Blog Post 4

The definition of PR currently is, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” This is quite a basic definition, with no explanation of how, or why they do what they do. The definition should take into consideration the ever-evolving online media, with another level needed to cover the discourse that social media creates between brands and the public. In the text, Media Ethics, the author Plaisance notes, “the focus of ethics remains on the deliberate process rather than the final decision.” – the definition of PR would do well to include their processes from choosing clients to represent to how they determine what information is fit for public consumption so that the public understands that they are not just taking on any client, or any idea/ideal for pay.

In 2011 there was a push to see this definition of public relations re-written. There was a format to utilize from Public Relations Society of America website, “Public relations (does what) with or for (whom) to (do what) for (what purpose). 

It’s important that readers have a trusting relationship with the communicators in today’s media. When defining public relations, the scope of the definition should include the integral nature of its practice. Public relations serve a purpose for and to the public, and as such should be held to ethical standards, and in doing so, should strive to include ethics in the defining of the definition of PR itself.

Using that format, here is my version of what should be the definition of public relations: 
“Public relations works to identify and share integral information from an ethical standpoint with or for organizations, public figures and/or share holders to inform the intended public audiences for the purpose of facilitating mutual understanding between all parties. I took the current definition and manipulated it to be more inclusive of the nature of public relations, the what, and how of it all, if you will. I also wanted to ensure the definition helps hold public relations accountable for the scope of their duties that often include being faced with ethical dilemmas. 


In an article published in the NY Times in November of 2011, Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media, author Stuart Elliot states a few examples of recent PR ethical breaches, one of which was the debacle caused by Netflix (a movie subscription company that mails DVDS or steams them live on your computer or TV). 

Netflix enacted a price hike without much warning (what many called gouging) to existing customer plans by a 60% increase in 2011 that caused a pretty severe consumer backlash to the company. Netflix gave hardly any notice to existing customers, which affected the trust consumers had because of the lack of transparency surrounding the communication giving to the consumer. The price hike couldn’t even be justified by bringing new value to the consumer, because it didn’t, which didn’t seem fair to the consumer. I don’t think that the Netflix executives made good choices in regards to informing their consumer base about a price hike. From an ethical standpoint, I think companies have a responsibility to give significant notice to consumers about changes in price, so that the consumer has the wherewithal to make a decision about what next steps to take.

As I noted earlier, since public relations serves a purpose to the general public, they should be held to a certain level of accountability. After all, much, if not all of what they do has the ability to shape public opinion, so one would hope that they follow ethical practices. Monitoring the field of public relations would ideally be a good thing, much of what they do (at the end result at least) is transparent, but how they get to that point isn't, so monitoring would help ensure ethical choices were being made before they presented to the public. I think that public relations firms should have mission statements that speak to the type of client they will represent, in the hopes that they would then be more ethical in who they choose to represent. 

Blog Post 3

In chapter three of our text, there is a case study* presented about product placement in television shows on American and European television. 

Here’s a quick recap of the case study:

US Network television allows for product placement without any imposed restrictions currently. While many European countries, like Britain, who has government sanctioned television that bans product placement. In the US we call it advertising, but some people want restrictions put in place surrounding product placement, and many TV writers think pay increases are just for the additional work they must do to write in the placements to their scripts. 

In this blog post I'm asked to review the case study by using ethical models we've since learned in class, as well as the code of ethics used by my current employer.  My current employer Pepperidge Farm, (and hopefully for years to come!), follows the code of ethics laid out by our parent company, Campbell Soup Company (CSC). 

Here is the code of ethics for CSC as taken from their website:

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY
CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS
 September 2011

From the Chief Executive Officer

Our core Campbell values are character, competence and teamwork. Character means we must inspire trust, take responsibility for our actions and most importantly, act with integrity. Our ability to Win with Integrity is a critical component of our Success Model and defines how we will Win in the Workplace with our colleagues, Win in the Marketplace with our customers and consumers and Win in the Community by helping our neighbors. We need to comply with the law and conduct our business with the highest ethical standards. We will compete vigorously, but we will be honest, lawful and fair in our dealings with those whose lives we touch. At Campbell, this is a foundational element of our culture and drives how we make decisions and illuminates all that we aspire to achieve.

Together, by following the letter and spirit of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, we will continue to make the Campbell name one of which we can be proud.  

Denise M. Morrison - 
President and Chief Executive Officer 

To look at this case from an ethical point of view, keeping the Campbell Soup Company (CSC) ethics in mind, one would determine that CSC is okay with product placement. The US allows for product placement, so that keeps with the CSCs need to, “be honest, lawful and fair in our dealings...” Some would argue that it’s not fair that writers don’t see a share in the profits that come from product placement advertising, (this was mentioned in the case study). However, the CSC ethics clearly states that, “We will compete vigorously…” and to do so, they must take part in the mainstream advertising of today. 

Now lets add to this some of the ethical theories we've learned in class. Philosopher William David Ross developed the Pluralistic Theory of Value, which puts equal weight on seven specific duties one should evaluate when reviewing issues from an ethical standpoint. Here are the seven duties Ross decreed:

Fidelity > Reparation > Gratitude > Justice > Beneficence > Self-improvement > Not Injuring Others

When I apply such thinking to the ethical questions raised behind the use of product placement on television in tandem with the ethics code the CSC uses, it helps me see a larger picture. Lets breakdown the seven. 1 - Fidelity would imply a promise, for the CSC that would be a promise to grow the brand legally and ethically in a competitive market. 2 - Reparation doesn’t really come into play here, unless your looking for the hours of your life you’ve lost to due to commercial breaks in the past, in which case you should be happy for a slight shift in advertising with subtle product placement. 3- Gratitude – see previous sentence. 4- Justice would want to see an equal share of fairness for everyone, here the ethical question is are the TV writers getting compensated for having to write in the product placements, or are product placements themselves intrusive to the scene setting – I would say that’s not up to CSC, but instead the networks. 5- Beneficence is helping others, which CSC does with a percentage of revenue every year through charitable donations and acts in its local community of Cherry Hill, NJ. 6- Self-improvement would be growth for the company again within the legally and ethical business boundaries. 7- Not injuring others, no one is being harmed in this case, so that’s not up for debate.

Lets use one more POV, Stuart Mills Utilitarianism comes to mind. This theory focuses on the final outcome of actions in the face of a dilemma. A moral end with this theory is the greatest good for the greatest number.When applied to our case study this would give us a moral end, because it’s a small number of people that are troubled by acts of product placement. 

Our text includes questions to ponder at the end of the case study, the following are a few from case 3d: 

• Does the authenticity that real products such as name brand computers bring to a television show outweigh the intrusiveness of inserting a product into the plot of a show?
• Are products placed into television shows the “price” you pay for free television, just as watching 30-second commercials were the “price” your parents and grandparents paid?
• If consumers are “zapping” and “TiVo-ing” through commercials in free television, what will happen to the medium if product placement fails to deliver the needed revenue to keep the programming free? What will happen to the United States if free television is eliminated? (Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Page 78). Kindle Edition).

I would be hard-pressed to answer those questions just utilizing the code of ethics of the CSC. But in conjuncture with the theories we've learned in class, I'm confident I could step back and apply different thought processes to determine where I stand ethical on these points.

* [Chap 3, Case 3D - 
Was That an Apple Computer I Just Saw? A Comparison of Product Placement in U.S. Network Television and Abroad. Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Page 76). Kindle Edition].

Blog Post 2

“Secret secrets are no fun, secrets can hurt someone.”


Who doesn’t remember hearing this sing song-y verse at some point as a child? From an early age we learn that secrets at once can be demonized and glorified simultaneously.  Secrets can bring people closer as they form a bond between sharers, while alienating others not privy to the secret, thus making an innocent transfer of information seem mean because of exclusion it creates.  Were not kids anymore though, and as adults, we must learn to deal with information that affects a larger population than just a circle of friends on the playground. Whether it’s the hundreds of people in your professional environment, or society as a whole, there may come a time when you face the dilemma of having a secret that you should or should not share. When that time comes, how you determine to proceed will be subject to praise or criticism, and it’s in your best interest to be able to support your decision when faced with a dilemma with critical thought.

Lets take the example of the well reported incident from 2006, where author James Fray was accused of lying about several facts about multiple arrests in his novel A Million Little Pieces, which was categorized as a memoir of his days as a heroin addict. This information was originally leaked by The Smoking Gun website. The site is known for publishing mug-shots of famous people so when they couldn’t find any in the court systems based on the arrests that Fray described in his memoir, they ran an investigation which was later published outing Fray as having lied in the memoir.  The mainstream media picked up the story, and Fray soon admitted that he embellished parts, and even completely fabricated others; claiming to do so for the betterment of his writing. The fallout from this inquiry caused Frays literary agent and publishing house to drop him, the publishers to mandate subsequent printings of the book to include an author’s note about the altered content, and an offer to reimburse those who felt defrauded by the novel (if purchased before facts came to light and proof of purchase was valid). Fray went on media talk shows Larry King and Oprah to defend himself, with Oprah’s episode becoming somewhat famous for her strong interrogation of Fray since she had been a champion of the book at its start, having chosen it for the Oprah booklist.

The novel was on bestselling lists, and read by millions. The public believed that the accounts in the novel about Frays life as a heroin addict were true, and after the facts came to light, felt duped by both the author and the publishers who did not properly fact check the work before printing.  To rationalize the choices this dilemma produced, (and after reading our text chapters), I'd say I identify the most with Bok’s model for ethical decision making. Our text summarizes Bok's model by stating, "Bok’s model is based on two premises: that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions and that maintaining social trust is a fundamental goal." Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Page 4)

Following Bok’s three concise questions it seems one could approach an ethical dilemma with critical thought not just about from a personal point of view, but from a pluralistic view as well. The three questions are as follows:

How do you feel about the actions? (Will your decision let you and your conscience sleep at night)?

Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise an ethical issue? (Seek out experts, living or dead, to help you determine this).

How will others respond to the proposed act? (Conduct a public discussion/debate to determine this).

In my example about the author James Fray, I think it would be wrong to keep such news to oneself, however I’m not sure (and there is me being indecisive!) that the information was shared in an ethical manor.  Let me break it down with Boks model:

How do you feel about the actions?

It’s not just for an author to claim fictional work to be biographical, convicting readers that your life turned out one way because of your actions could leave them to take from your experience certain outcomes that wouldn’t be true. But it’s also not fair to blindside someone (in this case Smoking Gun releasing info on James Fray without giving him a chance to refute it). In the court system you have to enter evidence before producing it so that both sides have fair access to it, I think that should be applied to instances like this. In this instance, keeping the secret wouldn’t harm people, unless you think one man writing a novel about drug addiction from a personal point of view is defrauding the public in a harmful way.

Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise an ethical issue?

Yes, Smoking Gun could have given notice to Fray and his publishers before releases this secret news to the world. I ran this example by a few co-workers in the communication field at my company, and the consensus was that sites like the Smoking Gun are valuable, but very "low brow" because of the manor in which they share news.

How will others respond to the proposed act?

I think that Smoking Guns traffic to the site relays heavily on their ability to produce never before seen information (that surprise element) if they followed the ethical course of discovering information and sharing it with the parties involved before sharing it with the world at large, it make might the pill a bit easier to swallow for the accused, but it wouldn’t benefit smoking guns website at all –though perhaps their researchers and writers would sleep better at night? – Doubtful! 

There wasn’t much backlash against Smoking Gun for producing and publishing the information about Fray’s bad judgment in marketing his book as a truthful retelling of his life when indeed it was not. If anything it helped give credibility to their website once other investigations proved the truth of Frays lies. I think that if you’re in the media, you’re bound to get ensconced in secrets at some point or other. I would hope that those working in the media profession would carefully and critically think about their actions before using the tool of media communication to share such information.

    

Blog Post 1

Within a professional capacity in the communications’ field working for a fortune five hundred food company, I imagine that I may come across some ethical dilemmas. 

Perhaps there will be food re-calls, where I am privy to information before others and must decide on how much information to share and when. 

Reflecting on the scandal of the Tylenol recall from the 1980s could be used to learn from in those cases.  If you’ll remember, that was when the company Johnson and Johnson decided to promote public safety over market share when they recalled 100 million dollars worth of Tylenol bottles after finding out that capsules in bottles were tampered with after being shelved causing the death of several people.

I would think that knowing about similar past dilemmas or even having experienced a few yourself would be most helpful in working out ethical dilemmas. I would have thought that a religious upbringing were a solid moral foundation was implicit would help as well. However, after reading the start of Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, I’m realizing that isn’t quite true. The author of Media Ethics: Issues and Cases frames this by saying that morals descend from religious beliefs, while ethics stem from agreed upon principles shaped by rational thought. “Ethics is just as often about the choices between good and better or poor and worse than about right and wrong, which tends to be the domain of morals.” 

It seems at best that morality lines are blurred when ethics come into play. For instance, the picture by Stanley Foreman shown in Chap 1 from Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, is certainly morally debase to some viewers, but yet captivating to others for that same reason – so the morality is blurred; we know its wrong to appreciate the death scene, yet we see a captured moment in the photo that appeals to our senses which brings the debate of ethics into play.

Our text takes from the learning of philosophers like Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, teaching that exploring the thought process behind Kants, “categorical imperative,” or Aristoles, “golden rule,” can help you determine your course of action in a dilemma that raises ethical questions by applying thought instead of reaction to a dilemma. 

That is the most important thing to discover, that when dealing with ethics, you shouldn’t just make a decision based on beliefs or conscience, but instead on assessing the impact of factors your course of action will cause by the direction you take to solve the dilemma, while also taking into consideration each possible path to reach a means that will justify the ends for you and those in the society around you.

As a natural born leader, I tend to react quickly when faced with a dilemma, often boxing a scenario into black and white to do so. Reading about giving more logical thought to dealing with dilemmas now has given me pause to reflect on this. For instance, just last week my friend got out of my car and accidentally dinged the car door parked in the next spot. The owner of the car was in it at the time, and he jumped out of the car and flipped out at us – aggressively asserting that my friend had no manners, or respect for property while demanding an apology from my friend. My friend shouted back about how accidents happen, and he is superficial to be so upset about a car ding. I stepped in and reminded them that there was only two solutions here, my friend apologizes for the accident and we see if any physical damage was done that we could repair, OR we raise our blood pressure by fighting and get nowhere until authorities step in (we were in a parking lot that happened to have security patrol btw).

They didn’t want to listen, and preferred to yell at each other, so I wiped at the car door and the ding mark came off, and everyone finally settled down and walked away – no apologizes were given for their behavior though. I asked my friend later why she couldn’t have just said sorry from the start, and she said she felt attacked and got defensive as a knee jerk reaction.

So often we find ourselves in a position that calls for an immediate response, and there isn’t time to ponder the situation and how best to handle it. We re-act to feelings that are provoked by a situation, so I find it hard to imagine being able to pause and use logical thought processes before reacting. I guess we’ll see if our text can really help us achieve that by giving us tools to reflect upon as a matter of course that will become habit. 

Welcome

With so many options abounding today, it can be tough to make decisions. I have trouble just deciding what to get for lunch every day!

Currently I'm taking a graduate course where I am going to have to try and determine where I stand on tough ethical questions surrounding the digitally influenced communications of today's media. This blog will serve as my source for posting what I think about class readings, while hopefully enabling me to form some base line principles that won't have me wavering between this and that all the time.

I imagine comments here could become quite colorful - please remember to be respectful even if you disagree with anything that I might write. - Thanks for reading!