Media and Privacy Concerning Russell Armstrong’s Sudden Suicide Courtney Carnevale

Introduction

A big ethical dilemma that is becoming more prevalent everyday because of the increase in technology and social media is the issue of privacy in the media. When people turn on the television they are bound to see more than one reality television show on an array of channels. These people may be famous or may just be normal people, but they are letting the media into their personal lives and disclosing a lot of private details including relationships, friendships, financial information, and even information about their sexual relations. In the twenty-first century there has been a crazy fascination with celebrities and knowing everything about their lives from their favorite color to their birthday. Media has the pressure to give their consumers what they want, but, “Invasions of privacy by the media encompass a broad spectrum, ranging from incursions on another’s physical solitude, or “space,” to the publication of embarrassing personal information. Some invasion of privacy is essential to the news-gathering process and a well-informed public” (Day, 2006, p. 132). Journalists, advertisers, and public relations agencies all need to find this delicate balance between giving the consumers what they want and protecting the right to privacy of celebrities and people in the media spotlight. One case that deals with the ethical issue of media and privacy unfolded on August 16, 2011. Taylor Armstrong is on the reality television show called the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills on Bravo. She recently divorced Russell Armstrong who surprisingly committed suicide on August 16. The coverage on this suicide was incredible. TMZ had minute by minute updates on their website including quotes from other Housewives cast members the morning after Russell’s body was found. Russell committed suicide late on Monday and People magazine had a multiple page article on the suicide, his financial issues and on the recent divorce by the following Wednesday. The Huffington post also had an article by Tuesday afternoon on their website asking the tough question in their headline, “Is Divorce from Taylor Armstrong To Blame?” (Reich, 2011). As consumers of media people need to be objectively looking at how much they need to know about celebrities and socialites, the ethical theory that provides the best answer to this case is Kantian ethics.

Background

When looking at an ethical issue in communication one of the most important things to look at first is what are the facts, and who is the moral agent in this case. Some facts about the case include that Taylor Armstrong is currently a member of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills cast and therefore is a Bravo celebrity. She has a lot of media attention on her and her family because of being on the show. Taylor Armstrong was married to Russell Armstrong who is an, “investment banker and venture capitalist” (Reich, 2011). If Russell was not the ex-husband of Taylor his career title would not have put him in the eyes of the media automatically and his suicide probably would have gone undetected by most of America’s television viewers which probably would have been what he wanted according to People magazine, “ While Taylor seemed to have basked in the attention and the posh lifestyle that accompanied starring on a hit reality show, her husband cringed at having his crumbling home life being put on public display”(Shira, 2011). This publicity not only affected Taylor Armstrong, but also affected Russell’s ex- fiancée, “Barbara Frederickson, with whom he has a 13-year old son” (Reich, 2011). The other two children are also affected, “a five-year-old daughter, Kennedy, with Taylor, and an 11-year-old son with former fiancée Milette Fields” (Reich, 2011). Russell’s suicide also leaked information about personal details before the event. People magazine talked briefly about his anger management issues including the accusations of physical abuse, “ In 1997, he was arrested for getting into a physical altercation with his then wife Barbara, according to court documents”(Shira, 2011). People magazine also talked about Russell’s financial difficulties and dealing with the reality fame before his suicide.

Situation Analysis

The communication process presented by Day in the book Ethics in Media Communications Cases and Controversies includes the following components, “A moral agent (communicator) with a particular motive commits an act (either verbal or nonverbal) within a specific context directed at a particular individual or audience usually with some consequence” (Day, 2006, p. 5). The moral agent in this case is the online gossip magazines and tabloids. There could be other possible moral agents including blogs, and social media sites, but for this particular case analysis I will only be looking at the online versions of gossip magazines and tabloids in the media. The motive for these specific mass media outlets to be communicating to their audiences about this case is so that they have higher magazine sales and a higher number of online readers. They want to be the first ones with the correct information and the most specific details because they know that is what the consumers who are addicted to celebrity gossip want and will buy. The moral act was disseminating these very personal details about Russell Armstrong and his family, financial status, past criminal record, and private life to the public even though he is not the main character on the reality television show. An example of just how personal the details were about the suicide is found in an online article by TMZ magazine, “While Taylor watched, the owner peered through Russell’s bedroom window and saw his lifeless body hanging”(Taylor, 2011). The context surrounding this case starts with Russell Armstrong and his ex-wife Taylor and their daughter Kennedy. The context then spreads to Russell’s past wife’s and fiancé’s and his children that he had with those women, this also includes any extended blood relatives to Russell. The next branch of the context would be the cast members on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and other Bravo stars. I think the next section of people who could be considered part of this context could be all reality television stars and their families because they know that if this information is being said about Russell that they could be the next ones to have something written in the media about them. The moral agent’s relationship to Russell and his family is not personal. Russell and his family do not personally know these people that are writing these articles about him in the magazines. Some consequences that did actually happened after these media outlets published this personal information include many more Americans and viewers of the show knowing more about Russell and his private information. Taylor Armstrong also received a lot more publicity than she normally would from being on her show, and more details about Taylor and Russell’s relationship are available to the public. Some potential consequences from releasing this information is that Taylor might decide to quit the show because it is emotionally too much, she also might sue these magazines for invasion of privacy, her daughter Kennedy may be negatively affected emotionally and mentally from this media attention as well. The final step in the situation definition is stating the ethical tension for this case. One side of the case is that the gossip magazines and tabloids have the duty to their readers to provide the most up to date information, and the other side of the case is that people have a right to privacy when it comes to family issues and deaths. This information concludes the first step of Day’s systematic process of moral reasoning. The first step of the process is called the situation definition it is, “designed to identify the ethical issue and to list or examine those facts, principles, and values that will be important to the decision-making process” (Day, 2006, p. 66). The next step in this process explained by Day is the Analysis of the situation.

Analysis

The analysis section of moral reasoning includes weighing the pros and cons, examining the external factors, exploring the consequences for stakeholders, and then applying two ethical theories to this case. The pros of publishing these articles and letting the public know the private details of Russell’s suicide include the magazine having more readers online and more copies of that edition being sold. Some more pros of releasing the article for Taylor Armstrong can be that she may receive money for telling insider information and releasing pictures which can help with the divorce fees. Another pro for releasing the information would be that the show the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills will receive better ratings when this information is released and the show is airing. Some cons of releasing this information to the public include negative effects on Kennedy and the other children. Another con would be the negative physical and emotional affects on Taylor Armstrong, she has already been accused multiple times on her show that she is suffering from an eating disorder which can be a result from the stress of her estranged husband committing suicide and all of America knowing about it. Another con for releasing this information is that, “there is an omnipresent possibility of copycat suicides” (Day, p. 148). A copy cat suicide is someone who hears or reads about Russell’s suicide and decides to end their lives as well the same way Russell ended his life which would include hanging themselves in their own home. Some external factors that the media should be aware of when they are making public these types of stories could include online and print advertisers, audience viewers of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, the Bravo network producers, and the companies that Taylor Armstrong may endorse because she is a reality television star. First the people writing the story should check with the advertising companies to see if they are okay with letting their advertisement for gum or anything else they are selling be right next to an article about suicide. Also the people writing the article should check what the advertisements are for because it might look odd to a consumer of the magazine if they are reading this article for Russell Armstrong’s suicide and right next to his article is an advertisement for an anti-depressant. Also the viewers of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills might be affected by this story even if they previously did not care that much about Russell because he was not an integral part of the show. The viewers might decide to negatively or positively blog about this on the Bravo internet site, or they might stop watching the show because they think it is not appropriate anymore. The Bravo network could be affected negatively if they do not handle the press well after Russell’s death. They could end up questioning the camera men and see if they saw any warning signs, they could blame Bravo for the increased attention and then in turn for the suicide all together, or their ratings might go up because there will be more drama on the show that Taylor stars in. If Taylor Armstrong is a spokeswoman for any type of non-profit company or any product they could be affected as well because of the increased attention Taylor is getting because Russell is her ex-husband. The stakeholders that I think are important in this case are the people and groups mentioned in the context section which includes Taylor Armstrong and their daughter Kennedy, Russell’s other ex-wives and children and other extended family, the other cast members who work with Taylor, and all people involved in the reality television business. Some consequences for the stakeholders include that Russell’s children might have to go through therapy because of the loss, his children might have to change schools because of the increased attention at school because of their connection to him, his extended family could have their privacy invaded as well, and the other cast members of the show could be affected by this because they may lose some fame and popularity while the spotlight is on Taylor’s family.

Ethical Theories

Two ethical theories that can be applied to this case are ethical egoism and Kantian ethics. The first theory called ethical egoism states that, “one can determine the ethical action in a given case by always doing what is best for the individual’s own interests, without regard to the interests of others” (Neher, 2007, p. 66). When looking at this case from the perspective of the ethical egoist, they would say that this case is morally obligatory or morally right. They would say that if the moral agents are the publishers and writers for these gossip magazines and tabloids then what is best for them is to sell more copies of their magazines, have more online readers, to possibly get a promotion, and to possibly get a raise if their story hits the news first or they have the most revealing details and pictures. So publishing this article about Russell Armstrong’s suicide would be morally right because the moral agent would be acting from their own self-interests. The next theory that can be applied to this case is Kant’s duty ethics. In the article “Kant’s Moral Philosophy” by Robert Johnson he says, “Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the categorical imperative” (Johnson, 2004, p. 1). The first maxim in the categorical imperative says, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Johnson, 2004, p. 6). This means that to test this maxim for this specific case you would have to put yourself in the position of the moral agent and think if the decision you made could become a universal law. So the question to ask yourself would be, “Would it be alright if every newspaper and magazine and news source published this information?” and “Would this be right to do to every person in the world or just celebrities?”, and “Would I be alright if someone wrote this about me if I committed suicide?” The second maxim that Kant writes as part of the categorical imperative says, “people should always be treated with respect and as ends unto themselves, never as means to an end. Simply stated, the ends do not justify the means!”(Day, 2006, p. 61). To apply this second maxim to this case the moral agent would have to think about if they are using Russell Armstrong and his family to get ahead in their job, to make more money, or to maybe even become famous themselves. To put it simply if the moral agent is using Russell’s suicide as a means to get to his intended end then this case would not pass the second maxim.

Decision

The ethical theory that should be chosen to make an ethical decision in this case is Kant’s duty based ethics. The moral agent should start by looking at the first maxim presented by Kant which asks if this decision could be made universal. So as a writer or editor or publisher of these gossip magazines the moral agent would have to say that publishing stories about everyone’s suicides and letting America know minute by minute details and invading the victim’s family’s privacy is morally right if the moral agent wanted this case to pass the first maxim. I do not think this passes the first maxim because I would not want my suicide on the front page of people magazine when I am dead and no one can ask me permission to publish the article or the pictures. I also would not want my decision to end my life affect my family more than it already will with them being reminded every time they go online or go through a grocery store line. Even though if I was the moral agent I would not let this pass the first maxim I still want to see if it passes the second maxim or not. The second maxim says that you should not use people as a means to an end. So as the moral agent I would have to think if I was using Taylor Armstrong’s publicity and fame and her current personal situation with the sudden suicide of her ex-husband to get a head in my career and to have a good outcome as a journalist. The main question the moral agent would have to ask themselves is, “Is it okay for me to invade a family’s privacy to get a good story?” As the moral agent I would have to say no, it is not morally right to invade a family’s privacy that I do not know just so I can get some more money and look good to my colleagues. I do not think this passes the second maxim as well. So I would ultimately say that the ethically correct decision to make by the moral agent would be to not publish the details of the story unless Taylor Armstrong and her family have approved of the articles, pictures, and quotes. Also I would say that it is morally right to wait at least a week or a month after the incident happens so that the people I am quoting have had time to collect their thoughts and they are not just saying things out of shock.