Docs on the Box or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Tube

Abstract

The business of moralizing isn't what it used to be. Ethics has gone public, both in substance and in style. As the eye of the populace has turned toward medical affairs, the television cameras have turned toward medical ethicists, who have taken to their new role as media pundits with enthusiasm, if not outright glee. Liberated from the ivory tower, bioethical talking heads now field questions from news anchors as confidently as they once fielded questions from student The lure of the camera is undeniable of course. Given the prospect of celebrity (however fleeting), an article in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research can't really measure up. More importantly, though, there exists a genuine need for bioethicists to play a role in public debate: a liberal democracy requires an educated public, and popular discussion of ethical issues is aimed, at least in theory, toward that end. Not so obvious, perhaps, is the need for some restraint. If the way ethical issues are discussed in the popular media becomes misleading or starts to hinder public education, then the enthusiasm with which we are starting to seek the spotlight might well be contrary to our ostensible goals. They're Brainy, They're Humane; They're Docs with a Conscience: "The Bioethicists". . . Up Next Let us be honest. American television is not renowned for its intellectual sophistication. Apart from a few high-minded public television programs discussion of ethical matters on American TV generally comes across as shallow and simplistic, even downright misleading. The ethos of tabloid journalism has spread from print to screen; the lines are blurring between information, entertainment, and advertising; the already notoriously short attention span of the American public is being shortened still further by a rapid-fire discharge of sound bites, video clips, trailers, slogans, and jingles. Carl Bernstein argues that the American media are creating an "idiot culture" - a culture of the weird and the stupid and the coarse," distorted by celebrity worship, titillation, and sensationalism. America, says Bernstein, is becoming a "talk-show nation," where reasoned public discourse is wasting away and in its place is growing a more vigorous substitute: "ranting and raving and posturing."(1) Even if one does not agree with Bernstein that "the great information conglomerates of this country are now in the trash business," it is hard to feel comfortable with the way any discussion of public affairs takes place in the television studio. Bioethics doesn't fit very comfortably into this arena. Television uses bioethicists not so much for explanation or reflection upon the gray areas of an issue as for taking contrary, novel, or activist positions. Typically, a person identified simply as an "ethics expert" is asked by a television host or news anchor to comment on the latest bioethical event. The ethics expert offers a few sentences, either critical or supportive, but often little more than unargued conclusions. Unlike a scientist, say, or a scholar specializing in Middle East affairs, either of which might be asked to explain a new development or give some context to an issue, the bioethics pundit is expected to take a stance, however briefly. Put simply: ethical explanation is boring, while advancing a position, however unreflective, entertains. Philosophy through the Looking Glass But if the problem were simply quality, the solution would be relatively simple. The more disturbing possibility is that the form in which television coverage of public affairs takes place is incompatible with - or at least hostile to - the methods and assumptions of rational ethical discussion. The biases built into television as a medium dramatically influence the way ethical discussion is perceived by its audience. First, and most crucially, television trades in images, not in sentences. …