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.