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.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Media Ethics - Cyberbullying
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)