Year: 2012

Unethical But Irresistible: The Trouble With Anonymous Sources

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“Hello, CBS? Jan Crawford, please. Jan? I can’t talk too loudly because I’m on Justice Roberts’ wall…listen, I’ve got a…DAMN! Lost the signal again! That’s it, I’m dumping Sprint…”

The reverberations of Chief Justice Roberts’ surprise parsing of the Affordable Care Act continue unabated. He is, according to which pundit or analyst you read, a patriot, a fool, a traitor, a Machiavellian, a genius, a coward, a patsy or a hero. Now CBS reporter Jan Crawford has the Washington, D.C. elite chattering from their Manassas hotel rooms, where they have fled to find electricity and air conditioning, with a story that is headlined: “Roberts Switched Votes To Uphold Health Care Law.” Her story begins…

“Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations. Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold”

It is attributed to two anonymous “sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.”

In the absence of named sources whose credibility can assessed for their own motives and reliability, Crawford’s report should be treated as no better than rumor. It is not being so treated, however. The story is headlined as fact, and the media is treating it as fact in many cases, though more responsible media sources are using the headline, “CBS: Roberts Switched Votes To Uphold Health Care Law.” Although all newspapers and legitimate news organization have ethical guidelines urging “caution,” “retraint”and “circumspection” in the use of anonymous sources to support a story, they are also addicted to them like crack. Most anonymous sources have good reasons to stay anonymous, prime among them the fact that they are breaking laws, regulations, professional ethics codes and bounds of trust by talking to reporters. Others have axes to grind and personal objectives served by planting stories. We can’t assess any of these things without knowing the identifies of the sources, and, of course, the targets of anonymous stories can’t defend themselves against ghosts. Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Anderson Cooper

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

It was not exactly a surprise, but CNN anchor Anderson Cooper announced today that indeed he is gay.

This is far from the career death sentence that it would have been just a few years ago, but Cooper’s announcement took great courage nonetheless. It is difficult for gay children and teens to develop confidence and self-esteem when gay adults who have achieved success, fame and respect in their fields remain closeted out of fear and uncertainty. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, they think, then why are prominent gays hiding it?

Well, we do know the answer, and that the societal problem isn’t gays, but bigotry. That is why Cooper’s actions are so important. His openness about his sexual orientation challenges both the fear and the bigotry, and gives young gays a mainstream role model of substance and character.

Bravo.

________________________________

Source: The Daily Beast

Graphic: Media Bistro

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

Reminder: July 2 Is “Thank Minnesota Day,” and Remember Gettysburg, Too.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Last year on this date, I posted about the injustice of historical memory, and how the heroic exploits of the Maine soldiers on Little Round Top commanded by Col. Joshua Chamberlain on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg have all but obliterated recognition of the even more remarkable sacrifices made by the First Minnesota Volunteer Regiment that same day, when it took on the suicide mission of blocking a hole in the Union line against a Confederate force that outnumbered it five to one. Those Minnesotans quite possibly saved the United States of America at the price of their lives.

I see that some readers are finding that post today: let me make it easier for everybody. Here is the link. This a day for all of us to honor the heroism of the First Minnesota, and indeed all of the Americans, North and South, who fought for their nation, their states, their ideals and the soul of America in the Pennsylvania town of Gettysburg, on July 2, 1863. Continue reading →

Dan Ariely: Without Ethics, We Are Governed By Psychological Enablers of Cheating and Worse

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

And it’s nothing to be proud of.

Duke behavioral scientist (or, as he likes to call himself, “behavioral economist”) Dan Ariely, has a new book out. This is a boon for my ethics classes, since I’m sure they are getting a little sick of me quoting the last one, “Predictably Irrational.” His new best seller is “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty,” and Ariely has been making the rounds of NPR and various publications promoting it. Like Malcolm Gladwell (“The Tipping Point”), Ariely writes provocative and easily digested books that seemed to be designed to make you skip the movie on airplane flights; they are not deep, but they are helpful, at promoting self-understanding if nothing else.

I’ve been saving my copy of “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty” for my next trip, but the most valuable thing about it from my perspective is that it validates the importance of developing the skills of ethical analysis. As the author explained in a recent interview, when most human beings ( Ariely pegs the percentage at a depressing 98%—and one of the two missing percentage points are people who cheat no matter what! ) human beings let their gut determine whether they are going to cheat or not, they will make their choice according to a potpourri of rationalizions and quirky psychological factors that have little to do with right and wrong.

Among the useful observations he made in his recent interview with journalist Gary Belsky: Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Nomination For Enshrinement in the Hall Of Bad Ethics Ideas: A Hippocratic Oath For Scientists”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Zoebrain, the Aussie researcher who has enlightened many Ethics Alarms debates, provides delicious perspective to the post regarding scientific ethics, specifically regarding the question of whether scientists can or should pledge, like doctors, to “do no harm.”

Here is her Comment of the Day to Nomination For Enshrinement in the Hall Of Bad Ethics Ideas: A Hippocratic Oath For Scientists:

“Tell the truth, the whole truth – but possibly not nothing but the truth, as long as any opinion is unmistakably marked as such. Correct your past mistakes as you find them. Also be prepared to accept responsibility for the moral consequences of the power you provide to others being misused. Unless you feel it right to give them the power, you must accept personal responsibility and so withhold it. That’s not a Scientific sin, it’s a personal one.

“Providing the sharpest possible scalpel to a surgeon is one thing. Providing it to a vivisectionist of “untermenschen” another. Providing it as a toy for a 6-month-old baby yet another.

“The only scientific sins are knowing falsification of results, and omitting contradictory evidence. But scientists have responsibilities as humans too.

“Please have a listen to this song [ by musical satirist/scholar Tom Lehrer’s “Werner Von Braun,” about the amoral Nazi-turned-U.S. rocket-scientist.]:

Continue reading →

Nomination For Enshrinement in the Hall Of Bad Ethics Ideas: A Hippocratic Oath For Scientists

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Nope. No sewing machine. It will cause too much “harm.”

A blogger for the Lindau Nobel community asks, as a follow-up to a discussion raised in one of the august group’s recent meetings, whether scientists should have to take an oath similar to that traditionally (but not universally, by the way) taken by physicians, a pledge to “do no harm.”

No. Next question!

This is not merely a bad idea, but an arrogant and ignorant one. The medical profession is dedicated to healing, without regard to who is being healed. “First, do no harm” is a rational and excellent absolute principle, one that relieves the profession of the burden of many (but not all) complex utilitarian dilemmas that doctors and other health professionals may not be equipped to solve. Medicine is much narrower than science, and its limitations more clear. Most people would agree with doctors on what constitutes “harm” in 99% of the situations where the issue would be raised. Not so science, where one man’s monstrosity is another’s giant step for mankind. Continue reading →

Making Mitt Seem Stupid: A Confirmation Bias Case Study

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“Tina Fey, Sarah Palin…who cares who said what? Palin’s stupid, right?

Many progressives and liberals (this therefore includes the majority of journalists)  are so sure that conservatives are stupid that they allow confirmation bias to make them act stupidly and unethically. Either that, or some of them just choose to lie their heads off and pretend people don’t notice.

I first realized this a while back when the ABC website posted a feature called  “I Can’t Believe He Said That!” or something in that vein, featuring verbal gaffes by politicians. Well, actually it featured verbal gaffes by 19 Republicans and one Democrat (Joe Biden, of course.) Oddly, President Obama’s goof about the “57 states” wasn’t there, because, as we all know, he’s brilliant and his gaffes don’t count. Well, actually, the list was 18 Republicans, one Democrat, and Tina Fey. Yes, the celebrated Saturday Night Live Sarah Palin impressionist was represented with her “I can see Russia from my house!” line…except that it was attributed to Sarah Palin. Similarly, I have quizzed people about who first used the non-word “strategery.” Sure enough, about half in my unscientific poll, almost exclusively Democrats, thought it was President Bush, and not the real quote-master, SNL Bush satirist and comedian Will Farrell when he was playing Bush.

This was brought back to mind recently when “Doonesbury’s” Gary Trudeau  mocked Mitt Romney for making this spectacularly fatuous, Dan Quayle-like declaration in a stump speech,

“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in.”  Continue reading →

The Penn State-Sandusky Disgrace: Time For Paterno Worshippers To Face Facts

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Amity’s Mayor Larry Vaughn, a.k.a Joe Paterno

Yesterday CNN revealed that e-mails uncovered in Penn State’s internal investigation of the Jerry Sandusky scandal show that beloved, ever-so-ethical Jo Pa appears to have stopped the university from reporting the child-molesting ex-coach to authorities. The e-mail trail seems to show, the New York Times reported, that the university’s president, Graham B. Spanier; the athletic director, Tim Curley, and the official in charge of the campus police, Gary Schultz, were ready to report Sandusky in the wake of assistant football coach Mike McQueery’s eye-witness account of seeing Sandusky molesting a child in the showers.  Curley then wrote the group that talks with Paterno had persuaded him that it would be more “humane” to confront Sandusky, bar him from bringing his young victims on campus, and  urge him to get professional help. This, of course, freed Sandusky for a decade more of  child sexual predation, with the kids foundation he had founded serving as his hunting grounds.

Humane indeed. Continue reading →

Yet Soon We Will Be Missing Ann Curry On The Today Show

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Pretty, perky, biased and incompetent—yup, perfect for NBC.

Fresh from highlighting the lack of professionalism exhibited by Ann Curry as she was booted off the Today Show, I was jostled by another blog’s link to this one reminding me that I already had an ethics run-in with her replacement, the fresh-faced, cute as a button, proudly biased and ignorant Savannah Guthrie, who continues the devolution of the female liberal mouthpiece co-anchor position on the show that began with Barbara Walters.

The hard conservative site Freedom Report alerted me that I had blown the whistle on Guthrie’s incompetence in an April, 2011 post, after she tried to “gotcha!” Donald Trump and exposed her own Constitutional illiteracy instead. I had forgotten the episode, perhaps because it forced me to defend The Donald, which was and is about as appealing to me as snorting skunks. You can read the post here. A quick summary: Guthrie attempted to argue against Trump’s pro-life views by asking the Constitutional equivalent of the automobile-tuning query asked of expert witness/hairdresser Marisa Tomei in the climax of  the classic,”My Cousin Vinnie,” to which she replies, “It’s a bullshit question!”: Continue reading →

The Homophobic Counselor, the Ethical Bigot, and the One-Legged Tarzan

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Jennifer Keeton was expelled from the graduate program at Georgia’s Augusta State University in 2010 because her Christian religious convictions dictate that homosexuality is sinful and voluntary conduct, rather than an innate sexual orientation. A court upheld the school’s right to expel her on the basis that her beliefs made it impossible for her to meet their counseling standards, which the court ruled were neutral, and did not discriminate against her speech or religion.

The case may raise legitimate constitutional issues. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group, and Constitutional Law professor Eugene Volokh (of Volokh Conspiracy fame) are assisting Keaton as she attempts to get reinstated. Ethically, however, I don’t think she has a leg to stand on.
In fact, I think her position resembles the old Dudley Moore-Peter Cook comedy routine where Moore is one-legged amputee who cries foul at being “discriminated against” by a film director who refuses to consider him for the role of Tarzan:

Similarly, how can a counselor claim to be able to provide full and competent services when her attitude toward gays dictates an unsympathetic, hostile and scientifically discredited point of view? Continue reading →