All good things must come to an end.

Sadly, my Media Ethics class is coming to a close.  I think it’s easy to say that the past 8 weeks went by far too fast. Being that it is the end of the semester – it is time to take some time and reflect on the topics we discussed through the blogs of several of my classmates.

Tom Herles – “GossipEthics” Blog 1 – January 5, 2012

In the first blog of the class, Tom discussed media ethics in the form of gossip in the media. More specifically, Tom talked about celebrity gossip on sites like TMZ.com to which he referred to as the “lower end of news.”

He began with saying that “People shouldn’t dig up any irrelevant detail about [celebrities’] private life and plaster it all over the Internet.” I must disagree with Tom here. While I do agree that it seems rather silly about what is classified as news, I think celebrity is gossip is just a topic that comes with the territory.

Tom goes on to say “that kind of information sells.” Yes Tom, it does. It is the defining factor on why “Who is Kim Kardashian dating now?” is seen on all news outlets. In 24/7 news cycles many networks pick up any story that will get viewers to watch. These “unsubstantiated claims” that Tom disagrees with are what drive many television, newspapers, and gossip blogs like BlindGossip.com to make money. It is always important to remember that in the end – it comes down to money.

There is one quote from Tom’s blog that really stuck with me – “I initially thought that I had a strong ethical foundation, but it appears that it is more of a moral foundation.” I believe that Tom touches on an idea that many individuals in the class agree with. I think a lot of us would believe that we would make the right decision when faced with an ethical dilemma, but I think a lot of young media professionals, like Tom and myself, have much more to learn.

Kelly Elliot – “If It Were Only That Simple.” Blog 1 – January 14, 2012

In the second blog post Kelly dives into the topic of secrets and the unfortunate fact that many media professionals are faced with them everyday. She claims that while we do hear secretive information on a daily basis, “It’s only when something conflicts with our ethics or morals that we take notice.”

She goes on to describe that when she hears information from a colleague that she deems as important she feels an obligation to share it with her boss. My question is: how does she deem something important?

To help explain her thought process she uses the ethical decision-making model from Sissela Bok:

1.     How do you feel about the actions?

2.     Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?

3.     How will others respond to the proposed act?

Kelly even went farther and added another question to the model – 3b. What will be the consequences of my actions?

It was very interesting to see Kelly break down her ethical process step by step. She describes all the stakeholders in the situation and why she would make certain decisions. One point that stuck out to me was when she explained why she would not go to the press with her problem. She defends her point with the thought that since she works for a non-profit organization, any news of wrongdoing could ultimately hurt the organization more than help it. She gives an example of if a superior or colleague was using the fund from the organization for personal gain. She states, “donors and public are likely to lose faith in the organization and funds would decline. This would ultimately have an impact on the constituents who receive support from the non-profit.”

However, on the other side of the equation I can’t help but argue that one should report such activity to the public. Isn’t it their right to know? One example would be the recent developments with the Susan G. Komen non-profit organization. When people donate to this organization they believe they are donating to help find a cure for breast cancer. However, in recent developments it was revealed that money from the foundation was actually also being giving to Planned Parenthood that supports abortion. Many people were upset at this information and since then officials have resigned. So would it have been better to handle this internally like Kelly would choose to do? I’m not so sure.

Avery Owens – “GoodOl’ Product Placement” Blog 3 – January 21, 2012

In the third blog Avery Owens discusses product placement and how prevalent it is in today’s society. More importantly he also discusses the ethical decisions graphic designers, like himself, are faced with everyday.

I found it interesting when Avery stated, “Upon further investigation of Graphic Design ethics, I stumbled upon the realization that there is no solid code for ALL Graphic Designers in America.” This shocked me. How could this be? How could there be no code of ethics for a profession that is constantly changing and modifying images in advertisements, magazines, etc. that people see hundreds of times a day. More specifically with programs like Photoshop, which also images to be altered, how are their no guidelines to what can and can’t be modified. However, at the same time it did make sense with the amount of controversial images in history that have been altered.

Avery also discusses an example of a BBC program that was removed due to Apple advertising. It was removed because it was believed that there was an exchange of cash and favors. I agreed with Avery that every day you see movies and television with some type of Apple products in them. Apple (iPhones iPods, etc.) has infiltrated popular culture in a way that it is now unavoidable.

Avery goes on to make the point that Graphic Designers are there to create logos, images, animations, etc. to help brands/corporations with advertising and marketing strategy. I found this to state that graphic designers are messengers. They are the individuals that take an idea from a company and make it into a symbol for the public to see and interpret. This being said, I think there needs to be some accountability for these individuals as they create quite an impact on the general public and their perception of corporations and brands. Will changes ever be made?

Conrad Fronterre-  “Ethics In The Digital Age!” Blog 4 –January 28, 2012

In the fourth blog post Conrad discusses the current world of Public Relations and it’s problems with a current definition of P.R. He discusses codes of ethics like the Hays Code for movies as well as traditional models of communicating information like the top to down model.

I agree with Conrad that the P.R. world is constantly changing and the current definition is very outdated having been created in 1982. With the growth of technology and more importantly the use of the Internet and social media – P.R. is nothing like it was 20-30 years ago.

Conrad states “the public believes public relations practitioners take the side of the brand rather then the consumer.” I believe that what the public believes is true. While I agree that P.R. helps delivers messages to the public from corporations, I think that P.R. has a loyalty with the company and is not exactly as two-sided as Conrad claims.

Conrad goes on to create a definition of “Public Relations is a bi-partisan mediator between organizations and its publics who have mutual interests.” I completely disagree with this statement. I do not believe that the public, corporations, or public relations have mutual interests at all. The corporation wants to sell a product and make money. The P.R. Company wants to help the corporations sell products and make money from the corporation. The public wants to be told the truth about a product and if they like the product, they want to buy it. I do not think there is any understanding/mutual agreement among these threes parties at all.

Conrad then states, “The digital age has limited society’s privacy because Internet users are leaving digital footprints.” I think this is completely true. I think that while social media has allowed more control on the part of the consumer to voice their opinions, through using social media they have allowed corporations to have more of a control over the information they are supplied with. Many social media sites like Facebook are making money off of users by data mining their information and selling it to corporations to find out more about then. Is anything truly private on the Internet?

Zach Frank – “CyberBullying” Blog 5 – February 4, 2012

On the 5^th week of blogging the class discussed a very serious problem that the Internet has encouraged which is cyber bullying. The Internet has operated as a gateway to this issue and in this blog Zach Frank discussed a specific case.

Zach talks about the case of 13 year-old Megan Meier decided to take her own life after her neighbors (a classmate, a mother, and an 18 year-old coworker) cyber bullied her on the social network MySpace. He starts off expressing “This has got to be where the line is drawn,” and I couldn’t agree more. In the early teenage years, children are so vulnerable what others say about them. It used to be that kids would get bullied and then would escape it when they got home from school. Now with the use of the Internet, the bullying follows them all the time. When will it stop?

Zach then discussed an article about the incident and whether or not the names of the cyber bullies should be released to the public. At first he says, “They changed the focus of the attention with cyber bullying from the attacking and seeking revenge on the neighbors to sympathy for the loss of life.” I hate to disagree with this statement. I think by sharing the names with the public they aren’t changed the attention, but rather drawing attention to the issue.  After the article was published, people went on a search for the names anyway, so why not just share with them to begin with?

I agree that the cyber bullying is “disgusting for another 13 year-old to do, let alone two supposed adults.” Zach makes a great point that the adults involved in this incident should be acting like role models instead of the exact opposite. Therefore shouldn’t they be viewed in the light of who they truly are? Perhaps they didn’t commit a crime, but shouldn’t the public be aware of these people in their community?

Zach goes on to agree with me in saying “the community has the right to know the names of the individuals that intentionally victimized a child.” However does since they did not break a law, should they lose their rights to privacy? By releasing the names of the public the newspaper is allowing for the court of public opinion to judge these individuals – is that fair?

Zach takes his discussion a step further and says that social media networks should be held accountable for cyber bullying and should also be watching for signs of it on their services. Similar to what I said in my blog, I do not agree with policing everyone on social media. Millions of people use social media everyday, so is it not possible to watch every step users make online. I think that these networks try to help with “report abuse/spam” buttons on their sites, but I think their needs to be more education about the uses of social media as well as laws to help solve the problem. If you have social media networks police their users, isn’t it starting to take away from users privacy and freedom of speech?

Social Media Explained

Privacy & Cyber Bullying

“Without some degree of privacy, civilized life would be impossible.” – Louis W. Hodges, philosopher

With the constant growth of technology and social media the possibility of having privacy is decreasing at a rapid rate. With websites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Tumblr, Blogger, etc. people are sharing more and more about their lives. They are uploading photos, updating statuses, and tagging themselves at locations. So when does an individual cross the line of TMI or “too much information”? In an article, Online harassment – A hoax, a suicide – a journalistic dilemma, that line is brought into the spotlight.

She was just 13 years old. Her name was Megan Meier. She was young, bright, pretty, and would end up taking her own life. Why? Because she was told, “the world would be a better place without you” by a cyber bully.  His name was Josh Evans and she met him through MySpace. She had begun a friendship with him and would take her own life after he turned on her suddenly.

How did this happen? Perhaps you should ask the neighbor. The neighbor had created the fake account to befriend the girl and find out information about her own teenage daughter. Normally one would say, “Where were the parents?” but in this case – it was the parents.

In the article stated above by Roy Malone, it discusses the ethical dilemma Malone was faced as a journalist when writing about the story of Meier. Naturally the story was a tough subject due to the details of a 13-year-old girl committing suicide. However, the decision in question was whether to release the names of the mother, daughter, and 19-year-old coworker that created the account and carried out the bullying.

 Argument A: The reporter was right in withholding the names of the cyber bullies in question.

One of the main reasons to withhold the names claimed by the reporter was because the persons in question had no committed a crime. They did not break any laws, therefore they technically did not do anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Using the ethical perspective of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, where there is a focus on the action, then publishing the names could be causing harm to the individuals since they did not commit a crime. While society might not agree that they ethically did something wrong, as a paper they must think about the action of printing the names of innocent individuals. Also since there was no clear identity of the person who sent the messages – it was a “she said vs. she said” situation – there wasn’t proof of who did what.

Argument B: The reporter was wrong and should have printed the people’s names.

When looking at this situation from the communitarianism perspective, where community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice, one could see why it would be the best ethical decision to print the names. These individuals, even if their actions are in question, have made an attack on someone in the community. By printing the names it will bring a face to the horrible actions taken by these cyber bullies versus this 13 year old. Perhaps there are no laws or regulations for cyber bullying, but when people are able to see the outcomes of their decisions when using technology changes can be made. These people were not held accountable at first, but once their identities were known, they were brought (still ongoing) to court for their crimes. The reaction of the public when the names were not printed was due to a need for justice.

This case is a perfect example of the privacy everyone loses when using social media. “Privacy on the web is still important even though the law considers web content quite public,” (Patterson 123). When people are commenting, tagging, uploading, etc. there is a disconnect from the impact they are creating on the Internet. Once something is posted it cannot be removed. You might delete it, but it is stored somewhere on a server forever.

One might argue that the social media platforms should be held accountable for policing the message boards for cyber bullying. I think that is completely irrational. With the millions upon millions of people that use social media, it is almost impossible for a site to oversee all data being put onto their website. However, they do often supply a “report abuse” button for such situations.  I think the cyber bullying while often committed by young people should ultimately rest on the shoulders of parents. It is parents’ responsibility to discuss proper ways to use technology/Internet. Facebook shouldn’t parent or teach our children. I think it’s obvious who is not doing their job.

Referenced Texts:

·      MediaEthics: Issues & Cases

·      Online harassment - a hoax, a suicide - a journalistic dilemma

Is Public Relations forgetting about ethics?

"Public Relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."

The above statement is the definition of public relations according to an article titled “Redefining P.R. in the Age of Social Media.” Now at first glance one would assume that this definition “fits the bill” so to speak, however when media literate or involved in the public relations world, one can find many holes in that sentence.

To begin the statement claims that there is a mutual relationship between the organization being helped and the publics it promotes to. I would beg to differ that this relationship is not equal because the company or organization using the public relations firm has an agenda. This agenda is first and foremost to make money, not to necessary cater to the public. Are they really helping the public?

Second many would argue that the public relations firm does not help the organization adapt to the public, but to help them communicate a message through a given medium to the public. This being said, it means that P.R. and the organization decide what the message is and how it will be delivered. Does this sound like a mutual relationship with the public if they have the ability to decide what is said and when it is said?

In the same article mentioned above, several members of the Public Relations community discussed their thoughts of the current state of the P.R. professional environment.

Adam Lavelle, a member of the board of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association who is the chief strategic officer at the iCrossing unit of Hearst stated,

“Before the rise of social media, public relations was about trying to manage the message an entity was sharing with its different audiences. Now, P.R. has to be more about facilitating the ongoing conversation in an always-on world.”

Dan Tisch, chairman of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, said

“We as a profession have to explain what we do, in terms that are memorable, relevant, clear and consistent. In a world where the ordinary consumer is walking around with global publishing power in his or her pocket, the role of public relations and corporate communications has shifted from creating content to attempting to influence the content that’s created by others.”

Both professionals express concern with the current world Public Relations. They discuss the changes caused by technology and more importantly, social media. With social media, the general public is able to communicate their thoughts and feelings about a brand, product, or corporation. The problem with this scenario is that they have the ability to provide not only false information about the company, but also their negative ideas.

The definition of Public Relations should not allow for any doubt to argue for unethical decisions in business practice, which the current vague definition does. The classification of P.R. should emphasize the impact it has on the public and the business world, as well as show importance to telling the truth.

In the article “Time for Resolutions: Will You Commit to P.R. Ethics is 2012?” the author shows the influence P.R. has by stating, “The U.S. public relations industry concluded a remarkable five-year growth period in 2011, reaching $5.7 billion in annual client spending.” He also says that P.R. spending will double in the following year.

It’s hard not to see the power P.R. firms have over the way messages are delivered to us. It would not be a problem if they always told the truth, but as stated in the article above, there were many poor decisions made in P.R. in 2011.

One example was the P.R. smear campaign created by firm Buron-Marsteller. The firm was hired by social media powerhouse Facebook to secretly attack the new social media platform created by corporation Google. The smear campaign, which has been called “Whisper-Gate”, had journalists working for B-M and pitching false claims of privacy issues with Google’s site. Several news outlets including USA Today found the claims suspicious and after much research discovered they were all false.

This unethical campaign caused much controversy for not only impacting Google and its users, but also affecting the entire world of Public Relations. In the articles “PRSA official: Smear Campaigns Have No Place in PR” and “Why All of PR Will Pay for ‘Whisper-Gate’” the affects of the campaign are developed further.

The campaign when against what P.R. is believed to stand for which is representing brands and corporations in a fashion that is truthful and honest. Instead this P.R. firm went against the importance of credibility and focused on the monetary gains they would received from Facebook.

  

The FTC and PRSA are not trying to have P.R. practices monitored for their decisions when creating campaigns. I think this might help at first, but how it is possible to monitor what everyone is doing, is it really necessary? I think the problem to begin with is that people should know what decisions are unethical. The problems start when they lose that in the sight of money.

So the question now stands: What should Public Relations do now?

Interestingly enough the co-founder of Buron-Marsteller Harold Burson had it right back in 2009,

“The public relations professional helps hone the messages that will be most persuasive to the audience and selects the media (usually a mix of media) that will deliver the messages most credibly and economically. It goes without question that this process take place within the context of uncompromised dedication to truth and transparency.”

So I wonder what happened from 2009 to now?

Referenced Texts:

·      Why all of PR will pay for ‘Whisper-Gate’

·      PRSA official: Smearcampaigns have no place in PR

·      Time for Resolutions: WillYou Commit to PR Ethics in 2012?

·      Media Ethics: Issues & Cases

·      RedefiningPublic Relations in the Age of Social Media

Who is the villain here?

I'll let you decide.

The Falling Man

Who is he?

September 11^th was a day that would forever change the United States. It was filled with tragedy, heartache, and sadness. Many photos and videos were taken on the day, but none would cause more controversy than “The Falling Man.”

The Falling Man.

In the book, Media Ethics: Issues & Cases, a case study features the story of the “The Falling Man” photograph. It tells the story of photographer Richard Drew and how when he witnessed people jumping from the burning towers, he photographed them. The next day the photo ran in several papers with other photos from the attack. However, the photo caused quite the controversy with readers who began calling and emailing outraged by what they had seen.

The writers, photographers, editors, and other media professionals during the 9/11 attacks were faced with many ethical dilemmas. “In an event where every aspect of coverage was graphic, violent and horrifying, the decisions about what to show to tell the totality of the story became the decisions that relied heavily on the standards of those working the desks,” (Patterson 43).

So should the newspapers/television channels have run the photo?

To make a difficult decision like this one, journalism should turn to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. The code starts off with a preamble stating,

“The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.”

The code of ethics goes on to explain four main ideas:

·       Seek Truth and Report It

·       Minimize Harm

·       Act Independently

·       Be Accountable

This code of ethics is helpful to evaluate a decision such as running “The Falling Man” image. One of the main facts is that it is an event that happened on the day of 9/11. It is newsworthy. The photographer did not doctor the photo and he was just at the right place at the right time to capture this moment. The reason the newspapers and television stations ran this photo is because it is a power image that portrays the tragic events and also the difficult choices the victims had to make in a time of crisis – either be trapped on a burning floor or jump. While the media was accountable and minimized harm by refused to run photo after the uproar from the public, they did their job by seeking the truth and reporting it.

Despite the help the code of ethics provides, it also is important to use different ethical perspectives as well when making decisions. Two examples would be Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mill’s Utility Principle.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative brings focus to the action. “Immanuel Kant is best known for his categorical imperative which is most often stated in two ways. The first asserts that an individual should act as if the choices one makes for oneself could become universal law. The second states that you should act so that you treat each individual as an end and never merely a means,” (Patterson 9). Therefore the journalist should focus on the action of running the photograph. By running the photograph they are bringing light to one of the horrific events of 9/11. Does this mean that photographs of any subject should be published if it is horrific event? What if this became universal law? What if people began running photos of people dying all the time?

While Kant provides emphasis to the action, Mill’s Utility Principle focuses on the outcome of a situation. “The consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical,” (Patterson 10). So what would happen after running the photo? Well in the case study many readers were upset and filed complaints with the media. The newspaper or TV station could lose their audience if they are unhappy with the photo. The media could then regret showing the photo and would withhold from showing similar images to the public and therefore would be keeping information from people.

I think that based on the journalism code of ethics, Kant, and Mill that if I was in the same situation as the case study of “The Falling Man” that I would run the photo. I feel it is the obligation of the press to show the public every part of events especially heartbreaking ones like 9/11. It is not helping the public by censoring images like “The Falling Man”. While it can be painful to those that were victims of the incident, it brings to light the pain and suffering everyone as Americans feel and honors those individuals in the photos, instead of exploiting them. People made difficult decisions that day, ones that changed lives, so it is only fair to share those moments with the public. Those events were not only newsworthy, but were part of history.

Referenced and Cited Texts:

·       Media Ethics: Issues & Cases

·       Society of Professional Journalists: Code ofEthics

My lips are sealed...well maybe...

Why yes Ron the glory of America is to make your own choices, however shouldn’t it be your right to be given accurate information from the media as well?

This video is from the NBC show Parks and Recreation. It tells the story of a Parks & Rec department and the problems they face on a daily basis. Now the clip above is from an episode titled “Sweetums.”

In this episode the town of Pawnee has decided to allow the popular candy corporation Sweetums to control the food stands in the town’s parks. When the corporation claims they have created a new health bar that would provide citizens and their children with a healthy snack, the department decides to try the bars themselves.

Characters Leslie and Ann soon realize that the bars are not healthy at all, and in fact are extremely unhealthy. The Sweetums corporation has been lying about its healthy benefits to not only the Parks dept., but the consumers.

So you are probably wondering what this example from a fictional TV show has to do with media ethics?

Well, every day media professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas. Whether they are a reporter and faced with releasing secret information, or a public relations firm backing a possibly harmful product, media professionals must make ethical decisions daily.

The big problem today’s media faces is that many media professionals do not realize the impact they have on the general public. “Profitability and deadline pressures, not ethical values, too often end up defining the quality of media content,” (Plaisance 234). So the question becomes, when faced with an ethical dilemma are you making the right decision?

The biggest mistake people make when dealing with an ethical dilemma is not analyzing the impact their decision might make. “Ethics addresses individuals actions or behaviors, but also deals with the big picture,” (Plaisance 21). People sometimes forget to take others into account as well as the many possible outcomes of a situation.

"I don't know why these bars are so good" (Click Me)

Character Leslie Knope has figured out that “nutriyums” were bad for one’s health. She has realized the corporation that will be sponsoring the food stands in her department are not only putting the children of Pawnee at risk, but also have been lying about the health bars. What should she do?

 If I were Leslie Knope I would first look at the stakeholders in the situation. The people invested in the situation are Leslie and the Parks Department, Sweetums, The City of Pawnee Government, and the Citizens of Pawnee or the Consumers.

I would begin with bringing the knowledge I have gained to a superior. I would let my boss know my findings and perhaps ask some advice on how to deal with the solution. Leslie tells her superior Ron about the unhealthy findings of “nutriyums.” Ron does not feels the “nutriyums” pose such an issue to cause a problem and tells Leslie to just let it go. Leslie does not agree.

So what should she do next? My thoughts would be to go to another individual or professional for advice. Leslie decides to take her information with Ann (a nurse) to a public forum.

So what would be the downside of her sharing this information?

The Parks and Rec department could lose the sponsorship from Sweetums. Leslie could cause a strained professional relationship between herself and her coworkers. There is even a possibility that Leslie could cause strain with the public for not looking into this issue originally.

Leslie’s situation is one that I think every media professional will face during their careers. While a career in the media might provide more of an impact than sugary snacks in the town of Pawnee, the basics of how to find the best solution are the same.

However one has to remember that even if you inform the public, you might not always get the response you hope for –

Referenced and Cited Texts:

• WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy

• Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice