Passing Grades On the Honesty Test
By: Downing Bolls
Updated: March 27, 2009
Remember the 1983 film, "Trading Places"?
The Duke Brothers - Mortimer and Randolph - are commodity brokers who enjoy a little wager now and then.
Their latest bet involves a switch: taking a common criminal and making him a successful businessman and a successful man and putting him penniless on the street.
The criminal, Billy Ray Valentine, is given the job and home of Louis Winthorpe III, who in turn is set up for crimes he didn't commit.
The goal: to see if Winthorpe resorts to crime once he's lost his rich environment and friends.
There were concerns raised about that being the goal of an honesty test that aired this week.
Now, I believe that most people are good, but do hard times make people act differently?
That's what we wanted to find out.
So, we got a purse, put five dollars in it, then dropped it outside a busy store.
Then watched to see what people did.
We got an email about a spot promoting the story.
Tom is a psychology professor at a local college and called us on the carpet.
"Most professions consider it unethical to involve a person in a moral test of some sort, then "expose" them when they make a wrong moral choice," he wrote.
"I am disappointed that KRBC would capitalize on the desperation that afflicts many people in the area by dropping money in front of them, then waiting to confront them, on video, if they make the wrong choice".
As Tom pointed out, most of us occasionally make poor moral choices when we think no one is watching.
Would we fall subject to the same temptations if the roles were reversed.
"I just hate to see a good news team expose, exploit, and embarass a person who makes a poor moral choice in what may be a time of financial crisis for them," he wrote.
"You guys are better than that."
You know, we were very pleasantly surprized by our test.
Most of the people we saw just left the purse on the ground, thinking the owner would return looking for it.
Several people did pick it up and turn it in at the store.
At least one women picked the purse up and was going to look through it and try to phone the owner.
No one took the money.
Despite the worsening times, people still surprise you.
After the story aired Thursday night, we got another email from Tom, saying, "The piece on honesty was well done and positive.
I sent an earlier email with some concerns about it, based on the teaser that ran Thursday morning.
My concerns were unfounded. I apologize for "jumping the gun".
Tom , you don't anything to apologize for.
Your original email hit the nail on the head and prompted all of us in the newsroom to do some thinking and soul searching.
Would the same thing happen if we conducted the test in the worst part of another Great Depression?
In a crisis, perhaps none of us is above acting in ways we would normally find offensive.
The Duke Brothers - Mortimer and Randolph - are commodity brokers who enjoy a little wager now and then.
Their latest bet involves a switch: taking a common criminal and making him a successful businessman and a successful man and putting him penniless on the street.
The criminal, Billy Ray Valentine, is given the job and home of Louis Winthorpe III, who in turn is set up for crimes he didn't commit.
The goal: to see if Winthorpe resorts to crime once he's lost his rich environment and friends.
There were concerns raised about that being the goal of an honesty test that aired this week.
Now, I believe that most people are good, but do hard times make people act differently?
That's what we wanted to find out.
So, we got a purse, put five dollars in it, then dropped it outside a busy store.
Then watched to see what people did.
We got an email about a spot promoting the story.
Tom is a psychology professor at a local college and called us on the carpet.
"Most professions consider it unethical to involve a person in a moral test of some sort, then "expose" them when they make a wrong moral choice," he wrote.
"I am disappointed that KRBC would capitalize on the desperation that afflicts many people in the area by dropping money in front of them, then waiting to confront them, on video, if they make the wrong choice".
As Tom pointed out, most of us occasionally make poor moral choices when we think no one is watching.
Would we fall subject to the same temptations if the roles were reversed.
"I just hate to see a good news team expose, exploit, and embarass a person who makes a poor moral choice in what may be a time of financial crisis for them," he wrote.
"You guys are better than that."
You know, we were very pleasantly surprized by our test.
Most of the people we saw just left the purse on the ground, thinking the owner would return looking for it.
Several people did pick it up and turn it in at the store.
At least one women picked the purse up and was going to look through it and try to phone the owner.
No one took the money.
Despite the worsening times, people still surprise you.
After the story aired Thursday night, we got another email from Tom, saying, "The piece on honesty was well done and positive.
I sent an earlier email with some concerns about it, based on the teaser that ran Thursday morning.
My concerns were unfounded. I apologize for "jumping the gun".
Tom , you don't anything to apologize for.
Your original email hit the nail on the head and prompted all of us in the newsroom to do some thinking and soul searching.
Would the same thing happen if we conducted the test in the worst part of another Great Depression?
In a crisis, perhaps none of us is above acting in ways we would normally find offensive.
