Blog Post 6

Justine Luzzi Jan 26 Blogpost 4: 

Changing the definition of PR – Justine makes a point that to include the term “ethical,” within the definition for PR is redundant, that instead it should be implicit. She states in her blog post, “Public relations, amongst all other professions, should all be assumed to follow a certain Code of Ethics.” I didn’t have the same opinion when I thought about this for my blog post, as I believe that including the word helps to reinforce its importance while also holding the PR professionals to task. I see her POV here, but would ask her to consider transparency within the profession and how ensuring ethics to be a focus of the definition for PR would help that cause.

Justine goes on to discuss the case of Marie Calendars Company holding a taste test for food bloggers with the hopes that they would not realize they were eating meals that were once frozen. Justine expresses outrage about this setup, and discusses in her blog post that the case broke privacy and justice values. I realize that public relations must work towards societies hunger for controversy and theatrics in advertising, but I have to agree with Justine in this case. Ethically speaking, MarieCC would have done better to think about Pluralism before jumping into such an idea. These types of situations make me wonder if company employees actually step back and contemplate the possible outcomes of a scene, other than just the preferred positive bottom line they are hoping for.

Cecilia – Jan 14 Blog post 2

This blog post hit home for me, as I’ve suffered indoor allergies since working 9 to 5 in my employers building. Cecilia has a great question to ponder here, on when it’s ok to, or not to share information that could be detriment to someone else’s livelihood. Apple Company shared its violations for such matters like poor building air quality for its employees working areas on their website. This was only after the fact though, and could have been a preemptive move to get in front of any bad publicity that could have fallen out once the information was public. 

Air quality issues in any building setting should be of the utmost importance. If you are privileged to inside information about such an issue, and you share it, what would the outcome be? Would people sue, and break the bank of those involved, and is that ethical? Secrecy and whistle blowers was discussed early in the semester, and I think now it’s interesting to think about it again with the POV of loyalty. Do you owe your employer (this case the building owner) an amount of loyalty that means you don’t speak out against their behavior, even though it might be affecting others negatively? So many of these questions should be asked, discussed, and pondered before you make a decision about when its ethical to share information. Now, I wonder if Cecilia has a contact to refer to me for an indoor air quality reviewer so I can call them into my building?!

Joel Clark Mason Feb 4, Blog Post 5

When I reviewed the case of cyber bullying, I came at it from a different ethical POV then Joel did in his post. For me, (using Bok’s model), I still stand by what I said, that, “Society wants to point the finger, and place blame when they learn about such troubling cases like that of a young girl who takes her own life because of bullying – but until laws are enacted around these crimes, it’s not justified to crucify people for being idiot morons who taunt and terrorize their peers.” Joel thinks the exact opposite, (using the Potter box model) that, “Since the authorities could not identify any laws by which the perpetrators could be charged it falls to media to provide an avenue for justice. The only way that can be accomplished is through publishing the names of the persons (adults) who perpetrated this ‘crime.’" 

Society has laws, and sharing the names of the perpetrators so that the community can raise their pitchforks in outrage seems like an antiquated idea to me. Beyond that, how is it ethical to reveal information in the re-telling of a story when that information could be harmful to all involved? I think that the media, and in this case journalists, have a duty to inform the public with the facts, as precedent by law. Everything else feels like sensationalism, speculation and voyeurism. 

Anne Johnston Jan 7, Blog Post 1

Anne’s blog post was insightful for me, as she has parenting experience that I don’t. I’ve babysat my share of kids in the past, related to me or not, but I know its not the same responsibility that parents have to their offspring. Sharing that she creates dialogue with her kids after they view shows that have questionable values (like Jersey Shore), shows that she just doesn’t shut down social/media outlets, but instead tries to make them a learning tool. I think that’s great, and hope I have the patience and wherewithal to do that with my own kids one day.

Throughout this class, I’ve often wondered if I would take the time to utilize ethical models when faced with dilemmas that raise ethical questions. As a parent, Anne reminded me of the importance of guiding children to be informed so that they can make the best decisions in life. I wonder if Anne went back and reviewed the questions from blog post one, and wrote her responses again after having finished this course, would they be any different? She states that sometimes as a parent, you have to just say, “Because I say so” (incidentally that’s the title of a good movie with Diane Keaton). Throughout the last six weeks of class we have reviewed many case studies and applied critical thought to them using the ethical models we’ve learned, so I wonder if Anne finds it easier to look at dilemmas now with that train of thought? We’ve learned so many different applications of ethical models from past theologians, to present day scholars, as well as the importance of looking at all sides of a dilemma in order to make the best informed decision (ethically) for you, and the others involved, I hope both Anne and I can put that to good use professionally, or personally.

Brett Masterson Jan 22 Blog Post 3

Brett discusses a case study from out class text about the TV show Mad Money on CNBC hosted by Jim Cramer. This case is relevant to ethics since it exposes the televised show for sensationalizing the financial sector of investments. Questions like, is it ethical to give advice on monetary matters to the general public via the TV medium? Can we hold the network broadcasting the show accountable when or if the advice leads to negative financial ruin to a viewer? 

Looking at these questions, Brett responded that he feels its up to the audience to decide how vested they want to be with the advice they take away from the show. After all, the host doesn’t know each viewers’ full financial situation, and so can only generalize about what they should do with their funds. I agree with Brett completely on this, as I think we have a responsibility to distinguish real authentic financial advice from sensationalized financial advice. While the show can certainly inform the viewer on financial topics, the viewer should know enough to look for a informed opinion before investing. According to the PR Code of Ethics, the show doesn’t break any “rules,” however, if you lost a significant amount of money because you listened to advice from the show, you might think differently.

Blog Post 5

We learn from our text about Sissela Bok’s model of ethical decision-making. Revolving around two primary premises, the first is that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions and than the second that we must strive to maintain social trust. I think this is a perfect way to break down the case of article writer Steve Polkin and the Suburban Journal deciding not to include the names of the accused in their reporting on a cyberbullying case. 

To break down Boks theory with this case in mind, one would focus on the following three points. 1. Refer to your conscience about the rightness of the act – here Polkin should view both sides of the story for those involved, having empathy not just for the wronged party, but also keeping in mind that the accused deserves a certain level of empathy as well. 2. Seek expert advice for alternatives – so Polkin should discuss with his editor, or a professional mentor, for their opinion on the matter, and/or refer to theoretical teachings on such cases to learn how others view the case. 3. Discuss the matter with all parties involved – here Polkin would do well to gain the perspective from a societal point of view by discussing with different parties involved and learning about their approach to the case. If Polkin followed these steps, he would be in a better position to argue his decision about withholding the names of the accused from his articles. As a writer, Polkin’s business is to share news worthy stories without sharing his own personal opinion/POV, so that the reader is allowed to determine their own feelings/POV without bias. In the reporting about the cyberbullying case, Polkin did just that – he told the story without publishing the names of the accused because printing the names wasn’t newsworthy – after all the accused were not charged with a crime, and naming them wouldn’t bring any further depth to the reporting of the story.

When it comes to the writers and editors at the Post, who one week later reported on the same cyberbullying case and decided to include the names of the accused, I am reminded of Utilitarianism. This ethical perspective allows for ethical decision making from a standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number. Here withholding the names of the accused only benefits the accused, while sharing the names with the public serves to warn society of the actual people accused of bad behaviors which allows society to be more aware of who is a threat. 

Each paper in this case came to a different conclusion about what information was news worthy to share. Earlier in this post I discussed two different ethical decision making theories that could be applied to the case from each papers POV. Now I’d like to look at them both with communitarianism in mind. Our text defines communitarianism as, “Communitarians assert that when issues are political and social, community interests trump individual interests but does not trample them. Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society.” I think its important to note that both papers had society in mind when they made their decision, for the Suburban Journal, it reported a story of cyberbullying and didn’t include the names of the accused because they were not newsworthy since they weren’t legally charged with a crime – which technically is a case for what’s fit to share with society from a print media standpoint. The Post, on the other hand, believed that society deserved to be informed of the names of the accused, in order for the story to be truly transparent, and so that the community could be better informed.

From a journalistic POV, I think that the Polkin did the more ethical thing by not including the names of the accused in his story. It serves no propose print media wise to name them when they were not charged with a crime. Society wants to point the finger, and place blame when they learn about such troubling cases like that of a young girl who takes her own life because of bullying – but until laws are enacted around these crimes, its not justified to crucify people for being idiot morons who taunt and terrorize their peers. I can understand how hard it must have been for Polkin to make such a decision, because its extremely difficult to put aside ones natural instinct for retribution or justice against people who have done wrong in your eyes. I think that the Post, cowed to public opinion- they published a week after the Journal, and so I’m sure were somewhat swayed by the public opinion.

In my opinion, social networks take out the element of personal connection that is required to realize true feelings. It’s easier and easier to push buttons (literally and figuratively) without realizing or understanding the emotional consequences behind them because social networks and cyberspace take away the comprehension gained from face-to-face interaction. However, I don’t think that it’s the networks ethical obligation to intervene in those cases though. I think that it’s a personal obligation that we have to ourselves and to society to act ethically, as well as to know when to turn away from others that don’t. Many of the theories that we learn about in our text talk about the impact ethical decisions have on society, and how we have to take that into account when making ethical decisions. Social networks policing cyberspace would fly in the face of many of them.