Who's to say who's right? Jour 4470

Blog Post 1: Mike Leach versus ESPN

When diving into the world of ethics, one finds himself tangled up in a web of multiple theories and explanations for what is right and wrong, why it is right or wrong, and how it is right or wrong. With theories like deontology, consequentialism, egoism and virtue ethics, how does one establish which path is correct for ethically right behavior? Reading the Mike Leach article, written by Don Ohlmeyer, raises many questions and eyebrows. If we were to compare the Mike Leach versus Craig James and his family debacle to the theories mentioned, what would that look like? How did ESPN play in to the scandal?

According to Karla Gower, author of “Legal and Ethical Considerations for Public Relations”, deontology holds that “certain underlying principles are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences”. Due to Craig James’ direct involvement with the scandal and his influence at ESPN, it would have been wise for ESPN to deliberately remain as neutral and unbiased as possible. All this to say, it may have been less “fair” to the audience who tuned in to hear about the Leach firing, but it would have kept ESPN from sounding extremely biased.

Consequentialism, according to Gower, states that an “action is good if its consequences are good…and an action is bad if its consequences are bad”. It is known as a utilitarian stance, or as Jeremy Bentham, an eighteenth century proponent of utilitarianism, said, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. In that case, ESPN may have gone along with telling the audience the straight facts about who said what and why it was said. Bias should not have played a part in this whatsoever.

Egoism is best described as “enlightened self-interest, and contends that an act is morally right if it best promotes the individual’s long-term interests” (Gower 6). Leach and Craig James both could have used this theory to better promote themselves in their long-term career goals. Leach wanted to appear innocent by blaming his rash decision of punishing James’ son, Adam, in a “closet”. He told the press and his staff the Adam James’ actions deserved this. On the other end of the spectrum, Craig James got an opportunity to further advance his personal opinion of Leach’s coaching style by influencing those [ESPN] around him. In turn, both parties failed to consider the other one involved.

Aristotle implied that the golden mean, or “moderation as the path to a virtuous life”, reminds us “that character does make a difference” (Gower 7). A person that carries a sense of self-values close to their heart will, more often than not, do the right thing. By peering through the virtue ethics lens, both Leach and Adam James are at fault. If Mike Leach would have treated Adam and Craig James with more kindness than this uproar would have not been as much of an issue. If the James’ would have considered Leach’s role as the head coach of Texas Tech and not an abusive tyrant, then Leach would still have his position as head coach.

Overall, there are so many ways to look at a certain issue that you will think yourself to death. ESPN chose to televise a biased broadcast and Leach equally chose to choose Adam James with disrespect during practice. In turn, who is to say who is right and who is wrong? If we view one another as equals and as human beings with values, opinions and strong emotions, then your gut can oftentimes point you in the correct direction.





Sources:
Gower, K. K. (2008). Legal and Ethical Considerations for Public Relations. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.