I've been asked to write a 1,000-word commentary for the Journal of Mass Media Ethics on the situation described in the links below. Please identify what you think the key ethical issues are and how you would approach them (that is, using what model or principle). Your response is due before midnight, Mon., March 24.
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Monday, March 17, 2014
Midnight Ride
I've been asked to write a 1,000-word commentary for the Journal of Mass Media Ethics on the situation described in the links below. Please identify what you think the key ethical issues are and how you would approach them (that is, using what model or principle). Your response is due before midnight, Mon., March 24.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
25 comments:
After reading these articles I would say using the potter box method is the best way to approach this case. The problem in this situation was that a young girl, who had her whole life and career in front of her lost her life because she was more concerned with losing million dollar equipment rather than her own life. The loyalties for Sarah were very clear given how she reacted, she was loyal to her job, coworkers, and the set she was on. The loyalties for the rest of the crew were to the job, but the loyalties were also to Sarah especially when her director told her to leave the cameras in order to save her own life. The principles that should have been followed were that at a minimum they should have had some type of safety briefing prior to setting up to shoot a scene on an active train track. They also could have gotten the train schedule in order to avoid something like this from happening or used a train track that was inactive if it was that important to get the shot on a real track. The fact that so many things can be added in during post-production and on a set in a safe. What I would have done if I were in the director’s position was ensure that everyone in the crew was safe, and definitely made sure that the train tracks were inactive before shooting a scene on them. There should have been some kind of safety training and way more preparation going into the shoot.
I think that there are a couple of ethical issues at hand here. Before I get into them, I would just like to say how difficult it was to remove myself from the emotions elicited by this horrifying story and just examine it ethically.
With that being said, the first ethical dilemma I saw was why on earth there was a movie shoot happening on the tracks of a WORKING, IN-SERVICE TRAIN. Could the people in charge of location not find an abandoned train track, or seek an off time where they had hours to shoot before the train came? The director was putting his cast and crew in real danger that unfortunately resulted in the loss of a life. Shouldn’t there be some safety regulations put into play here? Our society places so much value on TV and movies that we tend to forget that these industries need to be regulated too.
Speaking of media, it brings me to my next point. Sarah Jones, may she rest in peace, has become some sort of celebrity. While I am not discouraging this trend by any means, it just makes me wonder where the recognition is for other crewmembers and cinematographers. Why don’t these people receive just as much publicity as the actors and actresses? Here was a woman that risked, and ultimately lost her life for her job yet if it wasn’t for the terrible accident, almost no one would know her name.
A third ethical dilemma I see is that Sarah Jones was protecting her equipment at the time of the collision. At what point does money not matter anymore? Why was she more concerned with the well being of her cameras than of herself? I’m curious if the director or producer of the movie put too much pressure on the cinematographers to protect their equipment, or if Jones really did just feel strongly enough to save it.
The key ethical issues in this article are the safety of the crew and Sarah's ultimate decision that cost her, her life. I would approach these issues by using the Potter Box method. The fact of this story is that Sarah Jones lost her life while trying to save the expensive camera equipment being used, while her co-workers got to a safe area. I can see that Sarah valued her job, life, and the content that was shot that day. Her co-workers valued their life as they were the first to leave. They didn't even think of helping Sarah with the equipment. The principles that should of been applied is whether or not they should be allowed to shoot at such a location, knowing the circumstances. Also, if they were allowed proper evacuation procedures should have been put in place. The loyalties in the article would be against the crew and them not being able to help Sarah. Also I think the director was not loyal to his crew because of all the equipment he brought onto the track, not seeing how difficult it would be for everyone to get to safety.
While reading about this tragic incident I had to take a moment to think. It felt as if I were reading about some daredevil individuals who decided to shoot a movie on an active rail road track instead of trained professionals. Who in their right mind not only decides to shoot a movie on such a dangerous set but puts many lives in danger to do so? I think this is one of the main ethical issues. The value of life has diminished increasingly causing people not to think before they act. Director and writer Randall Miller who has long been in the business decided to risk the lives of his crew to gain a great scene. There are plenty of rail road tracks that are out of service in numerous places but for some reason this track had to be the one. In a way it makes Miller seem as if he enjoys danger and the adrenalin rush. On Millers part I think it was unethical of him not to emphasize the extreme danger of the situation, not even having a medic on set or having a safety meeting beforehand. The whole situation was everyone fending for his or her own self.
A second ethical issue is why Sarah was the only one recognized in such a tragedy. Does death exceed injury? I don’t think it was a bad idea to have made Sarah a public figure because it was to her benefit that she was made one because it allows people to keep her in mind and her memory flowing and serves as an example of what not to do in situations like this.
A third ethical issue is the expensive equipment. By Sarah stressing the importance of saving the expensive equipment it makes one think that Miller stressed how important the equipment was in the past to his crew and the importance to keep it safe and protected. I think that because of this Sarah feared Miller’s reaction to the loss of the equipment, his anger in the back of her mind, fearful of becoming “the one who lost the equipment,” ultimately clouding her better judgment. Sarah’s values could be said to have been her job, relationship with her crew members and the film as a whole.
It’s ironic how Miller escaped without a scratch, which makes me think he prepared himself more because he knew how dangerous this truly was. In a separate article it stated that Miller was denied use of the track by the railroad company CSX, but ruled out the use as being, “complicated.” Clearly Miller was going to do what he had to do in order to allow his vision to come to life, even if it came down to his crew being injured or experiencing the one thing about film making that is not temporary, death.
I believe that the Potter Box would best suit this case because It breaks down the situation piece by piece, allowing us to review each bit of detail leading up to the tragedy, discuss the values of the victim and the producer, see what principles were set into place during the incident.
After reading these articles, I see the ethical issue involving safety among the crew. It raises questions why were the crew and cast put in danger. There are many opportunities for things to be shot where danger wouldn't appear. People shouldn't have been allowed to shoot where trains can come at any moment. No one should be harmed, no matter how important something may be. Just because crew members were warned, doesn't mean they were any less secure in their environment. It surprises me how many had to risk their lives and how Sarah Jones lost her life to this. There was no preparation or help in case of an emergency.
Although the biopic has been suspended and stricter rules would be in place. There should still give the people who thought this was okay to be punished. There should have been standards in the first place. It leads me to wonder what do Sarah Jones' family get for such a tragedy? Sarah Jones is look to as a hero rather than a woman that shouldn't have lost her life to protect equipment. Sarah Jones should have been protected and taken care of.
There are a multitude of ethical issues that transpired with this event. A blaring one is obviously the loss of an innocent life. For sure, there were precautions that were not taken. From a larger picture perspective as everyone else has stated, how was there a decision made to film on the set of an in-service train track? Another issue, from Jones’ rationale, why was the expensive equipment even up for bargain? Jones’ last conversation consisted of basically asking a coworker whether she should salvage equipment or her life. Granted this may be somewhat oversimplified, the fact of the matter is one of the first values we are taught is that no object is ever more important than a life. Sarah Jones may have had more time to get to a place of safety without all of that equipment slung over her shoulders.
I think the Potter Box would definitely work well to break this down. The facts phase would help sort out exactly what precautions the film company failed to follow through with. This category could hone in on the lack of communication between the different members of the camera crew.
The values phase would act as a criticism in my opinion from Jones’ perspective. Why was that camera equipment valued over her own life? I understand the significance and complete devotion someone may place upon their career. Interestingly enough however, in valuing that equipment, Sarah was doing the opposite to fulfill her obligation, filming itself. If by valuing the expenses acquired by filming she lost her life, she also lost her ability to film. It is sad that in a life or death situation, expenses trumped Jones’ life.
A similar argument arises within the loyalties phase. Why was the expensive equipment so threatening to lose that Sarah decided to die for it? Was it the loyalty Sarah had for her bosses? Was she so concerned of their reactions that she’d rather die than experience the consequences? Or perhaps if this is too in depth of a thought process for her last moments, did Sarah simply not think to remain loyal to herself? From a larger point of view, why should filming for entertainment purposes ever be life threatening? Why do we ever place intrinsic value for purely entertainment purposes?
This brings me to the principle phase. The utilitarian principle fits into reasoning in this series of issues. It brings into question whether the loss of life for entertainment purposes does the most for the greater good. I’d like to think the answer is intuitive, that no one would ever rather someone die than miss an episode or a movie.
First and foremost, as I was reading this article, it was hard for me not to feel any type of emotions. The articles were very touching especially for an individual who comes from the city and hear about train accidents like this all the time.
I had to re-read the articles because I could not fathom why Sarah will believe camera equipments is much more important than her life. I believe the key ethical issue in these articles is that the crew will set up a camera-testing day in the train tracks while it is open and operating. Why would the director not ask to shut down the service of the train if he/she knows something dangerous can happen? Another ethical dilemma is why would the crew put their life in danger if they knew they were going to be working in the train tracks while is was operating. The crewmembers knew it was dangerous because why would they pray for god and the angels to protect them? The dilemma here is to figure out whose fault was it in reality? Was it the director’s fault for setting up a camera test day and not close the train’s service, or was it actually the crews fault for not speaking up and letting the director know that is a stupid and dangerous idea?
This ethical dilemma can be approached through the Potter box. First, collect the facts. What was the situation? In this case the situation was that the crewmembers were required to work in the train tracks while the train was operating and the train struck one member. Next, values that allows us to know who could of done what. The director could of canceled the train service before allowing the crew members to work, and/or the crew members could of said it was a dangerous idea and refuse to shoot. Principles allow us to receive the reasoning that may be relevant to the facts and what occurred. In this ethical dilemma, loyalties allows us to know who the decision maker has their loyalty here. In this case it is obvious that Sarah had he loyalty to her job and the directors because if not she would have never sacrificed her life for camera equipments. In addition, it is clear shown that the director did not have their loyalty to the crew member because even though they yelled for her to drop the equipments, that was something that could have been avoided if they would of not tested the camera in the train tracks while the train was running. The director disregarded the fact that their crewmembers safety comes first. There was no loyalty of the director’s behalf.
After reading the two articles concerning the untimely death of camera assistant, Sarah Jones, I found it hard to pinpoint one specific ethical dilemma. The most troubling part of the entire incident, in my opinion, is the lack of protocol and safety regulations that were in place to protect this film crew. As the ASC article described it, the set of “Midnight Rider” became a bubble in which the cast and crew would work under the management of the director. It is this director’s responsibility to protect those working under his supervision. In the case of Sarah Jones, the director failed to establish a safety protocol for working on dangerous train tracks. Instead of informing each crewmember of a plan to safely evacuate the tracks, the director simply shouted vague orders at them to warn them of the oncoming train. In the article for ABC news written by Luchina Fisher, one crewmember relives the memory of the tragic event. Fisher recalls that Joyce Gilliard, the film’s hairstylist, told the press that “the director, Randall Miller, screamed for everyone to run.” Miller left the crew without any other instructions, which ultimately caused Sarah Jones to hesitate and lose her life. In order to analyze this ethical dilemma I would use the utilitarian principle, which states that the consequences of one’s actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical or not. In this case, the director did not consider how his lack of safety regulations and emergency protocol would affect his film crew. Although the ASC article is correct that there is “plenty of blame to pass around,” I believe that most of that blame rests on the director and the other filmmakers in charge of this production. Ultimately, I believe it was their inability to consider the long-term affect of their actions on the people that they were responsible for that caused the numerous injuries and the tragic death of Sarah Jones. If the director had any consideration for the safety of his employees then he would have known better than to put them in such dangerous conditions in the first place.
After reading this article, I was completely taken back by the total disregard for making moral decisions, and safety. Digesting this story and trying to analyze the ethics was difficult for me, because of my own personal anger towards the situation. I feel as though the easiest way to analyze it however, would be using the potter box. It’s so straight forward, that I’m not sure why the staff and crew on this film thought any of this was a good idea. Starting with identifying the facts, the production crew obviously needed to be by a moving train to fulfill their vision for the scene. Realizing this is what the director needed; let’s take values into consideration with this film aesthetic. Is it logical, or safe to place many unprepared, untrained, unaware people into a situation that could ultimately be VERY dangerous? It’s hard for me to think about a director telling me to go 5 feet near a fully functioning train track, with bags of camera equipment, especially when my focus is going to be getting good shots for the movie. Is the quality and revenue of the movie so important that you would risk other innocent lives who are working to make you look good? That brings us to Principles, and makes me think do these people even have any ethical principles? I don’t see as though they do, because they know the risks that they were taking and frankly didn’t care. Lastly on the Potter Box are loyalties. On Sarah Jones’s end, clearly the loyalty was to her job and not her life because she decided that she was going to risk her own life to save the expensive camera equipment. On the production side, who were their loyalties to? Obviously not to their dedicated staff or actors, because they are all very lucky that they weren’t more seriously injured or killed. I am horrified that this situation happened, and that the entertainment industry couldn’t even use common sense. This tragic event shouldn’t have happened, especially with the technology that movie makers have on hand these days.
The ABC article evoked an automatic thought in me that was only intensified after reading Bailiwick's piece: fucking artists, man. I assume that is what the director and those who were on set at the moment this occurred think of themselves, in a way, and I believe it to be true. Cinematography is a malti-faceted craft that takes implementing a vision in the most realistic, all around sensitory way possible in order to bring a thought to life and make it into an experience to be shared. This is respectable. However, I think the whole “art imitating life” thing becomes too much of a reality for some. Sure, if you are a writer perhaps you will do anything to bring your writing to a level that encompasses thoughts and ideas behind normal human conception, i.e. partaking in drink or drug to provide a unique style uncharted by most. You do this to push yourself and push your art, and make it the most authentic it can be in reaching what you're hoping to achieve. They think the end result justifies whatever they do to obtain it; in this proccess you are hurting know one (besides possibly yourself.) However, in the case of Sarah Jones, the director, ignoring modern day technologies that will give you ulimately the same look and point of the scene they were attempting to shoot, decided that his art was the ultimate jusitifcation for whatever means necessary it took to create it, i.e. the saftey and lives of those who were creating it along with him. The line between creative license and ethical fiber would seem blurred to the normal human being but, as “artists” this is just what art entails - the tangible authentation of an idea is more important than human life.
The Potter Box can best be used to decide whether the subjection of Jones and the others injured to the danger that they were exposed to what ethically just (hint: no). The definition, or facts, is that Jones and the crew were required to work on and around a working train track as instructed by the director. While ultimately it was the actions of Jones and the crew who did not move away in time and were impacted by the train, the fact remains there were still required to be in the area. They did not have any prior meetings addressing how to handle this situation if a problem were to arise. These facts resulted in Jones being killed, and many other injured. The values in play from both the director and the people involved was the value of their jobs in doing what they set out to do and creating an end product above all else. For reasons I cannot even begin to fathom, they placed a higher value on shooting a scene in a movie over their own lives. The principal of saftey, or in this case lack there of, which should be placed over the principal of creating a successful movie scene, was not present in the slightest. All these as factors emphasis the overarching point of this issue, clearly seen in the unethical loyalties of both the director and the crew. The director what loyal to the movie, not the crew by placing greater importance into the film than the lives of individuals. Even when the loyalties reversed and he finally realized the danger of the scene, and called out to Jones to evacuate the location quickly, she did not, and once again was more loyal to her job and the equipment required to make the movie than her own life. For the Potter Box anaylsis to result in an ethical decision having been made, the means of all four aspects must justify the ending. In my eyes this situation was unethical from the start because the life of a human being should never be surpassed by a higher concern for anything aside from human life, regardless of what the means are to justify this ridiculous end.
After reading this article I felt myself in shock and found myself thinking of the ethical issues not only of the crew but of Sarah herself and the series of events and ethical choices that unfortunately lead to her death. As a media production major I found myself with a different level of sympathy and insight to Sarahs situation however the ethical approach I believe best fits this case would be the Potter Box method. Sarah made the ethical choice to go after the million dollar equipment before thinking of her own safety and her own life. If someone else was working that position and that camera, would they have made the same decision? Sarah clearly valued her job and her responsibility of a camera worker above the value of even her own life. To many this may seem like a crazy choice, but given her situation and the little time she and the people around her had to process what was going on it was too late. The fact of the matter is the principles that should have been followed date back to way before the accident then at the accident itself. More safety precautions should have been taken if the heads of production valued their coworkers and employees. Prior to shooting workers should have been more informed of what to do and how to act in an emergency situation. Though at the time of the accident Sarah was told to drop the camera and leave it, thinking quickly on her feet she clearly thought that saving the camera took priority. I hope that in the future this tragic accident will teach employers and employees alike the importance of practicing safe production habits and that if you anticipate and prepare for the worst it could save someones life.
The main ethical issue that is present in this situation has to do with the responsibility the managers of the production had over the film crew's safety. The managers obviously didn't care enough in the first place, since they chose to shoot the scene on am active train line. This was probably the best choice aesthetically; people have pointed out that there are plenty of abandoned railroad tracks to shoot movies on, but there was obviously some sort of advantage to using the active tracts. The active tracks was best for aesthetics of the movie (or its budget), but not for it's crew.
When in a managerial position, one has to weigh benefiting the consumer to benefiting the worker. An action rarely benefits them both. For instance, the managers could choose to raise the wages of the workers, but they would have to therefore raise the prices of their products, taking away from the consumer. It's a bit of a tug-of-war, and a balance needs to be found.
The managers of the production failed to find a balance. They put their crew in danger to benefit the aesthetics of the movie, which was really about benefiting their consumers.
However, this may not be an accurate way of viewing the situations. To flip my prior example, managers might choose to lower the wages of workers to lower the costs of their products. The workers would be hurt, but the consumers would benefit.
However, it's not like the managers actually give a shit about their customers. That's not what business is about. They simply want to make more money THEMSELVES, which is exactly what will happen when their customer base broadens when they undercut their competition with the new prices.
I'm sure the situation was the same with the managers of the production. They COULDN'T have cared about the well-being of their customers. They didn't even know who they were going to BE yet. Instead, they were concerned with increasing profits, or, in the director's case, increasing his fame and prestige.
So, it's not really about balancing the benefits of the consumer and the worker, but of the worker and the manager.
Aristotle's Golden Mean would be the best way to approach this issue. Although I sounds really Marxist above, I don't believe that all managers are evil, or that they should even be paid the same as the workers. However, there needs to be a balance between how the two groups benefit from a venture. If a balance was achieved, both parties would ultimately be better off, since, especially in a filming situation, everything needs to be copacetic.
I am surprised, probably like the majority of people, that such an accident can happen in our age. Technology and safety are both forefronts in our society and I’m not entirely too sure how these injuries and even a death has resulted from such carelessness.
First, why shoot on an active railroad track? There had to have been dozens upon dozens on inactive ones available to shoot. Second, why shoot at a time where there is a train scheduled to ride right there? Trains don’t run whenever they want, they are on a schedule. The ethical problem behind this is that those in charge of the crew, the directors of photography or cinematography, have an obligation to keep the safety of their crew in their minds as a priority. They are the ones who call the shots and order to actions, so it is also their role to keep the crew out of danger. I have to assume that some members of the crew had negative feelings towards working on a n active railroad, especially without any prior safety briefing, and this is evident since they had a little prayer session before the start of the day. Maybe they were a bit afraid of their authority to speak out against such emotions toward their dangerous location.
The directors, those who called the shots to be at that location at that time, are to blame. They are the individuals who put all of the filming crew in DIRECT danger of a very serious threat, one that proved to be deadly. You cannot blame Sarah Jones for not getting out of the way in time since she shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place. Whatever happened with her and the equipment is meaningless to talk about and to try to reason any blame onto Jones would be disgusting.
Like many of the other responses, I’m going to have to choose the Potter Box again to deal with this. Its four boxes accurately and conveniently organize the different parts to this ethical debacle. The loyalty box in particular is interesting to me.. Were the members of the crew that willing to get these shots, and that loyal to their film company that they would go ahead and work on such a dangerous location?
There are several problematic ethical situations associated with the tragic death of 27-year-old Sarah Jones, a camera assistant on the set of independent film, “Midnight Rider.” Because there are so many complex details associated with this incident, I find the Potter Box to be effective in analyzing the ethics of Randall Miller (the director), Unclaimed Freight Productions (the production company) and Sarah Jones.
The article by John Bailey primarily places blame on the fact that in film production, crewmembers can get lost in the world of illusion, often becoming so enamored with the story and their work that the real world seems to be less imminent. This bubble of fiction lets the cast and crew focus only on the task at hand and slip away from self-awareness. Though this may be a factor in the civil lawsuit that Jones’ family lawyer is filing, the issue of safety on the set of a film is at the forefront. There are some interesting facts mentioned in other reports of this story that I have listed below but want to address further. Because the railroad company, CSX, did not give permission to the production company to film, the director, cinematographer, Unclaimed Freight Productions and anyone else who may have known that permission was not granted, is made to look even more careless and irresponsible, as they put the entire cast and crew in danger of trains on a railroad that was currently in use. Also, crew-members were told they would have one minute to clear the tracks and find safety, but in reality, they had only 30 seconds. I have outlined the details of this situation using the four portions of the Potter Box.
Facts/Definition:
- Sarah Jones was the lowest level camera assistant on the set of Greg Allman’s biopic, Midnight Rider.
- She had never worked on a low-budget film before.
- Randall Miller was the director.
- They were performing a camera test on a 100-year-old single-track railroad.
- Crew-members were told they would have 60 seconds to clear the tracks in case a train should come.
- They only had 30 seconds in reality.
- They did not have a safety meeting before the shoot.
- There was no medic on the set.
- Railroad company, CSX, did not give the production company permission to be on the tracks.
- Jones had several bags slung over her shoulders but went back to save expensive camera equipment.
- 5 crew-members were injured.
- Assistants and younger crew-members tend not to question authority when they feel something is wrong or out of place.
- The incident inspired others who have been in dangerous situations during production to speak out on social networks, and to wear the slogan, “We are all Sarah Jones.”
Values:
- Safety
- Responsibility
- Artistic ambition
Principles:
- The second formulation of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: to treat people as an end in themselves, and never a means to an end.
Loyalties:
- Unclaimed Freight Productions
- The fans and future audience
- Members of the crew
- Investors
- Actors and actresses
- Writers
I feel that the second part of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is appropriate here because it allows us to look at how the production company and executive members of the crew view their lower-level assistants and crew-members. Treating crew-members as ends and not means, as Kant would put it, would tell us that the production company values each and every employee for who they are and not what they can do or what they are capable of while on the job. Leaving safety up to chance tells us that Unclaimed Freight Productions did not see their crew-members as having inherent value in themselves, apart from instrumental talent or ability.
What infuriates me the most is that a horrific event like this could have been prevented. The top priority should have been the safety of the cast and crewmembers especially when filming in a dangerous location like a railroad track. This is just pure stupidity, and I’m curious to see whom they are going to deem responsible. There was no safety meeting, and when they heard the train coming, the director screamed, “run”. What?! Absolutely ridiculous. Sara Jones’s priority was apparently the expensive camera equipment, which I also find a little ridiculous. There should be no question about what to do with it when there is a speeding train coming down the tracks. There should be no questions at all about what to do because safety precautions SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT. And not only spoken about, but tested and practiced in case of an emergency, like this one! How were there not any spotters, or people on the lookout? All the director was concerned about was getting a good shot, and therefore, that was the rest of the cast and crewmembers concern too. Serious reforms of safety and work conditions need to be made, and it’s upsetting that an event like this has to happen in order for these changes to be made. The director could have mocked this location with the complex digital technology we have today, but decided to literally put people’s lives at risk to create a realistic scene, parallel to real life.
By using the Potter Box, we can access this ethical issue. We start with definition, which defines all the facts and issues arising the situation; like who was involved, the location, and the lack of safety precautions. Then comes value, whether the director had to shoot in this dangerous location; could there have been another way to create this scene? The safety precautions that could have been taken; The preventability of the situation; the long-term versus short-term goals; responsibilities of the cast and crewmembers. Then comes principle, which in this case, I would say the categorical imperative could be spoken about and utilitarianism. Lastly come loyalties, for example, the cast and crewmembers, the director, the Oscars, federal agencies, local police and the American Society of Cinematographers.
It's difficult not to cover something that has become forced onto society through social media, especially when the death has been marked as a rallying call for workers' rights.
There are two major issues that I see with covering Jones' death. The first is an issue that arises with covering any death, how to handle details of who the person was and how they passed away. The second issue has to do with the media making Jones a martyr. Journalists have to decide whether they are telling a voyeuristic story about a dead body or a story about the horrors that some workers live with.
The process I'd go through involves reflecting on Aristotle's Golden Mean. The story can easily dishonor the memory of a human with a family and life that we couldn't possibly convey in a digestible fashion. At the same time, a certain attention to details may be necessary on the part of the journalists who cover this story in order to help the afflicted workers find comfort in new regulations. The public must be made aware, but we must find the balance of how many details are appropriate to use in order to make the public aware.
After reading these two articles, the key ethical issue that I can identify right away is the training about safety that this crew gets. Does one even exist? I would come to think that, it should happen even for videos not just movies. It should be part of the filming process in general. It is known that photographers go through the extremes to capture a great shot and can put themselves in very dangerous situations. While I was thinking of using the TARES model, I decided to use the Potter Box because it brought me to the loyalty problem and principles and value problems. When it comes to the first point of the potter box we see the facts are that there was filming happening in a very dangerous train track. Also that the camera crew is in the middle filming and the train is coming towards the track. The director told everyone to run because the train was coming and Sarah was trying to save the expensive equipment instead of running for her life. This has brought up the question about safety training to the crew and if it actually happens. The value of this is the safety issue. Are camera crewmembers actually safe in the sets that the film in? Also, the conscious of the director and her crewmembers. Another value lost is the credibility of Hollywood and the organization and how the public has reacted to this. Many people are very upset about the situation and have aroused a lot of questions and investigations. The principle that is at risk in this ethical dilemma is that it fails to minimize harm. According to the code of ethics is when a human being should be treated well and deserve respect. The fact that no comment has been made, or explanation about what happen to Sarah has been made, shows a lack of respect. Not from the director, and the people in charge of the set. This also shows that the workers are in harm because they are not properly trained for emergency safety pictures. The loyalty concern that this is facing its loyalty to the crewmembers of feeling safe and also loyalty to the audience. This is by knowing whether the film they are watching didn’t suffer any tragedies from behind the scenes. Loyalty to the profession because it’s a risky profession and there definitely should be training involved.
For this unfortunate case, the Potter Box would be a proper Ethical Decision Making Model to use. This is my "unpacking" of her choice.
Step 1) Definition---The situation that confronted Sarah was whether or not to risk her life in order to save the film equipment. Doing so proved her dedication to the industry but she sadly lost her life.
Step 2) Values---What was Sarah willing to risk for her priorities? Sarah valued the film, the members of the crew and budget for the project. So much so that she lost her life when trying to salvage the cameras.
Step 3) Principles---Of all the justifications, Sarah's case could best be described using Aristotle's Golden Mean. While I want to honor her courage, I think she leans more toward the reckless side since she really threw her life away. Her priorities (Step 2) "the film, the members of the crew and budget for the project" all were cast aside due to the death of Sarah and the loss of equipment regardless. Everyone and everything is at a stand still. Others are injured and too much is lost. Even if Sarah ethically justified her action as courage, it cost all too much in the end.
Step 4) Loyalties---As previously mentioned, Sarah has loyalties to the cast and crew, the film company, her profession, family and friends...It's really tragic.
There aren't many Sarah Jones out there.
This was a very scary accident that took place and really makes you think about the society in which we live in. The key ethical issues in the situation are the safety of the crew and Sarah’s decision.
I would use the potter box method for this particular case. The facts are that Sarah and the crew were forced near and on the train track, but it was their decision on whether or not they should move. In regards to values, the director needs to question whether or not it’s the smart move to bring people who are not accustomed to working in these conditions to such a dangerous place to shoot film. Also, the director needs to think about if the shot is worth what could potentially cause for the end of someone’s life. The principle of this case is that the director should have examined the situation prior to filming to ensure that it’s a safe environment for all parties involved. Lastly, in regards to loyalties Sarah was loyal to everything that was involved with her job. The director was more loyal to filming than he was to the safety of his crew.
Overall, the potter box is the best method for dissecting this particular ethical case because it helps examine what the case involved.
I believe the ethical dilemma to be the director's decision to have the crew film on a operational train track when computer technology could have produced the same effort without the risk of bodily harm.
The Potter Box is best suited for deconstructing the issue. Facts: 1) The film crew members were instructed to shoot atop a railroad trestle. 2) They were not given a safety brief and a medic was not present. 3) Sarah Jones was killed and 5 others injured. The primary value of the director seems to have been shooting of the scene. The principle would be safety from physical harm and reverence of human life, both of which the director ignored for artistic pursuit. Loyalties included the project itself, the potential audience, investors, and writers of the film. I purposefully excluded the cast and crew since the director was willing to place them in potential danger for the sake of his film. I believe the director did not act ethically as the end reasoning did not justify placing his crew in danger for a movie. By valuing art over a human life, the director acted unethically the moment he began filming.
After reading both articles on the death of Sarah Jones many ethical issues popped out immediately. Those being the implications of using highly dangerous environments and risking lives for what is essentially narrative fidelity and the pursuit of saving or earning more money. Below that issue also lies the more subtle discussion about professionalism, wherein these cinematographers seem to besmirch their credibility as professionals. Granting precedence of more beneficial aspects of their professional status (i.e. restricted access, payment) over strictly managing all aspects with equal commitment in turn puts their entire industry in a questionable position. To look more closely at these issues we can facilitate the right/need/want to know- model and the potter box to examine the issues with greater depth.
First comes the issue of narrative fidelity that exists in Hollywood in regards to their use of dangerous sets. Right/Want/Need to Know Model states that above all the most important information is that which we have the right to. Hollywood is an industry that generally operates in an opposite manner where the want, the entertainment and profit, is put first. The right to know information, like the potential safety protocols that could have saved Sarah Jones' life is put in the realm of minimal importance. This desire for the want to know along with the constant narrative fidelity that occurs in the film industry motivates directors to take risks. If a shot is more compelling from a dangerous viewpoint or on an active train track, one finds themselves hard pressed to ignore it. The prospect of making a profitable film cheaply in turn makes many film crews blatantly ignore their mortality in pursuit of saving expensive film equipment.
The next issue is that of professionalism in Hollywood. In an industry as centralized as film, those who produce big budget films are considered the standard for professionalism. Their movies are box office smashes and they see rewards in the form of money and prestige. Yet the stability of that standard becomes shaky when you observe their actions through the potter box. In the ABC article we see little to no mention of safety precautions taken before the filming began. Hairdresser Joyce Gilliard only describes a prayer circle and a warning that they had one minute to clear the tracks. No talk of what would be done in regards to equipment comes up. As a result Sarah Jones struggles to save cameras which gives her no time to run to safety. The ASC article tries to justify this disregard for safety as a "bubble" of illusory safety the job creates which does nothing to make their choices credible. The first box would define this situation as one where a young woman was killed due to a lack of safety procedures and the use of a dangerous location. The woman died because she was unaware of what to do in time in an attempt to save expensive equipment. The values of the film industry clearly lie with the ones that fill wallets most but potentially put people in danger. Their principles could be described as pragmatic because they do what works over what does the most good, and that their loyalties are to the box office. With that in mind it can be said that their line of work is questionably professional if it fails to take the simple ethical principle of doing no harm into effect. Their claim to the title can be summed up by their exclusive nature and high monetary gains.
In ABC's news coverage of the tragedy as well as The American Society of Cinematographers commentary honestly left me with unanswered questions. Did Sara Jones go back for the equipment despite being told to flee? I don't think this part of the story was very clear. However, regardless there are key ethical issues here. For one, no equipment is ever worth risking your life, and Jones' life should have never been in danger in the first place. Also, if they were shooting on a working railroad, how is it not possible that they were not given a train schedule or in contact with the rail company? The television and movie industries are under such high pressure to put out content, much akin to the field of journalism, where they have to work long over a normal work day to 'get the shot,' and this unnecessary death is just collateral. The lack of safety efforts on the part of the filmmakers is unacceptable. In the entertainment industry it is almost like it is expected actors are going to get hurt- stunts and dangerous settings just seem to be part of the job and one of the many sacrifices needed to be made to get into the industry-along with long work days and little pay for extras, etc.
I would approach these ethical issues with the use of the Potterbox. By clearly defining the facts of the situation (her death and any precautions taken), then the values of Jones by risking her life for camera equipment, as well as the value -or lack of- for safety by the filmmakers, and the principles and loyalties also, we can gain a better understanding of how ethical the situation is. This then will help determine how this situation can be avoided in the future.
There are a number of ethical issues here. The first one is obvious in that an innocent girl lost her life. Another issue that I thought was absurd was the fact that they were shooting this film on the tracks where the threat of a train coming was very real and dangerous. It surprises me that this was even an option. There are so many abandoned tracks where this scene could have been shot just as easily in a much safer environment. This whole situation was just a death waiting to happen. The third issue is that Sarah was trying to save her equipment before herself. It was also very concerning to me that her coworkers did not even try to help her.
I would use the Potter Box method to approach this case. A principle that should have been followed is a much more clear outline of safety precautions that should have been set in place and told to the crew prior to arriving on the set. Another principle was that if they were going to be shooting on the tracks of an inservice train they should have gotten the train schedule instead of "playing it by ear" and hoping for the best. One of the things Sarah valued was her equipment, which ended up costing her life. Sarah's loyalties were clearly to her job, her coworkers, and director. The fact that she even questioned saving the equipment shows her loyalty to her director and the set she was on.
It is very sad to think that this entire situation could have been avoided by following simple safety procedures. It really surprises me that this was allowed to happen and that so many people involved with making this movie let this happen.
Post a Comment