BLACK MIRROR'S NATIONAL ANTHEM: An Ethical Analysis

BLACK MIRROR'S NATIONAL ANTHEM:
An Ethical Analysis

When analyzing and discussing media ethics, the Black Mirror series is chockful of situations where the characters are put in a situation and forced to choose an ideal ethical framework to provide a solution, which usually ends up going wrong.
The first episode in the series, The National Anthem, provides a perfect catalyst to delve into ethical analysis. The film is centered on Prime Minister Michael Callow who is awakened to some disturbing news. The beloved Princess Susannah has been abducted and the kidnapper has threatened her execution, unless the Prime Minister meets the abductor's demands. These demands include for the Prime Minister to perform sexual intercourse with a live pig, on live television without employing any special effects or any form of trickery in an attempt to spare the Prime Minister.
(National Anthem Wiki, About.)
There are several moral and ethical choices this episode touches on, however I found that the best primary choices would include: Moral Panic, Bentham's Principle of Utility, and Consequentialism.
Stanley Cohen addresses Moral Panic as when, "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests - the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians, and other right-thinking people." Cohen's further examination states that "reporting, particularly by local newspapers, greatly exaggerate the violence that has taken place. This is amplified by the national press to the extent that these disturbances appear to threaten a wholesale breakdown of public order."
(moral panic 37).

          This is illustrated in The National Anthem, when society is quick to churn out vast amounts of articles on every network and social media platform. The fact that ordinary people knew about the situation before the Prime Minister, clearly demonstrates society's relationship with technology and how dependent people have become on it, demanding to know the latest sensationalized information regardless of its authenticity. The movie demonstrates this in the scene showing the first couple waking up in bed with the woman already on her cell phone, stunned by the abduction, and quickly relaying the event to her still sleeping husband, who questions its authenticity. Because of the YouTube upload, a mass hysteria is sparked with citizens questioning if the news is even real.
        As we follow Prime Minster Callow's story further, we jump to the perspectives of random citizens and journalists to see how a situation so outrageous affects the public. Some find the story hilarious and consider it to be a joke, while others find it mortifying and disgusting. Then there are the journalists and media who either attempt to respect the Prime Minister's wishes for as long as they can, or do whatever it takes to be the first to get the real story. 
       So who benefits from this moral fear?  Naturally the media in this case, and secondly most likely the political party that the Prime Minister belongs to. According to Scott A. Bonn's article in Psychology Today entitled, Moral Panic: Who Benefits from Public Fear? he explains how and why social agents such as the news media deliberately sensationalize in order to maintain the status quo. He goes on to state that "The relationship between state officials and the media is symbiotic in that politicians and law enforcement need communication channels to distribute their rhetoric and the media need tantalizing news content to attract a wide audience which, in turn, attracts advertisers."  (Bonn) This does not happen spontaneously, but as a result of interplay between several persons. Bonn cites Stanley Cohen's explanation that, "at least five sets of social actors are involved in a moral panic." (Bonn)
        These include: 1) folk devils
                                   2) rule or law enforcers 
                                   3) media 
                                   4) politicians 
                                   5) public   
       Folk devils are those creating the threat and are completely deviant. In this case the abductor is the folk devil and in my opinion his reason for creating the threat was not to humiliate the Prime Minister, rather to see if the pubic was willing to watch something so morally incomprehensible. Clearly his experiment showed that society, although abhorred by the prospect of sex with a pig, and finding it ethically wrong, were still mesmerized by the sensationalism provided. The same can be said for "rubberneckers" at the scene of a horrific car accident. Despite the potential of seeing the agony and suffering of others, the public will for the most part, find a need to be part of the excitement that is created.
      Law enforcers are expected to detain the folk devils, thereby justifying their purpose. In The National Anthem, great preparation is undertaken in order to take down the abductor, only to find they have been outsmarted and are in fact rescuing a mannequin. Agent Callet and his special effects arrangement backfired, when he hired an actor and editor to digitally place the Prime Minister's head over the actor while performing the act. Would this have been the best option if they succeeded? What if the special effects had been revealed to the public? Would they have considered the Prime Minister a fraud? 
      The media is extremely powerful in contributing to Moral Panic in that they (in Cohen's words) "frame and prime" an issue. (Bonn) In other words, how an issue is presented to the public by drawing attention to certain aspects while ignoring others. The media in The National Anthem concern themselves entirely by conducting interviews and talking primarily about how the Prime Minister is going to react as well as speculate and pre-judge him on his moral and ethical standards. Nothing much is mentioned about the abductor, who he or she is likely to be, and for what reason they might have staged such a situation. The media is simply cloying to beat each other out over the first and best stake on the story regardless of the consequences. Malaika, a UKN journalist, is a prime example of this in the film. She repeatedly sends sexual photos to a source in the government for information in return. Doing so, leads her to a building where the Princess may be held. Revealed to be a wild goose chase, Malaika is shot by an officer while attempting to flee. 
          Politicians, Cohen states, "as elected officials who must operate in the court of public opinion, politicians must present themselves as the protectors of the moral high ground in society. Politicians have a sworn duty and moral obligation to protect society from folk devils when they arise. Politicians often fuel a moral panic by aligning themselves with the news media and law enforcers in a moral crusade against the evils introduced by the folk devils." (Bonn) In the film, the politicians try desperately to avoid the humiliation of the Prime Minister by sending in law enforcement and involving cyber geniuses in order to catch the abductor and save the Princess. As they are working against time, with a couple of failed attempts, their thoughts move from protecting the moral high ground to convincing the PM he needs to choose between the lesser of the two evils, thereby fueling the moral panic.
           Lastly, according to Cohen, the public is the most important player in creating moral panic. The success of the other four, is contingent upon whether the public is significantly outraged. (Bonn) In The National Anthem, the folk devil (abductor) successfully used social media, technology and ultimately the media to successfully prove what he set out to do. 

(moral panic, Bonn site).

         Bentham's principle of utility states, "that an action or policy should be judged on the basis of the results it achieved. Those results should be assessed by the extent to which pleasure or happiness was promoted and/or pain was minimized," (Bentham's Principle Utility 40). in this case, the choice to have sexual intercourse with a pig to save a life, or not. Throughout the episode we watch this quandary eat away at his sub-conscious. At the beginning he laughs it off, fairly confident that the kidnapper will be apprehended. When time begins to run out, he has a mental breakdown and even attacks an advisor, who was only trying to help. This is indeed a very unfortunate dilemma to be in, yet Prime Minister Callow complies when he realizes he has run out of options and time. In this ethical dilemma, his actions will be judged on the results achieved even though the choice between the two options does not resolve the situation in an ethically acceptable fashion. The conclusion has the Prime Minister seen as a hero through the eyes of the media. The Princess is alive and in a happy relationship. Callow appears to have recovered, is active in the community, and his rating are higher than ever. The kidnapper has committed suicide, and all seems well until the cameras are off and Prime Minister Callow is alone with his wife. His private life does not seem as happy as displayed in the news. The relationship with his wife is clearly still in shambles and might never recover. So the question is, was this the best result that could have been achieved, causing the least pain and promoting the greatest happiness? Perhaps this is so for everyone except for the Prime Minister, his wife and their marital relationship.

(Bentham's Principle Utility 40).
Had the Prime Minister not had sex with the pig on television, he may have received plenty of backlash. As a leader, society would view him as a coward. He would become the most hated Prime Minister in history. In this case, the relationship with his wife would likely still be in shambles as well as that with the public and the Royal Family. This is where the framework, Consequentialism (which is an example of utilitarianism) comes into play.
The view is that, "consequences, effects, outcomes or ends as the essential criterion, or standard, are to be used to justify specific actions or policies. For consequentialists, the key question to ask when confronted by a moral decision is: What option offers the morally best outcome?" (Consequentialism breakdown 99). Therefore, if Consequentialism is based solely on being judged by the outcome, then Prime Minister Callow's decision is based on which choice is most moral; bestiality or murder. Consequently if having sex with a pig would help save someone's life, it would be the right thing to do.
According to an article from the University of Texas on Consequentialism, there are two examples of consequentialism: utilitarianism and hedonism.
Utilitarianism judges consequences by a "greatest good for the greatest number" standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says something is "good" if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
For example, let's suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then "the end justifies the means."
(University of Texas, McComb School of Business)

               In the case of the Princess, no one knows what the consequence will be. She doesn't know whether the Prime Minister will comply with the demands, and if he does, will she be set free. For PM Callow, he doesn't know whether his actions to have sex with a pig will indeed save the Princess' life. For all he knows, she was already executed before he decided to humiliate himself. So, does "the end justify the means"?

I believe the ethical framework Prime Minister Callow should operate under voluntarily, is the principle of utility. One could argue whether this decision was voluntary or involuntary, but in the end, everyone has a choice. Focusing on the best outcome of happiness for everybody is more important than being about himself. He has to choose the lesser of two evils; make his wife his enemy or make the people his enemy. As an elected official and leader of the nation, he should do what is morally right; essentially lay down his life for his fellow man. He should have sex with the pig on live television if it saves someone's life. A terrible, wicked proposal but in doing so to save a life, he has committed a necessary sacrifice, a selfless act and created an impactful experience on society. Indeed a heinous and gruesome experience, but a courageous act nonetheless, deserving a high level of respect. Unfortunately the real issue is how society reacts to absurd, and unethical situations, and how society's relationship with technology literally takes these situations to a new level. People have become desensitized to horrifying situations as if reality has merely become another movie. We are fascinated with the misfortune of others and technology such as UTube and others, are the vehicles whereby the latest can be viewed almost instantaneously.

(black mirror, pintrest).

Works Cited

“Black Mirror.” Pinterest, www.pinterest.com/somniato/black-mirror/.

"The National Anthem." Black Mirror Wiki, 5 Apr. 2018, black-mirror.wikia.com/wiki/The_National_Anthem.

Horner, David. Understanding Media Ethics. SAGE Publications, 2014. Bentham's Principle of Utility

Horner, David Sanford. Understanding Media Ethics. SAGE, 2015. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Horner, David Sanford. Understanding Media Ethics. SAGE, 2015. A Moral Panic

McCombs School of Business. "Ethics Unwrapped"
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
This website is very helpful in explaining consequentialism a little more clearly, and how it ties in with utilitarianism. The website offered a more substantial definition and gave some very good real life examples rather than just state that actions determine the outcome. Furthermore there is quite a long list of related glossary terms, which are very interesting and informative to read. This site offered the insight that it's not just about the consequences that transpired, but potential consequences had a different choice been made. This created further thought for discussion and ultimately became much more complicated in creating a choice. However befuddled the mind can become over the choices to be made, the site returned to what was important in making that decision.

Bonn, Scott A. PHD. "Wicked Deeds" Moral Panic: Who Benefits from Public Fear. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201507/moral-panic-who-benefits-public-fear
Scott Bonn gave a very good and insightful explanation, in great detail, as to the factors that cause moral panic and who benefits. He helps the reader to understand that it is a combination of actors who interact to maintain a level of fear in the public and keeps society fighting for change, even though the fear might be heavily exaggerated. The site explains how the actors feed off of one another to keep the momentum going. Generally the panic begins with the acts of an evil actor and explodes, generally through the media and law enforcement, into something that attracts a larger and larger audience. Often the fear is distorted and stereotypical and can become out of control. Gangs, school violence, terrorism, flag burning and many other social problems have arisen from moral panic and this website offers a very understandable explanation of its origins and growth.