The Final Dilemma

Throughout the class, the discussions, lectures and readings have provided insight into the dilemmas of media ethics. While this has often made the issues harder to decipher because of different viewpoints, it has surely been a chance to look at events in a different, more academic way. Judging matters isn’t always a matter of opinion, it’s an in depth analysis of ethical principles.

----------

In Kelly Elliot’s second post dated January 14th, she presents an in depth discussion of secrets and how to handle them in her non-profit field. Using Bok’s ethical decision-making framework, she drew up conclusions for handling a situation. Since I don’t see myself becoming a journalist, like Kelly, there is less of an importance in exposing ethical issues to the world and more on handling things internally.

Kelly’s issue of non-profit funds going toward luxury hotels and restaurants is one that brings the running of the organization into question. Though when using Bok’s steps, Kelly added a final question to ask, “what will be the consequences of my actions?” In response to that question, I think the dilemma is not worth exposing. Since money comes in from outside donations, luxury meetings with “high-rollers” are likely the best way to raise funds. So while the public may be peeved to learn that money was spent this way, it is the reality of the fundraising world. I don’t think the end would be worth it. The whistleblower would probably be fired.

Kelly’s analysis and step-by-step approach with Bok’s model is thorough and well thought out. But the fact that we both use the same method with the same issue and we come up with different results shows how inexact such processes are. Comparing my thoughts to Kelly’s proves that a certain amount of personal opinion is involved even when using a predetermined method of finding an ethical solution.

----------

In her blog post, dated January 28th, Michele Herrmann tackles the issue of an update to public relations and what is necessary in this new age of blogging and social media. She describes a new landscape, which features media savvy bloggers, who can detect when PR is trying to pull a fast one on consumers. I agree that there is an even bigger need for transparency and honesty when it comes to public relations and self-promotion.

The Internet has so much information that the potential to “call someone’s bluff” is much larger. So facts need to be double-checked and expect to be called out on the blogosphere if you are not being completely truthful. Michele mentions an example where a PR Firm for a frozen food company invited bloggers to taste their improved meals. But it didn’t end well for the company. This is a situation like prosecuting lawyers having OJ Simpson try on the glove in court. It didn’t fit, they must acquit.

I don’t know if that situation ended the way it did because of the cynical nature of bloggers or just because the food stunk. It was probably a combination of both. But PR in the modern age has the challenge of maintaining the client’s image with broader demographics and larger exposure. In this instance, I agree with Michele and how her push for stricter standards within PR agencies will lessen the chances of backlash elsewhere.

----------

In the blog post titled “Blog One,” written by Jade Ean-Heller, she looks to an ethical scenario she could see herself being faced with during her future career in PR. In this scenario a PR firm created a fake blog promoting Wal-Mart, and mentioned the blog around the Internet to try and raise awareness. I agree that this instance is unethical for its misleading nature and general lying to the public. However if that line were a bit more blurred, I don’t think there would be such a straightforward answer. Many corporations run their own blogs, which promote the brand to the public. Since the Wal-Mart blog claiming to be run by customers was unethical, what if a PR firm claimed to be employees of the chain? Technically the chain employs them, even if it isn’t in the blue vest wearing way the public would naturally perceive it as. Is it ethical to get by on a technicality?

Another point in this post is how studying these events and learning about past ethical dilemmas will help a professional when handling these questions during their career. Studying the history of PR and computer ethics, which are the examples used in the post, give different perspectives to how the industry has worked through different challenges so the next generation can learn from their mistakes.

----------

William Jackson makes intriguing points in his February 4th post regarding cyber bullying and withholding the names of the suspects in the specific case covered in class. He mentions that since the identities of the cyber bullies were already revealed on the Internet, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had nothing to lose by mentioning their names. I tend to agree with William’s thought, but it raises another question. If another party found it ethical to reveal the potential suspects, does that make it less of a choice to mention them in your publication?

Our discussion group in class frequently mentioned the idea that if you don’t report on “it,” someone else will. This is likely true. There would be some person so hungry to get a scoop that they would think less of their ethical focus and report the questionable content. In the safety of my personal blog, I think I would still pass on reporting the names of the bullies who weren’t charged. But an editor at a high profile paper or website, may think the scoop is more important.

Interestingly enough, William and my personal opinions on the matter are the same. We both mention that the names should be withheld because there were no charges filed against them. The world of high profile crime is tough because even if a suspect is found not guilty, the viewing public has already made his or her own judgment. So, it seems unethical to expose individuals to this if they won’t even face trial.

----------

Conrad Fronterre presents one of the most thorough case studies from my group’s blogs in his January 20th post. When Brita and their parent company, Clorox attempted a campaign to promote their water filters against bottled water, a New York Times article revealed that the waste from the filters would essentially replace that of the bottles and no recycling system was in place. As a fairly large oversight on the part of Brita, it severely weakened a campaign that probably received support from environmentally friendly customers, as well as a general public who dislikes waste.

The problem from a PR standpoint is that it could appear that the company knowingly withheld the facts about the recycling aspect in order to boost sales of the Brita filters. Conrad found that even though they didn’t lie, the company wasn’t completely transparent with the operation. Like I mentioned earlier, the truth of PR in the modern age is that one has to assume the truth will come out. So Clorox and Brita should have waited to roll out the campaign until there was a recycling plan in place or at least a concept that they could promote as in the works.

Corporations will never reveal every little deal or fear they have to the public. If they did, it would expose flaws to competitors and customers. The lack of recycling plan was a big oversight. But there was no way to know the New York Times would find out about the misstep, so it was bad luck for Clorox.

You Have 1 New Bully Request

Cyber-bullying is a topic which was scarcely covered when I grew up. It was the time in which every family owned a personal computer and providers like America Online gave one stop portals where parents could set privacy levels and young people were given options of what to do online. I suppose cyber-bullying did exist. Since the internet wasn’t as completely ingrained in our culture, it’s possible that it was not always taken as seriously. Hasn’t everyone had a moment where they misinterpret someone’s tone of voice in an email or instant message and get mad when the sender meant no harm? I know I have.

 

Mr. Golden Mean, Aristotle

When areading Malone’s article I felt defeated by the cruelty of the situation. But surprisingly I was more upset with how the victim handled the messages than what the bullies said. And I found no problem with the Journal withholding the bullies’ names. Using Aristotle’s Golden Mean, we must find an appropriate center point to handle the situation. The two extremes would be to ignore the story completely or two figuratively fry the bullies, by exposing them to the still grieving masses. Polkin found that the mean of the extremes was to bring light to the terrible situation and honor the young victim by bringing awareness to the dangers of cyber-bullying. Was it necessary to destroy another family by exposing the bullies? Even though they were obviously guilty, he decided not to.

 

This is what this journalist decided. There is certainly justification to name those names. After all, that decision could be perceived as ethical when using a utilitarian approach to the situation. Looking at the consequence of releasing their names would bring about a level of accountability to the neighbors responsible for the situation. If the bullies had thought about the potential results of their actions, this tragedy may have never happened to begin with.

 

There are so many factors that go into an individual’s ethical decision making that certain aspects must be weighed more than others. Those that I find most important are surely different than other people’s factors. When comparing transparency, harm, justice, autonomy, privacy and community, as provided by this week’s prompt, there are some inherent issues. Transparency and privacy are tough to balance together. Polkin found privacy to be the more important of the two. For the rest of the given words, there was a level of involvement with all of them. He weighed the harm of exposing the bullies and provided justice for the victim by building awareness. Even community played a big part. Since people were so blood-thirsty for these neighbors, he thought it best for the community to keep the names private.

 

Ethical Dilemma or Tug of War?

The third side of the story, which was not mentioned in the article, is the guilt of the internet provider or the website where the bullying occurred. I think they are right to not involve them. You cannot blame a technology for how people use it. Now there can be methods implemented to try and prevent this sort of thing. Especially now, while Facebook is so popular, there is a level of importance in monitoring content. But is that a breach of privacy? The toughest part about ethical dilemmas is that each one seemingly brings about another one.

If you can't take the heat... sign off of Twitter

While reading Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article discussing the need to change the definition of public relations, I cannot help but think that the conversation is not completely necessary. While things have certainly changed in that field, and most fields, since the Internet has grown to such prominence, sticking to traditional fundamentals is something that should always work. I think of the US Constitution. While some changes need to be made, the concepts still work.

In the “redefining Public Relations” article in the New York Times, Adam Lavelle says, “ Before the rise of social media, public relations was about trying to manage the message an entity was sharing with its different audiences. Now PR has to be more about facilitating the ongoing conversation in an always-on world.” This is true. However, the first sentence in the quote is still true also. It is all about “managing the message.” If that is a burden with expansive social networking platforms, then companies shouldn’t participate in them. Some companies like GE, for example, utilize every possibility for exposure. More importantly, each of those pages is monitored to protect from spammers and defamatory comments.

When trying to create a new public relations definition, the two approaches that can be made are to try an inclusive approach that mentions the ever-changing aspects of the industry or a simple concept. After attempting to come up with different ideas, l like what I said in the last paragraph. Public relations is the act of managing the message. It improves on the other definition because it allows for broad interpretation and a focal point to use when handling controversial issues.

The implication of my definition is that there would need to be more interpretation on individual matters by the practitioners. I recognize the inherent problems with that. In “Time For Resolution” author Gerard Cobett discusses some of the issues that will be monitored in the New Year. However, issues like the strong stance taken against PR firms representing dictators, are not as inherently wrong as one may think. Those working in public relations usually hold a commitment to their client. If they disagree with a client’s actions, they should not represent them. If they do represent them then that’s their call. The PRSA Board of Ethics is not in a position to decide who represents whom. So the use of my broad definition will allow for options. I, of course don’t support dictators, but there surely are people who do.

The biggest ethical violation mentioned in Corbett’s article is “maintaining PR’s ethical standards in the digital age.” While I would argue the positives to this expansion outweigh the negatives, there is a danger to instant information. Since an error can be easily corrected after being posted to the internet, I see less urgency with getting facts 100 percent correct on the first try. If you get it wrong, it only takes a moment to update it. There seems to be a disinterest in how many people read that false fact in the meantime.

The talk of the PRSA and FTC monitoring public relations practices and their effectiveness is more of a political question. Regulating professionals just puts more power in the hands of the individuals doing the regulating. Then that opens the door to unionizing and regulation that would severely limit both positives and negatives to the PR industry. THE PRSA and FTC can monitor practices all they want. They could even create optional licenses that would have the holders abide by their recommended practices. From my outside perspective, public relations is managing fine without such strict parameters.

This Blog is Brought To You by Pepsi

Having a specific code of ethics for a given industry is problematic in that no two situations are alike. One could argue that there are fundamental ethics principles we should follow. That is true, but it seems that this type of thinking flies out the window when the focus is turned to the internet. As a blogger, there are a few different approaches that separate us from spammers and the surprising amount of crazy people who spout wild theories best suited for the lunch table at a ward for the criminally insane. Firstly, a blogger could define themselves as a journalist and follow the Society of Professional journalist’s ethics code led by the title “seek truth and report it.” But blogs aren’t online newspapers. They’re less formal usually. Through a pretty thorough Google search, the best blogging code of ethics I could find comes from O’Reilly Media founder Tim O’Reilly.  The seven items he lists are below.

1.    Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.

2.    Label your tolerance level for abusive comments.

3.    Consider eliminating anonymous comments.

4.    Don't feed the trolls. (Someone who posts off-topic comments)

5.    Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.

6.    If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.

7.    Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.

Now this list is more a behavioral guide than a declaration for providing the truth. But that’s okay because blogging does not have as many obligations as a newspaper or news website does. But because of that, it often gets a bad reputation. Like Patterson and Wilkins say in “Media Ethics,” you can’t blame the vessel for how people use it. (57) The textbook uses the room of requirement from Harry Potter as an example, which is quite welcome from this fan of all things wizarding world.

"Hawaii 5-0" actors on the show's Camaro
(Source: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112654)

Since I was unable to find a case-study in the textbook referring to blogging, I found one that related to an issue occurring in all media. In case study 3-D on page 76 of the text, there is a discussion about product placement on television shows. For TV the use of real brand names could be for shameless plug, a realistic touch or both. When applying O’Reilly’s blogger’s code of conduct, a number of these issues can be applied to those of us online trying not to cross the line. The one that stands out most is number seven. “Don’t say anything online that you wouldn’t say in person.” The meaning is meant to prevent mindless insults or bigotry, but what about with product placement? Would a real life Michael Scott boast the brand name of the jeans he was wearing? Or an even more extreme example, would a real member of Hawaii 5-0 repeatedly bring up their Windows phones and Chevy cars, probably not. So they wouldn’t be said in real life? Nix them from the show, blog, movie, etc. The code also proves helpful in dealing with the critics that would most definitely arise.

But since television isn’t as much of an open forum as blogging, the code isn’t completely helpful in comparison with the case study. Is product placement an issue in blogs? Potentially, yes. I recently found that an extension was unknowingly downloaded onto my web browser which made a small box appear on the side of my screen featuring products related to the site I was visiting. I won’t say the name so they don’t seek me out again. But whatever the site was that had this virus, definitely broke the code of conduct and forced product placement on me just like television does.

A shot from a Nickelodeon show with a Pear computer
(source: http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/Pear_Company)

Supplementing the O’Reilly code of conduct with Aristotle’s Golden Mean makes things a little clearer. Product placement is okay when it fits in between those extremes. A few products to add authenticity to the show is acceptable. If the plot stops to make sure products get their air time that is too much. If there are pear shapes on the fronts of the laptops instead of apples, like there is on Nickelodeon, they might as well make a few dollars and put the sponsor on there.

But using a more cut and dry ethical perspective like utilitarianism shows that the result of the action is worth it. Placing this product in the show could boost sales, build the company and provide more jobs. When put that way it seems pretty inconsequential whether a character is drinking “Pepsi” or “Popsi.” So going by the two different ethical perspectives, there isn’t a clear cut answer in this case study.

I’ve mentioned it in a previous post, but Aristotle’s golden mean repeatedly proves to be the most helpful perspective when approaching potential dilemmas. People are allowed a little leniency with their decision making and can interpret the mean depending on their own personal ethics.  They don’t need to do anything like some of the others preach.  Just investigate the full situation and come up with a solution that doesn’t tip the scale in either direction.

Secrets Don't Make Friends

Wouldn't Want To Be Them

The case studies presented in this week’s readings cover such a broad range of ethical situations that it’s clear there is not really any right answer to these daunting questions. It has also shown me how tough it is to be a judge. If I were presented with a situation where I had to decide whether or not release secret information, I would certainly have to weigh the factors we have discussed in class and read in the text. That may seem like the easy answer, but the truth is, one can’t know until that unique situation.

 

One of the case studies that stood out the most to me was the one on page 47 of “Media Ethics.” A reporter is presented with a tape that shows a murder suspect speaking to his lawyer. The act of filming the confidential exchange was illegal. So when the government came asking for the source, the reporter would not give them up because of her right to keep her source confidential. So they then targeted her husband, who drove her to the exchange in order to find the information.

 

This is a worst-case scenario. Not only was the reporter faced with the extremely difficult decision of using the confidential information in the video, but then her husband was targeted because he was helping her. Since he wasn’t a reporter, logically that would make one think he is fair game to force his cooperation. But do we really want that woman wandering into a stranger’s house alone with no support? No.  If I were the reporter in this situation, I probably would act just as she did. She didn’t release the law-breaking recording, which allowed for the suspect to have a fair trial. But the attempt to flush out the source seems to go a bit far. The husband was acting as personal security. I side with the reporters on this one.

 

In my current position, which doesn’t call for any type of boundary pushing, my criterion for keeping information secret is fairly simple. If releasing the information would put my family, friends or me in any type of danger, either physically or emotionally, I wouldn’t do it.  I hope to never be in a position where things get more complicated. When I think of a situation like Wikileaks, my outside opinion is always to side with our government. There is obviously corruption and wrongdoing that goes on, but I’d rather enemy groups didn’t know about it.

 

Plato's Cave

The fallout from releasing once secret information can be seen on a daily basis. It seems like this year has had more scandal than others I can remember. Or maybe I’m just paying attention more. When controversial secret information comes out, the backlash is complete media immersion. If the topic is somehow sports related, all sports outlets drop everything and talk about it. The same goes for entertainment and those outlets. I often wonder if these situations hinder the process of selecting an unbiased jury. So this must be considered when an individual intends to expose something. Passing on a rumor could completely ruin someone’s life.

 

 

Photo Credits: 

http://img.tgdaily.com/sites/default/files/stock/450teaser/gavel.jpg

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/PlatosCave.gif)

Gossip Ethics

Potential Scenario
In a potential career as an entertainment journalist/film critic there is one fundamental type of news that I believe to be a large ethical dilemma. The concept of right to privacy has all but disappeared as entertainment news is now gossip. I am a fan of news regarding upcoming film releases, actors signing on to projects, and award show buzz. The problem comes with the lower end “news.” TMZ has been in the forefront of this deep-seeded love for rumors that don’t need to be based in actual reality. Are celebrities real people? I would hope so. Therefore people shouldn’t dig up any irrelevant detail about their private life and plaster it all over the internet.

However, this kind of information sells. Drama regarding Kim Kardashian or Charlie Sheen makes its way into actual newspapers and magazines because people are intrigued and interested. But Kardashian’s circus wedding put her relationship in the spotlight to begin with, so she isn’t without blame. It’s obvious I have a personal opinion, but that may change if I were in a situation where printing this could help a company I worked for.

In regard to our course and potential topics to be discussed, I would like to address this rumor dilemma. Why is this the best-selling news and how should educated individuals approach it? I used to just write off everything I saw on the “gossip rags.” But somehow these unsubstantiated claims often turn it to be correct. Is getting the scoop more important than strong sources and double checking for truthfulness?

Ethical Tools
I initially thought that I had a strong ethical foundation, but it appears that it is more of a moral foundation. This is a great tool to have and it has helped me a lot in my life so far. I will have to wait and see if the lines get a little more blurred through further ethical discussion and a potential job where I have an obligation to more than my family and myself. From this week’s readings I found Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” theory to be the most interesting. I’ve essentially been living unknowingly by this model for a long time, but to see it written out adds a more detailed perspective. The other theories are helpful, but Aristotle has the only one listed where I can base my decisions on what is considered to be acceptable.

In the chart provided on page 9 of “Media Ethics,” it shows bravery sitting between cowardice and foolhardiness as the acceptable behavior of the three. However, the subjective interpretation of these terms would cause some people to engage in the other two. The example I think of is with the X-Games. The majority of people would consider doing no-handed backflips on a motorcycle as foolhardy. I would agree with that. However, this entire brand has been built by people interpreting these actions as brave. It really forces one to think deeply about whether or not their actions and thoughts are based in reality. This may not be an ethical choice, but it can certainly be applied to interactions of that sort.

Full Disclosure

Regal Entertainment Group's strategies for reaching investors lie mainly with their website. Questions can be asked with an online form that will be returned with a specific answer or the location to which that information could be found on the site. Then there are the traditional press releases and quarterly conference calls that are common with publicly traded companies. In order to stay connected with the community, Regal has the Regal Foundation. They work with well-established philanthropic groups in the community’s where their theaters are. Like I’ve said in previous posts, this group apparently does a lot working with the important groups like Boys and Girls Clubs, but this involvement is hardly seen on a daily basis. Though they do have a fairly impressive write-up on their website for all the good they do through this effort. They of course have Twitter to communicate with fans, as well, though they could probably do more in terms of customer service.

One of the government bodies they work most closely with is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA,) which rates films and enforces theaters use of those age guidelines. Also Regal communicates with the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the Inter-Society Digital Cinema Forum to make sure their theaters present a number of open captioned and descriptive video options for hearing and visually impaired viewers. Then there is the Department of Health who deal with the concessions stands in individual cities. The communications with these groups are mandatory so they regulate the interactions. The corporate office is likely the place which meets with such groups.

I think Regal needs to expand their outreach to all individuals. They are a specified company, but in the face of a crisis, being a well-known brand would potentially help gain favor with the public. Keeping up frequent communications with government agencies would be a good first step so that minor infractions wouldn’t occur that might hurt the brand. With the evolving look Regal always utilizes with their new theaters, the best solution for dealing with a crisis would be to take advantage of that constant change. Another approach could be to upgrade the other brands under the Regal label. United Artist Theaters and Edwards Theatres are both owned by Regal. So if a crisis came out for any of the brands, another could increase its exposure to fill the void.

The most important strategy for any crisis is full exposure and immediately addressing issues. If we’ve learned anything with the tons of scandals in the news lately it’s that sitting on a crisis will only make it worse. Fixing the problem followed by immediate efforts to improve the image is essential. Since Regal has their foundation in place, I imagine they would emphasize its existence much more if a question were raised about the company’s character. It almost seems that firing the executives is the general perception of how to handle a crisis. But a lot of time the public and media are just looking for full disclosure and transparency.