The Problem with Apu: Recognizing Moral Issues in Media Ethics

ABSTRACTThe task of media ethicists is not only to shine a light on the dilemmas facing our field, but also to point out what the moral issues of the day are. Why is it that some cases and issues appear on our radar, in our textbooks, web sites and journals? Using the example of how the problematic nature of the Apu character in The Simpsons escaped the attention of this author and other media ethicists, this essay explores how media ethicists can be better aware of their own blind spots. Given our limited cognitive abilities and unconscious biases, I will argue that media ethicists could potentially benefit from the help of a theoretical media ethics moral machine (MeMorMach), especially in instances where they are unaware of the potential violation of an established norm. But when normative change occurs, such a device would be less useful in tracking this change and alerting them, especially to those adhering to a constructivist meta-ethical framework. The essay concludes with a call for media ethicists to pay attention to and assist so-called moral enquirers, advocates who, through personal engagement, enact normative change. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The documentary reveals that one (of the inspirations for Azaria’s accent (in addition to store clerks he encountered personally) was Peter Sellers’ character in “The Party,” the 1968 comedy in which Sellers played an Indian actor who ends up at a Hollywood party. In the film, Sellers appeared in brown makeup. Apu’s offensiveness then stems from the fact that the character is a descendant of these depictions derived from a stereotype associated with British colonialism.2 This article explores the possible causes of how the issue of Apu escaped media ethicists’ attention. I will not examine one important potential reason of this oversight namely, the possibility that I was correct in ignoring this issue because it is a manufactured controversy that does not stretch beyond the media echo chamber and that the Apu character does not present an ethical issue or potential norm violation. Not because I reject this possibility – it may very well be the case – but because the merits of any of the claims regarding Apu are not discussed in this article. This paper operates on the likely assumption that the claims regarding Apu have at least some validity.3 As I mentioned in the introduction, I was among those who missed this issue, and I assume some of the readers of this piece might have as well. Hence the choice – here and elsewhere – for the pronouns “us” and “we.” I do not imply, however, that every reader of this piece was equally blind to this issue. Given the confessional style of this piece and the limits of English grammar, the use of the first person seems most appropriate in these instances.4 During the presentation of an earlier version of this essay at the Media Challenges to Digital Flourishing symposium at Penn State in the fall of 2022, this distinction between two types of normative change was criticized as being untenable by certain colleagues, who argued that all axiological change is to some degree driven by empirical data. I cannot address this criticism given the space constraints of this article. But I do think that, although the process of moral change is messy and unclear, this conceptual distinction nevertheless is both instructive and valid for the reasons explained in this section.