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. 

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!