Were We Right to Solicit Votes for Shawn Johnson?
In today’s Commentary e-newsletter (Week 617), we urged readers in the “Announcements” section to vote for Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson in ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” because she’s a longtime supporter of CHARACTER COUNTS! and a sterling role model in and out of sports.
More than one Josephson Institute staffer felt uncomfortable doing that, and we wanted to give you a little behind-the-scenes on the debate that ensued. We hope this situation illustrates that issues of conscience are continually raised within the Institute and that even reasonable ethical people can disagree.
Why some objected:
- It sends the wrong message. Voting for that contest should be based on Shawn Johnson’s dancing ability, nothing more. By canvassing our audience to vote for her irrespective of her dancing ability turns the event into nothing more than a popularity contest, which is not its true purpose.
- The Institute could justifiably be criticized for urging its readers to vote for her because of our own self-interest (she’s a CHARACTER COUNTS! advocate and Institute supporter).
- Just because others may vote for their favorites out of popularity, looks, glamour, reputation, etc., doesn’t justify us doing so. Isn’t this precisely what we preach to our readers and listeners not to do?
Why some approved:
- Everyone knows what the show’s real message is: Public voting is a popularity contest. The show itself acknowledges that (after all, how many average viewers could accurately judge dancing ability?), which is why only half the final determination is based on fan tabulations.
- What’s more, the show loves people like us trying to get out the vote because it ups the exposure of the show and boosts ratings. The show’s producers don’t care one wit about who’s truly the best dancer. They only care about keeping viewers glued to the show.
- It’s an interesting and potentially important issue, however, as to whether we should have anything to do with such a program, but Shawn is a great friend, other organizations have drummed up support for her, and getting huge vote turnouts is ultimately what the show’s about.
- Finally, asserting a pristine position unrelated to the “reality” of what’s really going on could cause its own ethical problems.
Now’s your chance to vote!
|
|
Subscribe
Comments
It doesn’t matter that public voting is a popularity contest. Good character would demand that you still vote for the best dancer. Imagine if your child were to lose the popularity contest for class president even though s/he was more qualified. Wouldn’t you condemn the voters for their lack of character? What’s different here?
I disagree that the average viewer can’t judge dancing ability. Everyone knows what they enjoy watching and therefore are the ultimate judge of what they perceive as meeting that standard. One need only remember past Olympics when the judges have been criticized for scores issued in diving, ice skating and boxing. Reality show judges are no different and are not infallible just because they are deemed experts.
The fact that the show doesn’t care who wins and only wants to keep the ratings up isn’t even a good rationalization. Are you a promoter of the show or a promoter of good character? Get your priorities in order.
Supporting Shawn because she is a good friend is admirable, but anyone of good character would not want to win because of an influx of undeserved votes. She would want to win based on her performances. This is not your 5-year-old child running in a three-legged race – this is a world class athlete used to competing against the best. Let her compete and judge her on her merits.
“Getting huge vote turnouts is ultimately what the show’s about” sounds like we should support any show simply because it desires huge vote turnouts. This is nothing more than falling victim to mob mentality and abdicating personal responsibility.
“Other organizations have drummed up support for her” is no different than “everyone else is doing it.” How many times have you heard your child say, “But everyone else is going?” This is no different.
“Asserting a pristine position unrelated to the ‘reality’ of what’s really going on could cause its own ethical problems.” Isn’t character all about standing up for what’s right regardless of the consequences? Thinking back to WWII and the risks taken by those helping the Jews makes we wonder what ethical problems could arise out of not voting for Shawn in a dancing show. Lame excuse.
It is disturbing when the staff of a character-based organization can rationalize an action under the guise of doing right. As disappointed as I am in the staff who rallied for the Shawn Johnson article under these rationalizations, I am even more disappointed that Michael would allow it to be published. Time for a character refresher.
Posted by: James | May 8, 2009 11:48 AM
If you allow this slide of ethical judgment to encourage others to vote for someone in a contest based on their support of your program rather than on the performer's ability to do well at what she's performing, then how can you ethically condemn others such as politicians who accept payments or corporate leaders who make payments to influence decisons by others?
To me, condoning this type of practice falls under the realm of improper use of influence. It also opens the door to the devaluation of your constant good messages of maintaining character and integrity, which are so highly coveted by so many of us.
Posted by: Tom Lillig | May 13, 2009 2:00 PM