Media Ethics - Review Of 5 Blogs

The first blog I will be commenting on is Lauren's post about Case Study 3 - C . I enjoyed reading this post about the ethics of sending gifts to journalists for press. I was surprised to see how much emphasis the PRSA code put on not receiving free handouts from companies. I'd say I agree with Lauren that it really shouldn't be such a problem to promote your product, your work, through actual usage and experience. Words and pictures of a media kit are not true understanding of a product. True understanding can only happen by trying something. That being said, I have to ask whether or not it is fair because big companies have more money and more leverage to out do smaller companies who may have a great product as well. I think there should be no paying for flights or hotel rooms, but I don't see the harm in sending a sample to the people that voice their opinions. I think it is just as risky as it is beneficial, because the journalistic could hate it and give it bad press. I think Bok was a proper ethical theory to base Lauren's thought process in this given situation. However, It's begs the question, if the rules clearly state there should be no accepting of any gifts or special treatment out of fairness, is it right for someone to not abide? I think there should be a change in that because I think companies should have the right to demonstrate their products. I think if you look at rationality vs. emotion you may see it a bit clearer in the terms of the code. A company could give the journalist a wonderful experience of flying them out and putting them up in a good hotel room, and free products to use along the way. His/her emotional state of mind toward the company will be higher which makes a journalist write more positively about the company based off personal experience and it becomes less of an objective view point.

The next blog I chose to comment on was Femi's post about privacy. Femi your blog about privacy is a very interesting post. I thought that was very good questions for discussions. The Wiki leaks case is really a breakthrough for this kind of ethical situation and I think it really raises the awareness that there are things going on behind our backs with goals that we really don't know anything about. I am in agreement that it's just to complicated to think that every move being considered and made by the Government be clearly presented and expressed to the public. We live in a free country which is great but one of the problems is there is an incredible amount of diverse view points on how to handle different issues so the release of too much governmental information would be to much to handle. It would be difficult to get the proper thing done. I thnk the one thing that could makes withholding these kind of secrets bad is if they are covered it up with misleading information. Clearly there are things beyond the spoken objectives that the Government looks to accomplish with certain efforts but I think ethically it is wrong to flat out lie to the public and the people of your country. I'd rather have no word spoken about something than lies about how it was being done. The government asks the public for a ton  of trust and we understand we can't know it all but at least don't treat us without respect. I would have to disagree and say that withholding information is not really lying, but I do think it is needed for the greater good sometimes. The criteria of questions Femi would use are a solid and important based. I think you could have placed the Ultiltarian principle to withholding information and would have had a god argument. Utilitatrian looks at the outcome and I think that is important for Government to consider when deciding what information to release and how to present it.

Miguels blog post 5 about Cyberbullying was a really good read. Miguel did a good job explaining both sides of the case. I thought he chose to pick a side in a well explained way and gave good insight into both sides of the story. I agree with Miguel's take that Pokin did the right thing based on the fact that there were zero charges in anyway filed, and that it could be dangerous to expose the names of the family. I like how you choose to explain the decision process of Pokin by assigning it to the Bok model. I thought that was a good connection. I like how Miguel broke down the parts of the model into what Pokins approach was. I didn't think about it like that and I think that he absolutely followed it by considering how he felt, then seeking advice form his editor and lawyer, and ultimately considering how the public would respond to the names being released. As for the Dispatch's decision I think Miguel choosing the Mills Utilitarian was interesting. It could be connected but I think it has to be blended with communitarianism. The video posted with the blog was a great choice. I had not seen that coverage and it was an intense look into the story and how the parents dealt with the situation. Also, it was interesting to see that CNN also choose to not name the neighbors to "protect the identity of the daughter." This case is very complex and I think the that its more important that this story be exposed to create awareness to the harms of cyberbullying and the need for deeper monitoring.

The next blog I will be commenting on is Lucy Cox's blog on the definition of PR. I loved the way she's starts off the post by giving definitions of the matchmaking and pimping and trying to show how comparable the ideas of both are to PR. That brought a little chuckle out of me. Lucy goes on to make some clever remarks for her resentment for the lack of integrity in the PR profession. She believes that these codes of conduct are merely suggestions and thus they are useless in a "dog eat dog world". Lucy jokingly suggests the followingn is a more clear definition "Or really let’s be clear, “I, Lucy Cox, do solemnly swear, as a public relations professional, to honor my family, my need to provide, increase my portion for survival in a dog-eat-dog world before client, consumer and community”. Let’s face it; it is the American dream." Lucy then goes to add "Another problem is codes of conduct are just suggestions – there is no real consequence, so one gets thrown out of a professional society, big deal. According to Elliot only 10% of PR professionals belong to a society anyway." I'd have to agree with Lucy. I think she has a point saying that it's not right for a profession with such influence to only look at the codes of ethics as general aspirations as the book states, “some maintain that ethics codes are nothing more than generalized aspirations – too vague to be of any use when specific decisions must be made. “ (Page 113). Lucy goes on to voice her displeasure towards the PR industry's attempt at making a new definition. This is where I would have to argue with Lucy a bit. I agree with Lucy that PR has no place helping dictatorship but I don't agree with Lucy having such a problem with there being any motive to make a profit. PR is a business as much as it is a public service. Advertising is a form of business and PR is just the same. PR has the ability to help people and companies speak to the public in times of crisis or for awareness. It is a way we meld a connection between complicated business' and the publics right to know. I think if the rules were followed there could be a way to still make profit in a more ethical way but I don't think it is unethical to try and make a profit, and it should be mentioned in the defintion. I would have liked to see Lucy provide her own spin on a new definition, one that is less facetious than the two she provided. Overall though, I think this was a solid blog. I could feel her strong views.

The final blog I will be commenting on is Mike Dominguez's post about secrets Mike has a good blog flow. He asks questions to his reader which lures the reader in and makes the reading progression is fluid. What I like about this particular blog is the way he uses a couple different quotes from Bok that tie into his thought process, and feelings toward the ethics of keeping secrets or whistle blowing. Mike has an insightful take on the effects of secrets "Truth is something much more convoluted and more dynamic today than it was back in the days when we pushed our way in horse-and-carriage.  Secret information is secret for a reason: it has the potential to hurt and/or harm. depending on several factors." Mike did a good job providing a life like situation that many people could relate to and possibly have encountered. He peaks about employees being in a relationship and the difference between one manager deciding it is ok to keep that secret, while another manager feels the need to blow the whistle. I agree with Mike that Bok's model is a great perspective to consider when contemplating the effects of keeping or telling secrets. I think learning from past experience and drawing from the knowledge is a great way to decide how important it is to keep the secret or not. Mike did a niice job tying in media to his example and I think it fit well. I agree with Mike that secret are basically unavoidable, and as he says, "The truth is something that has different sides to it and different timings that are integral to how it reacts in the public view.  The best part about it is that it will never necessarily be wrong to let the truth out - just a different reaction can and will be expected." We will all battle with secrets in our lifetime and it's important that when faced with a tough decision we take a second to think about the outcome and the correct way to deal with it.

Media Ethics - Cyberbullying

When considering the story about this poor girl who committed suicide because of cyberbullying there are multiple points of ethics that could make it right or wrong to release the name of the bully.

The issue of this blog is not the horribleness of the girls death but rather the ethics of each papers decision on weather or not to print the names of the bullies. Steve Pokin of the Suburban Journal of St. Charles County decided not to print the names because there was no charges filed nor a civil suit. And the daughter was a juvenile suspect and it was not clear who actually sent the message. This decision caused an uproar in the community. Many people sent angry messages to the Journal, calling them cowards for not releasing the names. This issue to me is a battle between the public's right to know, need to know, and want to know. Pokin felt that it was better to withhold the names because of the fact that there were no charges being filed. He may have felt that because it has not clearly been deemed the fault of the daughter that it could be dangerous to reveal her name since there would be clear outrage and attacks towards her once the public finds out. This ethical decision could also be connected to the Mills Utility principle which bases ethical decisions on the outcome of the decision. Pokin felt that the outcome would be worse if the names were released. He may not have anticipated such an outraged outcome from the public but he may feel that it is more important to keep the names of the alleged bullies private out of fairness since there were no clear evidence of who actually sent the messages.

As for the St Louis Post Dispatch's decision to match the story and release the names; that decision falls under the ethical perspective of communitarianism. Communitarianism believes that "A credible ethics or privacy needs to be rooted in the common good rather than individual rights." It is the right of the community to know or not know about certain things in order to have a healthy community. The St Louis Post may have felt that it's the right of the community to know the names of the people who would do such a harmful thing.

I find the Posts ethical justification more compelling because I do think it is the right of the community to know the names of the people involved, even if no charges are filed. The fact is these messages were put on the girls Myspace and the culprits used a fake name to clearly bully the girl. Even if it can not be proven that they caused the girl to commit suicide I think that the names should be put out there to expose to the community who would do such a harmful thing. I think it is horrible not only to bully someone but to not be transparent about it and use a false name is cowardly. If you are going to attack someone at least have the decency to put your name to it rather than hide behind some cyber alter ego.

As for social media and cyberbullying, I think it should be something that is taken into real consideration. I think these sites need to think of ways to block people from harmful posts. I think that will need to be a fine line to dance around because friends do tend to say things to each other in a joking manner that could be seen as bullying but is really just friends ragging on each other. That being said, I think that the best solution would be to monitor harmful posts and either block post with harsh language or send warnings to people who post things that are seen as attempts at bullying. As Katie Couric expresses in the video below, it's important for parents to explain to their kids the dangers of the internet and to let them know that cyberbullies are weak people who hide behind the internet. It is important to let kids know that if they encounter a cyberbully not to let it bring them down because it's the bully who is the one that has the problems, not you. A cyberbully has low self esteem and has to try to make other people feel bad so the bullies can feel better about themselves.

Media Ethics - New PR Definition

Public Relations is dynamic profession jam-packed with possible ways to define its uses.  We have changed as a culture and more people are privy to the techniques of PR specialists, and with the emergence of the internet PR has had to adapt. Still however,  Edward Bernays may have said it best when he said "The ideal of the PR profession is to make the producer understand what the public wants and to make the public understand the objectives of the producer." (Bernays 69).

So in order to come up with a modern definition of PR I think it could be helpful to go back to the foundation of Bernays' definition. It will always be the job of the PR professional to help the producer understand what their audience is looking for, what they like, and how they can be attracted. As well as, presenting the progress of the producer to the public in a way that allows them to understand the vision of the producer. This is what I think is problematic with the the current definition. In order to fully adapt to the social internet age we live in now, it is important to mention the participation and goals of companies social network pages. This is were I think a new piece could come into the definition. Now there are more and more ways to reach out to the public, and the ways the public receive their information has shifted. So, it is the job of a PR team to really diagnose the audience that the producers are targeting, and find ways that will best suit a positive a connection with that public. A successful PR move would be one that keeps an audience updated and involved in the process. The article mentions the word of mouth marketing and buzz marketing. These tactics are a part of PR now and mostly are done through Facebook, Twitter, and blogging. As an PR practitioner it is important to understand how to utilize these site ethically because these outlets leave a company  vulnerable to criticism, and how the criticism is handled is very important. As the Patterson reading states, PR's idea of newsworthy is when there is no real news to report. When things are going smooth and the company has proud information to share, that's good PR.

With all that in mind my new definition would be, PR is a strategic communicative partnership with a client. The goal is to engage and accurately inform the public of the truths of the client's plans and progress, in an effort to achieve mutual understanding and develop dialogue that fosters informed decision making and mutually beneficial relationships with the key publics. I think this definition improves upon the current definition because it mentions the use of dialogue. In this new age of social media, companies that involve themselves in social media must be willing to listen, respond, and be transparent. The internet can be cruel and it's important for a PR team maintain a high standard of respectfully responding to comments and being open and responsive to issues. Also I incorporated some key points from the PRSA code of ethics, such as, accurately and truthfully handling information and fostering informed decision making through open communication. When trying to come up with a new definition I think it's important to incorporate some pieces from the code of ethics. If your goal is to have a better more understandable definition, then the best way to do that is use the pieces of your code that make the profession respectable. An institutions main objective should always be to stay true to its ethics (at least that how it should be presented in its definition) and none of the definitions of PR seem to incorporate much of the ethics.

Of the recent PR ethical breaches mentioned in Corbett's article, I am having trouble deciding which one is most problematic because they all have such differing problems. Facebooks smear campaign is problematic because PR should not be used as a way to tarnish the reputation of a competing company. Although the privacy practices of Google were known, it still is not right use PR to try and expose them further. Not only does that come back to bite Facebook, but also it takes aways from the integrity of PR and is harmful to the credibility of the industry. The food bloggers case is an issue of transparency and targeting the wrong community. Hidden camera acts have been done before but for a PR company to attempt to trick bloggers in an effort to get some free play from them is  not smart. Not to mention these were health bloggers who are very unlikely to speak positively about frozen foods. Lastly, and probably the most problematic is the Rabbi and Mr. Torossian case. If the allegations are true Torossian is blatantly abusing his of power and involvement in media. Mr. Torossian was taking full advantage of his ability to create public awareness and was extorting the rabbi by using his PR skills to bring bad press to the rabbi. Abusing the capabilities of PR throws dirt on the profession and makes the industry look as if it is filled with people who try to take advantage of information in a negative way rather than utilizing honest information to enhance the views of their clients.

I think that the practices that are being monitored will improve the field in terms of ethics. I think all four have an important aspect to PR and should always be monitored. Dictatorship is not something this country supports so it is not something a PR group should help support. Interns are widely used in the PR field, and Interns can often get over worked while not getting paid, and it is important treat any member of your team with respect regardless of their position. Also by offering compensation firms are adding motivation for interns to succeed. Brand journalism is an interesting idea and one that I think will work out well. Lastly, maintaining PR's ethical standard in the digital age will be helpful because no matter what forum is used ethics should always be considered and following ethics on social media sites will help avoid any backlash.

If you want to see what Mr. Ronn Torossian thinks about the changes in media and the adjustments of PR check the video below.

Media Ethics - Case Study

Like my last blog I will be looking into a case study about an ethical issue that arouse. Unlike last post this case will not be about journalistic ethics, but rather the ethics of advertising and marketing. I will be referring to the code of ethics for advertisers and marketers to explain just how this particular cases followed or did not follow the ethics, and whether or the codes were helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of the cases study.

I have chosen to use a case study about an advertising campaign launched by Dove back in 2005. Dove is a soap and beauty product company that has a mainly female market and that's who they targeted during this campaign. Dove chose to take a different angle with this campaign and they drew considerable media attention for doing so. Unlike most campaigns targeting women, Dove decided not to use typical skinny and seductive models but rather they decided to use "real women" with "real beauty" that they felt more women would relate to. These women ranged in sizes from 6 to 14 and all had different body types. No of them were of typical model stature. These women were presented in a no frills fashion and were of all different races, shapes and size. One ad featured an older women with text next to her picture saying "wrinkled or wonderful".  Another ad had a "larger-than-average" woman smiling with a caption saying "overweight or outstanding."

When looking at the code of ethics for advertisements there are a few things that were helpful and supported this campaign. One bullet point in the code states that advertisers will not create content that contains testimonials that do not reflect the real opinion of the individuals involved. Dove ran this campaign after they conducted a series of market research in ten different countries. Based off the 3,200 women involved in this study, Dove discovered that women barely consider themselves as attractive and sexy as typical models present themselves. The research showed that only 2 percent of the women interviewed describe themselves as beautiful, 5 percent as pretty and 9 percent thought of themselves as attractive. Dove conducted this research in an effort to find out the true beliefs of women. What they discovered is that not many women have the same sort of confidence in which these models strike in every pose. By launching this campaign they were following that piece of the code by demonstrating the true opinions in which they discovered through their research. Although these were not direct testimonials, it was content made based off the thoughts and beliefs of the women who were studied.

So you'd think Dove did a good job right? They didn't just use sexy attractive models to try and make women feel less about themselves and aspire to be like the models. So, they should be relating to almost every women and making them feel comfortable right? Well there were some people who would disagree. "Some people felt that the ads were just a ploy for Dove to make money by trying to boost a woman's confidence, while at the same time catering to her insecurities" (Marchese). The code of ethics is not helpful in evaluating this side of the case because nowhere does it say you can't do something because there is a possibility that it may be taken the wrong way. One piece of the code states "We recognize that there are areas that are subject to honestly different interpretations and judgment. Nevertheless, we agree not to recommend to an advertiser, and to discourage the use of advertising that is in poor or questionable taste or that is deliberately irritating through aural or visual content or presentation." I don't believe that this campaign was in poor taste even if deep down the tactic was to tap into women's insecurities. Which ever way you look at advertisements for women, whether it is a sexy long legged women or a regular non conventional model, there is a door open for women to feel insecure. Women may want to aspire to be like the model or they may realize they look like the non conventional model and that may make them feel insecure. Dove was doing their best to relate to women in hopes to form a bond with their women market and show them Dove's products are for all types of women, and that everyone should look at themselves in a positive manner.

Two ethical perspectives that could help supplement this code of ethics could be Rationality vs Emotion, and TARES. The rationality vs emotions perspective could be helpful because the advertisers could consider which way they wanted to formulated their message. They could try to give consumers a rational reason to buy the product or try and tap into the consumers emotions. This Dove campaign was an attempt to reach consumers on an emotional level. TARES comes from the Patterson and Wilkins readings and they state that TARES is a test of ethical persuasion. TARES stands for

T- Are the ads truthful
A - Is the claim authentic
R - Does the ad treat the receiver with respect
E - Is there equity between the sender and receiver
S- Is the ad socially responsible

Using the TARES model is a good way for advertisers to go over their material and see if they are following some important ethical aspects. In my opinion this Dove campaign would pass the TARES test. I think another perspective that could help the advertising code of ethics is pluralism. I think if advertisers consider multiple competing values and not just a profit gain they could come up with effective campaigns that not only increase profit but also enhance consumers views of the brand.

Media Ethics - Handling Secret Information

When it comes to deciding whether or not to release information, one must consider a few things. Two of the biggest components are the level of the secret, and who will be impacted. Also it is important to consider whether or not that secret will allow others to use it for harmful reasons.

When looking at the case studies in our readings I found an interesting case that dealt with the releasing of controversial information, and the different reactions that came of it. The case took place in Uganda. The Monitor, the only independent paper in Uganda, was brought a photo from an unnamed source. The photo showed a young women being pinned down naked by men in Ugandan army uniforms. The picture showed the men shaving the women's genital area with scissors. Ugandan security agents were not pleased that there was a photo like this out there and they went after it to ensure that the photo was not released. This gave the paper a little added reason to publish the photo because they knew it held a certain amount a controversy which can be good for a newspaper. The paper was now in a tough predicament. The word was out that the paper had possession of this photo. Their credibility was on the line and they didn't want to seem as if they were involved in some kind of a cover up. The editor of The Monitor decided to print the picture on the back page with no story, just a caption.

The northern barracks where this photo was taken is the location of the United People's Defense Force, or UPDF. There has been a history of abuse in this area and as the reading states "It is in this context - a history of documented abuse - that The Monitor's editors made the decision to publish the photo." There was immediate reaction to the photo from a number of different groups. Some were very upset and other were fully supportive. Surprisingly, Uganda's women's rights group, and the national minister for ethics and integrity did not support it because they felt that women and children would be disturbed by the photo. Others felt it "promoted basic equalities and liberties for women."

The editors were later charged by the state with "sedition and publishing false news that could create fear and alarm." There was a trial in which the soldiers denied that the picture was true, saying that the uniforms didn't match the uniforms used by the UPDF. However, it was later determined that the officers were unaware of all the uniforms used. The defense lawyer for The Monitor was shot in the shoulder after his first day in court and Kandida Lakony came forward claiming she was the women in the photo. She claimed it was her ex-boyfriend in the photo. He was a soldier in the Gulu Barracks. Although the public was sympathetic to her testimony, Lakony was found guilty of lying and misleading the police. She was sentenced to 12 months in prison and died shortly after her release. After two years of trial the editors were acquitted of the charges.

If you'd like to check out the current online version of Uganda's The Monitor visit
http://www.monitor.co.ug

 If I was presented with the decision of whether or not to publish a photo like this, the criteria I'd use to make my decision would be a mix of Mills Utility principle and Bok's ethical decision making. I would have to use the utility principle to think about the outcome of publishing such a photo. If I knew that I was in a country where if I released such a photo I could easily be charged with sedition, I would have to really think about if jail time was worth it. However, I would have to also consider that releasing this photo could expose this horrible behavior and possibly have a positive impact on the stoppage of such problems. Bok's model would come in when I had to think about if there are other ways to deal with this photo that would help me avoid losing credibility, and at the same time not raise a big ethical issue. Also, I'd have to think about how the people would respond to the picture, and if I could present it in a way that could breed a positive outcome. I think the editor did a good job making a decision. By publishing the photo he avoided anyone finding out they withheld information, and by not accompanying the photo with a story the editor was attempting to minimize a bad reaction. Given the context of the abuse in Uganda, releasing the photo was helping to expose the brutality of the abuse, which may cause people to fight for a change. It is taking a risk that the image could be harmful for women and kids, however, it does open peoples eyes to what could happen if things don't change.

I think media professionals will always struggle with getting entangled in secrets. As long as there is competition in media there will always be the fight for the most attention grabbing story. Whenever a media professional is competing for a strong story, often times they will have to dig for compelling information. This means they may come across secretive information, and must use critical decision making on how to handle the information. I think the only way to avoid getting entangled in secrets is to not dig for information. Any journalist that avoids digging deep for information will have a hard time coming up with a big time story.

Media Ethics - My View and Experience

Ethics is not only important in media and business but also in all walks of life. Media is an extension of our lives. Whether it is a story we read, a product we see for the first time, a company's message, or the sale of a product, ethics will always be involved in the process. It is up to the creator or the distributor to decide if they are going about it with the proper ethical manner.

I'm still not positive of the profession in which I plan to enter, however, for the sake of this blog I'll use my upcoming internship and prior sales experience to provide my ethical approach. I've worked in sales for two years and my internship will be within the integrated media department at NBCU. Both positions have a sales and marketing components to them. Both sales and marketing have an interesting line between profit and ethics. The goal is to make the sale, increase profit and successfully market the brand. As a commission sales consultant my livelihood depended on getting the sales anyway possible. Ethics were not always stressed. However, I have trouble blatantly taking advantage of someone and providing false information in order to make the sale. I had to learn ways to combat adversity and promote the product in which ever way appealed to the consumer. If a client had an issue with a particular component of the product, rather than misleading them, I would empathize and then shift to another component that may help them look past what they didn't like and focus on another feature that could help. "A dialogic ethic does not ensure the "right" answer; it works to assist in meeting what­ ever diversity is before us, whether we like it or not." (Arnett)

Sales is mostly connected to the Arnett's Dialogic Communication Ethic. A good salesmen knows how to develop dialogue. Arnett says "A dialogic communication ethic acknowledges multiple goods that give rise to and emerge in ongoing conversations, protecting and promoting the good of learning." Learning is important, if you can learn your client you can better fit them to your product. Arnett goes on to say "A dialogic ethic is the protector and the promoter of the emergent, the unexpected, and the unforeseen-it is the communicative home of hope for an idea, a viewpoint, or an action that has not yet been apparent." When trying to connect with someone to make a sale or market a product pulling out the unknown viewpoint, experience, idea, or action can be critical in connecting the product to your client.

When it comes to me and my tools for ethical decision making, I believe I posses inherent qualities that will help me avoid making any major mistakes. First of all I consider my self a considerate person and don't like the feeling of taking advantage of someone. In sales it is almost your job to take advantage of someone but I never made anyone do anything they hadn't already given a good amount of thought to already. Secondly I am selfless individual. I've never been one looking to outshine others, and I think that's important when it comes to ethics. I don't think I would risk being unethical and putting out information that could be harmful to people just for the sake of my career. I believe in karma and anything that I feel would be wrong or harmful to someone is hard for me to execute. Thirdly I am a thorough thinker. Rarely do things go by me without me considering the consequences. I have been tempted to put edgy statuses on my social media however, I almost always refrain due to thought of what may come from it now or in the future.

Throughout my course work and readings I have learned skillful ways to communicate with clients in many different settings. So far from the readings in this class I have learned the many different theories based on how to handle and resolve dilemmas. I was unaware of all the different theories that are out there and I was glad to see that I use a mix of many in my own natural decision making. Also, the Plaisance readings offered the code of ethics for PR, Advertising, and Marketing, all of which I had never seen before and found quite interesting. None of the codes were very surprising to me because in most cases things should be handled with the correct amount of considerate thought. What I wonder is how often the professionals in these fields reference and abide by the codes, and how they find ways around them. I will take the information and theories that we will learn during this course and consider which may be the correct process when I come across a dilemma in the future. Due to my background, what I would like to see discussed in class and in the readings during this course would be ethical decision making on the business side of media.