confusion.” Add to this picture a widespread distrust in some quarters of the public of the reliability of science news, or science itself as a source of knowledge (regardless of whether that reputation is deserved). Science journalists understandably struggle to contend with all of these social and economic forces as they research, compose, and publish their stories. And science reporting on (and during) the Covid-19 pandemic is no exception: let’s not forget that good reporting means getting out into the world to interview sources, confirm factual accuracy, and follow up on leads—necessitating an increased risk to a journalist’s exposure to Covid-19 over weeks or months of investigative reporting. [See optional sources # 2 & #5 below] Ethics Bowl teams that gloss over these complexities in their position on Discussion Qs #1 and #2 risk facing a barrage of clarifying questions from judges and the other team.
Psychologically, there’s another series of hurdles for science reporters covering the Covid-19 pandemic. People are dying, or have died, in the hundreds of thousands (even in the millions worldwide).(e) The numbers of deaths and subsequent ripple effects are staggering and probably overwhelm most people’s ability to martial emotions of care or to make sense of the loss, especially as the numbers continue to rise and no definitive end to the pandemic is in sight.(f) (g) Science journalists risk sounding indifferent to this widespread suffering if their stories lack a tone of empathy or suggest a tone of blame (due to some sectors of the public’s irresponsible behavior regarding precautionary measures like masking, social distancing or vaccination). Especially tricky for science writers who seek to correct the public’s misconceptions about preventative measures or vaccine safety is the Backfire Effect, wherein some segments of the population double down on their false beliefs in response to corrective measures (although, to be fair, recent research on this cognitive bias is inconclusive).(h) (i) Ethics Bowl teams who strive to articulate the moral dimension of this case accurately should deliberate with some care on these historical, economic and psychological dynamics of science reporting.
Discussion Q#2 explicitly brings the moral dimension of Case 2 “Trust the Science” into focus, proposing more directly a science reporter’s choice of “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” Again, a first-pass response might be, “No, that’s wrong, because withholding important information is, at best, a form of paternalism, or, at worst, a kind of deception or manipulation of the reading audience.” But as any veteran social media user should know by now, always revealing the absolute unvarnished truth of a matter might not be the wisest approach, given some audiences. And therein is the thorny issue, no? If repeated past evidence has shown that wide swaths of Americans have either consistently misinterpreted or distorted scientific evidence, or influential pundits with a vested interest in spinning the facts to suit an established narrative consistently twist the important truths of the evidence, or even if the evidence itself (or the implications of it) are bewilderingly complex, then science journalists—in some situations at least—may have some justification for “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” (j) Your team should discuss this dynamic and decide which position makes the most sense, given the evidence and reasonable considerations about the way the public (or bad actors in the media) react to controversial scientific findings.
You could also consider how science reporters and their editors might not be in the ideal position to forecast accurately what “is in the interest of the public good”—given the imperfect record of both the scientific community and science reporting in the past.(k) Moreover, is “the public good” always immediately obvious to anyone at the time of reporting or writing on public health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic? Sure, some health risks or behavioral consequences can be reasonably verified or forecasted; however, the challenge of balancing individual liberties with personal sacrifices for wider public health has been especially tricky for public officials.(l) (m) So, while science reporters might be well placed to verify the accuracy and implications of Covid-19-related research, knowing how to communicate the important and evolving complexities of said research—or whether to withhold parts of it to avoid unnecessary confusion—involves weighty decisions about the public’s right to know, the public’s capacity to process the information, and how the information may play out once released. Discuss with your team which approaches for science journalists are likely to safeguard the public’s interest most effectively, who science reporters ought to consult when releasing (or withholding) sensitive information, and the reasoning you rely on to address these concerns.
I predict that Consequentialist or Deontological ethical frames are likely to influence your moral reasoning in this case, or perhaps also a Care Ethics approach to the concerns mentioned above. Whatever approach to ethical reasoning you take, recall what Dr. Sager at PSU said about relying on any normative Ethical Theory for Ethics Bowl: “Ethical theory provides a toolkit to deepen and sharpen how we think about ethical cases. It does not provide a blueprint for analyzing or presenting cases.” In other words, use appropriate ethical frameworks to help you diversify and/or deepen your stated reasons for your team’s position, but never simply name drop a philosopher or ethical frame in an attempt to add credibility to your argument. Try not to get overwhelmed with your options here either. Begin by discussing, then articulating as clearly as you can, the answer to the question, What’s a good reason to believe this position? for each of your team’s proposed answers to Discussion Qs # 1 and #2. Maybe it’s beneficial foreseeable consequences that justify your supporting reason. Maybe it’s an appeal to a universally-held right or principle that does the justification work. Or maybe it’s an appeal to forms of care, compassion, empathy or relationships that all families or workplaces deal with when facing Covid-19 precautions, restrictions or concerns raised by scientific research.
Finally, regarding Discussion Q #3, I will keep my tips brief (given this already-long Tips article). On the surface, it may seem obvious for science journalists to collaborate with the government on reporting pandemic data; however, considering the significant pressure that a few public health departments at the state or federal level have faced from some elected officials, the question of how much, if at all, to collaborate with governments will depend on the quality and transparency of the government’s response to scientific research. In some countries, science journalists face significant danger to their persons or their careers by challenging an official government stance on pandemic-related public outreach, safety protocols, or quarantine policies.(n) A position that takes these risks into account is likely to be stronger than merely issuing a general “Yes, they should collaborate” message.
(c) Weaver, David H., Lars Willnat, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit. “The American journalist in the digital age: Another look at US news people.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96.1 (2019): 101-130.
(g) Joaquim, Rui M., et al. “Bereavement and psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemics: The impact of death experience on mental health.” Current Research in Behavioral Sciences 2 (2021): 100019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518221000061
(h) Swire-Thompson, Briony, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. “Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/
(i) Nyhan, Brendan. “Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.15 (2021). https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e1912440117.short
(Video) “Journalists adjust to unprecedented conditions during COVID-19.” @ CGTN America. (4-7-2020|). “In times of crisis, the need for journalism is more important than ever. The demand for information spikes, as it has during the coronavirus pandemic. But reporting has become more challenging, and many media professionals are risking their safety to do their job. CGTN’s Karina Huber reports.” [2:14]
(Video) “Mei Fong & Daniel Lippman: Ethics, Journalism, & COVID-19.” @ Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (5-1-2020) “The Center for Public Integrity’s Mei Fong and Politico’s Daniel Lippman discuss the role of ethics in the work of journalists, focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic.”[7:05]
(Video) “COVID-19 impact on journalism under spotlight | South African Broadcasting Corporation” @ SABC News. (6-27-2021). “At least one thousand five hundred journalists have died of COVID-19 in over seventy countries. According to the Press Emblem Campaign, in May alone, over 200 journalists succumbed to the virus. Bringing vital information to citizens during a pandemic hasn’t been easy. And its led to calls in many countries for media workers to be moved up the vaccination queue.” [4:12]
(Video + Transcript) “Personal and social drivers of vaccine hesitancy.” @ SciLine. June 9, 2021. “The United States is one of the few countries in the world with enough COVID-19 vaccine doses to protect the vast majority of its populace. Yet hesitancy about vaccines generally, and COVID vaccines in particular, is stalling uptake. SciLine’s media briefing covered the role of social values and personal belief systems, including religion, in people’s decisions to get vaccinated or not; the factors driving parental choices about whether to vaccinate their children; and how public health messages and policies can influence vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Scientific experts briefed reporters and took questions on the record.” [59:28]
(Video) “COVID-19, Science, and the Media: Lessons Learned Reporting on the Pandemic | Panel Discussion + Q & A” @ Petrie-Flom Ctr| Harvard U. (Oct. 26, 2021) ”As scientists and public health experts worked to understand the [Covid-19] virus, reporters worked to communicate to the public the state of the knowledge — an ever-shifting ground. From the transmission debate, to the origins investigation, to changes in mask guidance, to vaccine safety concerns, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a particularly precarious nexus of science, politics, journalism, social media, and policy. This panel discussion reflected on this tenuous situation, potential areas of improvement in pandemic reporting, and lessons learned from recent experience.” [1:07.03]
2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised. The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission. How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?”
Another excellent analysis from our friend Coach Michael Andersen in Washington state, prepping his (very lucky) team for the Oregon High School Ethics Bowl. Thanks as always, Michael! And thanks to your team for sharing your superb coaching with the broader ethics bowl community.
Buenas dias, filosofos. This week, with Case # 11 “Just the Facts,” we’re looking into the ethics of journalism, the desirability of objective reporting, and whether news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ Do news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public?
⦾ If so, what is the nature of that relationship?
⦾ What, if any, is the value of objectivity in journalism?
Pre-Discussion Resources
(Video) “How to choose your news – Damon Brown” @ TedEd (6-4-14). “How do we choose which news to consume? Get the scoop on how opinions and facts affect the news and how to tell them apart.” [4:48]
(Video) “How Journalists Minimize Bias” @ Facing History.org (6-4-14). “Journalists discuss the idea of bias and explain the processes they follow to combat bias in their reporting.” [6:31, Transcript PDF]
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Grasping the moral dimension of this case may require you to step back and look at the broader picture of the journalism profession—it’s history here in America (and elsewhere), and especially with recent trends toward sensationalism, bias, corporate influence, and political polarization in news reporting. Surely, citizens of a democracy should care about whether the journalism they rely on for a healthy participation in government, or in other areas of social life, offers a quality (accurate, insightful) or shoddy (distorting, manipulative) view on the wider world. We have a shared interest in this project of improving journalism standards, either indirectly through our consumer habits (i.e., which news outlets we pay for or routinely tune in to) or more directly (e.g., through letters to the editor, calling in to radio shows, lobbying for stricter legislation governing news outlets, etc.).
The goal of robust objectivity or neutrality standards for professional news outlets is a moral issue because we need to trust these sources of information, and their reputation matters for their own sense of integrity, as well as our collective perception of it. (After all, journalists are people too, and they presumably care about the quality of the work they do, which provides them a meaningful sense that their work is worthwhile. Likewise, as citizens our sense of consulting the news to be informed must produce a feeling that such activity is worthwhile, and that the alternative—ignorance and apathy—is a worse option for us all. These ethical sources of meaning depend on the aforementioned standards of journalistic professionalism, since such standards provide the foundation of our trust that a news outlet’s reporting activity will result in truthful, insightful news.) So, consider trust and integrity as moral compass points that shape most people’s moral intuitions about the credibility of news outlets and the role they play in forming public opinion.
Clearly, Q1 refers to the “ethical duty” that news organizations owe to the general public, and Q3 inquires about “the value of objectivity”; so the case authors are obviously encouraging you to consider what is at stake morally for the parties involved (and more broadly for our society’s regard for the role the Press in a vibrant democracy). The case description notes how editors either fired, restricted, or banned these reporters when and where their personal histories with the topics reported on were seen to jeopardize the perceived integrity of the news organizations employing them. Given the reporters’ public history with these controversial topics (deemed a source of bias that compromised the objectivity and neutrality of their reporting), were these reactions by the news outlets warranted, in your team’s opinion? Or would an alternative approach to the situation be more morally defensible?
Consider too how trust and integrity are in tension with the value of fairness (as a form of justice). Fairness (as a form of justice) seems like an obvious moral concern for those sympathetic to the reporters’ perspective—since they clearly feel that their jobs and reputations were unfairly sacrificed “to protect the objectivity and neutrality of the reporting in question” (or at least the public’s perception of these ideals). If these reactions by their employers were indeed unjustly discriminatory, then fairness (as a form of justice) would be the anchor moral concept of any argument explaining that position. An interesting and parallel point here: one might also argue that trust and integrity go both ways: that the leaders of news outlets have a duty within their organizations to maintain an atmosphere of trust and integrity among their corps of reporters, since they won’t attract quality talent for long if these virtues are lacking in their day-to-day operations. Discuss with your team if an ideal balance of these values—trust, integrity and fairness—is achievable to arrive at the most morally defensible handling of these situations when they arise.
Maybe the goal of a robust journalism ethics can take cues from the field of law? Lawyers and judges typically recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal connection to the defendant or conflict of interest in the case’s outcome. A standard set of courtroom protocols ensures that these lawyers or judges are properly vetted from the procedures governing such cases, thereby maintaining credibility of the justice system as a whole (well, in theory at least). Should all journalists similarly recuse themselves from reporting on topics about which they exhibit a strong personal investment? How would such potential conflicts of interest be reliably determined, and what threshold of a reporter’s “personal investment” would necessitate recusal? Is their editor’s judgment sufficient? Is there a similar concern for the editors’ own biases? Some might view such a system of journalistic recusal as unnecessary to ensure “objective reporting.” After all, reporting on a controversial story isn’t quite the same as serving as a lawyer or judge in a criminal case, they might claim. What do you think? Are there common standards of practice for reporters that could be instituted to allow them to report on an issue, even though the reporter in question has strong personal convictions or personal history related to the topic?
An intriguing sidebar issue in philosophy, sociology and psychology is whether the ideals of objectivity and neutrality that govern most professional investigative sciences or practices can, in fact, present a distorting—rather than reliable—picture of reality. When such investigations involve social and personal realities (like political injustice, racism or sexism) charged with strong emotional content and subjective experience, the ideal of extracting one’s point of view from the messy details of life to that of a neutral spectator, removed and non-committed to the phenomena at hand, strikes many critics as outdated. [See Resources #2 and #6 below for more details.]
A fourth value (or virtue) is mentioned in the case description worth deliberating on: “What is better, say critics of objectivity, is to report the facts while also acknowledging one’s (limited and biased) point of view. This is a sign of humility, and it may also have the benefit of opening up more ethical reporting standards.” How, if at all, should humility play a role in moderating decisions about a news organization’s attempts to strive for objectivity—and thereby attain not just a semblance of institutional integrity but a genuine form of it? Can a set of journalism protocols be developed that emphasizes (and balances) all four of these values? Clarifying and instituting such a balanced set of guidelines could then inform day-to-day reporting practices, resulting in a more robust safeguarding of the news organization’s perceived worth, both externally and internally. (Of course, there remains the problem of clarifying what humility (or any other virtue) in reporting and editorial oversight actually looks like in practice. Is such a virtue-based goal realistic?)
What do you think? Are there other moral values (virtues) or principles that are relevant to answering Discussion Qs 1-3? I’ve emphasized here a kind of Virtue Ethics approach, but maybe there’s a Deontological or Consequentialist view of the the moral tensions raised by Case #11. Maybe it’s convincing to emphasize the rights due to the reporters here (although I tend to agree with Prof. Deaton about why rights-based appeals can be problematic). Maybe there’s an ideal balancing of interests of the parties involved that would somehow maximize happiness, perceived welfare or preference satisfaction. Good luck in your investigations!
Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study:
(Resource) “Current Topics: An Undergraduate Research Guide : Fake News. @ Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries.”This research guide provides information on recognizing fake news articles and websites, fact-checking, and researching fake news.” EDITOR’S NOTE:This is a superb resource! Bookmark it on your home + Chrome browser, and make sure that you study the definitions of “bias” (both “explicit bias” and “implicit bias”).
(Video) “Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2.” @ Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios. Jan 28, 2015. “Welcome to PART DEUX of our discussion of “Serial”, the insanely popular podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig. Last week we discussed objectivity in the law, and this week we’re turning our attention to objectivity in journalism. Journalists have been tasked with objective reporting for decades, but is that a realistic goal? Can any journalist be TRUELY objective?”[12:18] NOTE: The theme of transparency vs. objectivity in journalism is briefly outlined in this related lecture excerpt: “Jorge Ramos on Objectivity & Neutrality in Reporting.” [1:59]
(Article) “Why journalism is shifting away from ‘objectivity’.” @ The Christian Science Monitor. July 6, 2017. By Harry Bruinius. “Amid the unusual pressures of the Trump era, some are advocating a more interpretive or even combative approach to journalism – and argue that it will do more to help society.”
(Video) “Unprecedented attacks and distrust for the media? History says no..” @ The Christian Science Monitor. June 23, 2017. “The president’s attacks on the media and the public’s mistrust for it are nothing new. Decades-long trends have set the stage for them.”[8:34]
(Video) “Objectivity and Truth in Journalism: Is It Possible?” @ FORA.tv (Dec 24, 2012). “Scott Lettieri, news reporter for KGO radio, speculates whether an objective truth exists in journalism. Acknowledging that journalists strive for complete and absolute truth, Lettieri declares that citizens should synthesize all avenues of media and news to find it.” [3:37] POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING: The journalist interviewed here briefly (and non-graphically) recounts a story of a woman who was kidnapped, raped, and had become a victim of sex trafficking. Some students might find this brief account disturbing.
(Video) “Objective vs Subjective (Philosophical Distinction)” @ Carneades.org (7-10-16) “An explanation of the difference between objective and subjective, and definitions of each of these terms. How can you tell if something is objective or subjective? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” [5:31] EDITOR’S NOTE: Like many ethical topics, the moral dimension of this case intersects with other areas of philosophy—here, the epistemology and metaphysics related to knowing and discerning whether the ideal of journalistic objectivity is something properly categorized as subjective or objective. Without going down a rabbit hole too far, you should know that these sidebar topics will come up in the dispute about whether a news organization can trust a reporter (a subject), plus the editorial oversight process, to reliably maintain sufficient psychological distance from the topic reported on (presumably about which the reporter has some kind of personal investment). Are reporters reliably capable of the mental discipline needed to meet objectivity standards, and thereby ensure credibility of the news organization with the public? What kind of objectivity are we talking about? (Surely, journalism isn’t a science, where the objects of study remain consistent enough in time and space to render “objective” findings.) Is the ideal of objectivity in journalism even attainable for human reporters? (I.e., cue the pessimist’s view that “It’s ALL subjective; objectivity doesn’t exist!” ) …I think you get the picture. I recommend a practical lens when considering these questions. A pure objectivity for the human sciences or for professions like journalism may not be possible; nevertheless, the aim of objectivity might be practically necessary to differentiate quality from shoddy journalistic practice.
(Video) “Real News vs. Fake News.” @ Univ of Louisville Research Assistance & Instruction. Jun 19, 2020. “Citizen Literacy is an online toolkit that promotes the development of key information skills for democratic citizenship and features short videos, handouts, and activities that faculty across all disciplines can integrate into their courses and assignments.”
(Video) “How to Spot Fake News – FactCheck.org” @ FactCheck. “Fake news is nothing new. But bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social media than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past.” [3:22]
(Article) “How Implicit Bias Works in Journalism” @ Nieman Reports. By Issac J. Bailey, Nov. 13, 2018. “Avoiding the pitfalls of hidden biases can lead to better story selection and more inclusive reporting. …A commitment to addressing implicit bias—an automatic or unconscious tendency to associate particular characteristics with particular groups—in news coverage could improve and transform audience engagement, increase trust, and lead to more accurate coverage depicting our increasingly diverse world.”
(Resource) “Media Bias Ratings” @ AllSides Media. “Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ make media bias transparent, helping you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.”
(Video) “Political media’s bias, in a single chart” @ Newsy. (Dec 28, 2018) “Vanessa Otero set out to rank an ever-growing partisan media landscape, with the belief that an informed public is a better public.” [4:26]
(Video) “Confirmation Bias | Ethics Defined” @ McCombs School of Business. (Jan 28, 2021) “Confirmation bias is the tendency of people’s minds to seek out information that supports the views they already hold. It also leads people to interpret evidence in ways that support their pre-existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses.” [2:20]
(Article) “The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’.” @ American Press Institute “This guide, like many of the others in API’s Journalism Essentials section, is largely based on the research and teachings of the Committee of Concerned Journalists — a consortium of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, owners and academics that for 10 years facilitated a discussion among thousands of journalists about what they did, how they did it, and why it was important. The author, Walter Dean, was CCJ training director and API Executive Director Tom Rosenstiel formerly co-chaired the committee.”
Related Ethics Bowl Cases:
2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised. The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission. How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?”
3. 2016-17 National HSE201B Case #7. Teaching all sides: “Should a high school teacher in a class that studies many controversial subjects teach all sides of every issue or favor some sides over others? Should she use her own judgement, teach all sides of public opinion, or defer to experts and scientists? What questions can she treat as open and what questions should she teach as closed?”
