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.