LT's Round Up

For my final blog post for my Media Ethics in a Professional Context, we are reviewing a few of our classmates posts.  So here you go...

Kimmee R-

Blog Post 1

January 13, 2012- “It’s Only a Matter of Lies”

In Kimmee’s first blog post, “It’s Only A Matter of Lies,” she shares the story of what happened when she tore her ACL as a college athlete.  After knowing that she would be out for over a year due to her injury, her volleyball coach messed with her scholarship and eligibility.  I believe that how her coach treated the situation was entirely unprofessional and unethical.  “Scholarships are taken away from athletes due to bad behavior, grades or other major offenses, but not for getting hurt.”  Kimmee’s injury was out of her control and from my understanding; he deliberately tried to bend the system to benefit him.  Obviously Kimmee showed strong leadership and skills otherwise, she would not have been named co-captain.   As such, shouldn’t her coach have had some loyalty to her?

Kimmee’s decision to take the high road and put her teammates and programs reputation before her own goals leads to the question- is it better to make an ethical decision that will harm one person or one that will harm a community?  Most likely, the people who were left on the volleyball team would have suffered from the result of her speaking up.  Would her coach have been fired?  Would the program have been cut from the school or put under sever scrutiny?  Not knowing what would have happened if she spoke out about the injustice (after all whose word would they believe, the player or her coach who has a successful track record?), she made a tough decision that, to be honest, I’m not sure I would have made the same one.

Tammy T-

Blog Post 4

January 28, 2012- "The Conundrum of Public Relations"

In her blog post, “Conundrum of Public Relations“ Tammy discusses the current definition of public relations and how she would alter it.  She brings up a phrase in this blog that I had not particularly thought of; PR is a practice of persuasion.  As important as customers are to a company (vital- without them, your product would be no good), you must also remember that the bottom line of every company is so be profitable.  So as a PR agent, part of your job is about finding the way and doing what you have to in order to making your product sellable.  In her new definition she states that PR is about managing reputation.  This seems so obvious that it is easy to over look however it is also a key component.  Reputation follows us throughout life.  

Think back to High School where everyone had a crush on the quarterback or the head of the cheerleader because they were the popular and had (hopefully) a reputation for being nice.  In PR, we want our product to be the quarterback.  We are responsible for finding a way to convince the target audience that our company is the best.  Even if the company makes an error, it is our job to find a way to convince the stakeholders that it was the right decision.. In my definition I mentioned that it was about the conversation between the company and the stakeholders.  While, I still believe that this is an important part of what we do, I don’t think I had quite thought about the bottom line of a company when making my definition. 

Terrance W

Blog Post 5

February 4, 2012- "Not to get deep on you…"

"I believe the words you write should be true to you, and allow others to find truth as well."

Actions speak louder then words. 

Just a few years ago (let’s say in the 90’s), bullying someone often meant physically causing them harm.  Fights on the playground at recess.  In the lunchroom, the bigger kid threatening another kid for his milk money.  Relentlessly tugging on a girls braid.  In the video below we see that in the 90’s bullying often meant physically hurting someone.

Rarely is something mentioned about protecting yourself from verbal abuse. However in today’s society of social networks bullying has transformed into cyberbullying.

I agree with Terrance’s explanation for both newspapers actions.  It was wise for Polkin to use this case as a learning tool for parents.  At very least, maybe it was a wake up call for them to pay more attention to what their children are doing online.  With the Post, it brings up the question, should a journalist filter information that they obtain.  If they know the who, what, where, why and when but only choose to release some of this information- doesn’t that cross an ethical line?  By releasing all of the information, they remove their bias and provide their stakeholders with just the facts.

However, I do not agree with Terrance’s view that it is the websites responsibility to monitor everything that is said on it.  I’d be interested to know how he thinks this should be implemented.  Would the website no longer be updated in real time?  Would the company have to hire numerous people to monitor what EVERY SINGLE PERSON is saying?  Post Secret just recently went through a similar situation their mobile app.  People were offended by the content that others were posting so they tried to apply a filtering process.  However this eventually became too much to regulate, so the company shut their mobile app down.  Would the same happen for all social network sites?

Billy S-

Blog Post 2

January 12, 2012- "Snitches Get Stitches"

In this blog post we discussed what we would do if we learned secretive information that could be released to the public but others believed that it should be kept a secret.  For his example Billy discussed a teammate who had been written up.  If he told this coach about this, the teammate would have been suspended and not allowed to play.  Since they were going into a major game so he had a decision to make as weather to keep it a secret in order to have a strong team.   

As a fellow teammate, leadership role or not, no one wants to be the tattletale.  If I was Billy’s teammate and he told the coach on me, I obviously would be upset.  I probably would not trust Billy with any personal information.  Without the trusting their captain, it is very hard for a team to succeed. 

In situations like this, the student leadership team (or in a media context, the journalist) is put between a rock and a hard place.  Not to tell the coach takes away discipline and allows his teammate to get away with doing something that is against team rules.  However, the entire team looses if he tells his coach about the write up by being forced to play 1 man down. In the end, I believe the question becomes whose responsibility is it to follow up on the students?  The coaches.

At the same time, as a coach (again, or in media context I might consider the coach to be the public) I except that my captains are keeping me informed.  They are the voice for the voiceless and have a responsibility to keep me informed about what is happening with the team.

Whitney S

Blog Post 3

January 21, 2012- "Using the PRSA Code of Ethics"

In her blog about the PRSA Code of Ethics, Whitney brings up a few interesting points.  When I was reviewing this case for my blog, I never thought about Anheuser-Busch slightly altering their campaign to add a bit about having designated driver.  By adding a line to the extent of drink responsibly, college might have been slightly better about the idea.  I don’t know if it would have changed the college’s minds but it is an interesting concept.    

I understand how important a schools reputation is however, in this day in age, to pretend that your students do not drink is simply humorous.  I am not positive of the statistic but I’m pretty sure about 98% of college students have had alcohol at some point or another.  So to say that allowing the promotion to happen near your school will make them drink more or that the public will look down on you is a bit of a stretch.   

She also mentions the idea of AB asking permission to use the schools colors but answers why they didn’t by stating that the school probably would have said no anyways.  I don’t believe that AB needed to gain the schools permission before producing the Fan Cans.  If I am looking at this case in the eyes of AB- it is just colors.  Do I need to contact Ireland before I use green cans for St. Patrick’s Day? No.  So why should I need to contact the school if I choose to change my can colors?  AB stated that they had no relationship with the school. The school was not sponsoring the promo so why should they have a say on what AB does?

I believe that she sums it up best when she says “The PRSA’s Code of Ethics can be seen as just general guidelines to adhere to when faced with an ethical decision.”

On October 17^th, 2006, Megan Meier committed suicide after falling victim to cyberbullying.  She developed what she thought was a friendship with a boy named “Josh” on MySpace. That October, Megan’s online friendship with “Josh” started to go sour as he started bullying her instead. It is reported that in one the last interactions between “Josh” and Megan, “Josh” said, “You are a bad person and everybody hates you…The world would be a better place without you.”  Later that day, Megan’s mother found her after she hanged herself in her closet. 

During the investigation, it came out that the MySpace account was fake and “Josh” did not actually exist.  Allegedly, Megan had spread some rumors about one of her neighbors, so that girls mother, Lori Drew, created the fake MySpace account and planned using whatever information she gained to embarrass Megan.  “Police, Prosecutors and the FBI said they could find no law had been broken” so in his article regarding the tragic event, Steve Pokin did not release the neighbors name.

When looking at the situation from Pokin’s point of view, we must first remember the most important fact in this case: “there were no arrests, no charges filed, no civil suit, the daughter was a juvenile suspect and it was not clear who actually sent the messages.”

Using Kant’s perspective, which runs off the principle that an individual should act as if the choices he makes could become universal law, I can understand why Pokin did not release the neighbors name.  Even if what Drew did was morally wrong, she did not break any laws and there is nothing that could be brought against her.  Many believe that tere was a direct correlation between Megan’s suicide and the cyberbullying, however, nothing can be proven without doubt. So technically, even though it was immature and mean spirited, Drew did nothing wrong and to release her information would cause her harm.   

There were several anti-bullying lessons that come out of a situation like this but it does not require that Drew’s name be involved.  Any of these lessons case can be taught while allowing her to keep her privacy and her anonymity.  Most people would agree that what she did was wrong, but if I were Pokin, I would have to put myself in Drew’s shoes.  If I were Drew, then I would not want my name released.    The judgment to reveal this or not crosses the line between ethics and morals.

Now, on the other hand, The St. Louis Post-Dispastch decided to identify the neighbor.  I believe that there are a few reasons that they choose to do this including that it prevents a witch-hunt situation. Also, by identifying the neighbor, it provides an opportunity for a balanced story where they can assure that no false information is given.  By looking at the situation through a Communitarianism perspective, I understand why they identified Drew. “Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society.” With this perspective, you put the safety and cares of the community first.  While, it might not benefit Drew, it keeps everyone else informed.  If I lived in that neighborhood, I would want to know who was behind it.  If not, I feel like I would always live in fear and not trust anyone around me.  It would be especially hard if I had young children because I would want to know whom I trusted them to be around.  I believe that this situation could be described as similar to how sex offenders must register.  Who is to say that she doesn’t do it again?  By releasing her information, you keep the community safe.  

I believe that each paper had valid reasons for their judgment calls.  They both considered several ethical issues such as privacy, harm, community, and justice, however I agree with the Posts decision to release her information.  When it comes down to it, I believe that you have to look past what yourself, or an individual, and concentrate on how your actions will affect the whole.  While the Journal tried to prevent harm on to Drew, they also put the community at stake and caused possible harm to them. Before you do something, you should be willing to accept the consequences. 

The problem with some social networking sites is that people are able to say whatever they want without any consequences.  It enables people to say whatever they want because they are able to hide behind a mask. At the same time, I do not believe that social networks should be responsible to monitoring every single thing that is said on their sites.  As I have stated before, people need to think about a situation before acting on it. The ENTIRE situation and all outcomes it might have.  How are networking sites to interpret what it is getting out of hand?  Is saying that you don’t like someone’s sweater, offensive?  How do they know if you are joking around or if that one comment could that push them over the edge?  People that use these sites should instead apply the same rules that we are discussing in class. Be respectful of others.  Consider who might be harmed by what you say.  Be honest and fair.  Consider the outcome of the community.  Own up when you are wrong.  Respect peoples privacy. Simply put be ethical.

Defining PR

In Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article “Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media”, he discusses how the Public Relations Society of America had decided to develop a new definition for Public Relations that consider elements of the 21st century.  In it, he states that the current definition, while vague, is “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” 

The problem with this definition is that it does not account for the biggest change in public relations.  It has been for quite some time that all messages about a company came from the top down where senior executives were able to control most of the conversation content.  The internet has changed this. The internet has brought several outlets for the public to partake in this conversation without the company being able to control the message.  As long as it is under 140 characters, people can tweet their comments.  If you don’t like how a company handles a certain situation, create a Facebook page.  Have a lot to say, create a blog and let the entire world hear your thoughts.  As long as you have access to the internet, stakeholders are free to discuss their gripes or hopefully approval of a company. 

Today we live in a world were public relations is no longer just about how a company chooses to portray itself, but also how others are perceiving and spreading it.  Therefore, PR needs to be defined more as a conversation between a company and its stakeholders. If I had to come up with a definition for PR, it would be something like “Public Relations manages the conversation between organizations and their stakeholders in an ethical manner so that results are mutually beneficial.”  I believe that this definition improves upon the current definition because it incorporates the opinion of the stakeholders.  Since they are able to control some of what is said about your company, you need to make sure that an open communication pathway is maintained.  This way you can improve your company by addressing the concerns of both the company and those they are serving.

You will notice that in my definition I have included the phrase “in an ethical manner,” however, this can also be interpreted as vague.  Even if everyone fallows the same codes of ethics, they are open to interpretation.  What I may consider to be the ethical approach to a situation, you may not and have a completely different opinion.  Since ethics is such a gray area, there are no black and white answers.  Some implications of having an open communication pathway is you open the door to negative comments.  This feedback is important and you have to take the criticism respectfully.  You cannot silent the voice of your consumer.  Instead, it is important to be mutually respectful so that the line of communication can result in mutually beneficial outcomes.

I believe that the recent PR ethical breach that is the most problematic was Facebook’s smear campaign. As I just said, it is important that as PR representatives we are first and foremost respectful. Smear campaigns and dishonesty do nothing for the company or the stakeholders.  In the end, by using such tactics, you only end up hurting yourself.  I agree with Keith Trivitt said it best when he says that “smear campaigns and unethical nondisclosure of clients and or clients’ intentions are most certainly not an integral part of PR."  When these plan often backfire, you have to wonder, is it even worth it?  And more times than not, the answer is no.

PRSA and the FTC are monitoring various public relations practices in order to improve the field when it comes to ethics.   I believe that this is a good idea especially when it comes to maintaining ethical standards in the digital age.  Anyone can have a voice now, but this also means that there is no face behind that voice.  People will be more willing to say and do things because it does not necessarily get traced back to them.  Things I might not do in person, I may feel more comfortable to do over the internet.  I am not sure what initiatives could be used to improve ethical standards but I do believe that everyone has the ability to make proper ethical decision.  If everyone just used their heads and through the situation through completely, there might not be as many mishaps. 

Fan Can

With the Super Bowl just around the corner, it only seems appropriate to discuss the second case study in chapter three: “Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can.”  

This Case Study revolves around the 2009 Bud Light promotion that had beer cans color-coordinate with school colors from several universities nationwide. This promotion was controversial because some believed that it went against the industry standard of only running  ads “where the target intended audience is made up of at least 70% of those older than 21.”  School administrators did not like the promotion because they believe that it promoted underage drinking, and that despite no association with the university, the schools color connection made it look like the schools supported the Fan Can.  According to Anheuser-Busch (AB), “the promotion was neither college-specific nor team-specific, and the only correlation to sports was the promotion’s launch time. Instead, the campaign was a promotion for the brand in general.”In the end, the company pulled some college markets and the promotion continued to run despite some “bad” press.


To analyze this case, I turned to the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics. PRSA was chartered in 1947 and has since become one of the largest organizations for public relations professionals.  Their code of Ethics includes real scenario examples and includes helpful guidelines for the profession. I imagined myself working for Anheuser-Busch attempting to bring up the sales of Bud Light and how I would react to the university administration.


As we have learned in our class previously, when it comes to the legal matters of a situation, leave it to the police. Underage college drinking is not uncommon at any university.  I believe that AB (like everyone else) was well aware of this, which is why they said, “If you’re 21 and older and choose to drink, please drink responsibly. If you’re under 21, respect the law; don’t drink."  I don’t believe that AB did anything wrong by running this promotion in the areas that they did.  I am not saying that I condone underage drinking and I understand the concerns of university administration, however, there comes a point where they have to acknowledge that it is going to happen whether they like it or not. 

Most of the universities that Bud Light was targeting are the schools that have a large sport following outside of the university population.  Take Boston College for example.  Yes, there are several students that attend the games, but there are also upperclassman (many of whom are of age), alumnae, season ticket holders, Boston sport fans, community members all of whom are over 21.  Why shouldn’t they be allowed to add festiveness to their tailgating parties?  In the PRSA code of Ethics it states to be respectful and fair among other professionals.  This campaign did not slander any other beer company instead they came up with a clever way to sell their own product. 


When it comes to the issue of loyalty, the PRSA states, “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.”  I believe that AB accomplished this when they cooperated with the universities and addressed their concerns by pulling their campaign from those markets.  Although it had caused some negative press when universities spoke their concerns, they were able to pull the campaign (which made the universities happy) yet still generated enough word of mouth buzz to increase their sales (which made the company happy.) They pulled the campaign before the stories were too negative and went to prove that any press, even negative press, can be good press. 


The code of ethics helped me confirm that AB had acted responsibly and if I worked for them, I would feel comfortable with the whole situation.  However, does one need to follow a different set of ethical guidelines when it comes to something like alcohol?  After all, even though it is legal to consume if you are 21, it is still a drug?  Knowing that there are millions of underage drinkers in America, who primarily binge drink, should this have been more of a concern for the company?  Unfortunately, I am not too sure if this is an ethical dilemma or more of a moral dilemma so I am not sure if any Code of ethics would help answer this.  

We all have our secrets...

When someone gives testimony in court, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  This oath that they take is a promise not to withhold any information, even if it might be damaging to their side of the trial. As members of the media, are we responsible to uphold to the same standard?  While we might not always be dealing with life or death situations, are we not expected to share the facts, as we know them? 

At first glance the obvious answer would be, of course, but what if we learn secret information that has the potential to be extremely damaging to the good of society?  Do we still share it?  A secret is “something that is kept or meant to be kept unknown or unseen by others” for a reason.  We all have our secrets.   The reason we keep them secret is we believe that some damage could be caused if this information were to leak.  I strongly believe that there is certain information that is meant to be kept a secret.  Can you imagine how different the outcome would have been if the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden had been released?  I believe that if everyone used common sense, they could determine what information is appropriate to release and what secrets should be kept just that- secrets.

An example of this type of situation in recent history was releasing the name of the woman who turned James “Whitey” Bulger in to the police. Whitey is a notorious Boston gangster who was wanted for 19 murders and was atop the FBI’s most wanted list. While I am not to sure of his fame outside of the Boston area, growing up in town everyone knew the name James “Whitey” Bulger.  On June 22, 2011, after having been in hiding for 16 years, a tip from a woman in Iceland led the FBI to his house in Santa Monica, California.  The 81-year-old Bulger and his longtime girlfriend Catherine Greig, were arrested and brought back to Massachusetts to finally be tried for their crimes.

 

Once the excitement of capturing Whitey diminished, everyone wanted to know who is was that turned him in.  An anonymous tip from Iceland?  Well, it turns out that former Miss Iceland and actress, Anna Bjornsdottir had been their neighbor in California and recognized them on a PSA that the FBI had released.

Was it wise though for The Boston Globe to release her name or should she have been kept anonymous?  I would have to say probably not.   I think that for her safety, this information should have been kept a secret.  Even if Whitey is in jail, he still has his connections all throughout Boston and most likely, various parts of the world.  I am sure that if Whitey wanted this woman dead, he would have no problem finding someone to do it.  Because The Boston Globe released the secret identity of the tipster, this woman’s life could now be in serious danger.  I also feel that the release of her name now compromises future tips from the public for fear that their name will not remain anonymous as well.

In an article from The Boston Globe, Jennifer Peter, the Globe’s deputy managing editor for local news, said, ““A great deal of thought and discussion went into the decision to name the tipster …it seemed imperative to give as accurate and full an accounting as we could.’’  Shelley Murphy and Maria Cramer were the reports that released Bjornsdottir’s information, (who I believe still work for the paper).  Murphy claims to have told FBI that she planned on releasing the information and that they raised no concern.  However, in the same article quotes the FBI as saying:

“In defending against public criticism about the decision to publish the name of the alleged tipster, reporters and editors from the [Globe] attempted to justify it by stating the FBI did not raise any objections in advance. That explanation suggested the FBI was culpable for the publishing of this information. To the contrary, the FBI’s silence on these inquiries should not be seen as acquiescence to that editorial decision. Had the FBI responded one way or the other, the effect would have been to confirm or deny the identity of one of the tipsters.’’

Personally, I do not agree with The Globes decision to release this information. I think that when push comes to shove, the line to determine if secret information is to be shared or not needs to be based on content.  As members of the media we are bound to get caught up in some form of a secret but we must determine what information is actually beneficial to release.  I believe that sometimes it is best to tell a white lie or omit some information if it will prevent harm and it best for the general public. 

Media Ethics

Before moving to Connecticut for the MACOMM program, I worked in the Emergency Department of a hospital up in Boston.  When I started this program, I thought that I might go back after graduating and work in the communications department; if not for my hospital network, then at least a health care organization.   While I am not sure if this is still my final goal, there are several ethical scenarios that I encountered - daily.  One of the most common scenarios, at least for health care, is HIPAA.  Often people would call to check on a family member, however, no matter how gravely ill the patient is, without consent, no information could be provided.  There were also times when we had high-profile cases or when people had been transferred to us after a major accent, where the media would call to try and obtain information for their piece.  Often a skilled reported would try and ask the right questions to get any sort of information out of you. Even so much as letting them know that we were treating a patient could be considered a privacy breech.

Working in the administration office of the ER, there were times when I would gain knowledge about certain topics and I had to decide to share the information or not.  My mother also worked at the same hospital so whether it be about a change in policy, a merger, changing to profit status, or even something as simple as people being let go, I had do filter what information I spoke about.  Some of the information I knew would affect her, but I had an obligation to the people who shared information with me in confidence. No matter what company you work for, there comes a time when you will receive information and have to determine when it is best to pass along to other stakeholders. 

Journalists are constantly facing the ethical conflict and having to decide which and how much information they choose to share.  One example from recent history that comes to mind of an ethical choice was whether or not to release the pictures of Osama Bin Landen’s dead body.  They choose not to, but when Muammar Gaddafi died, several news stations showed videos of this.  If I had any control as to if these were released or not, I am not sure what I would have done.  Who benefits from releasing such graphics footage?  What do these pictures add to the news story you are telling? Most people watch the news while eating breakfast or dinner and I personally feel that such gruesome pictures are not necessary.  However, I can also understand how the several people who were affected by Bin Laden’s terrorism, would want visual evidence.  Seeing is believing. 

While most of what I dealt with in the Emergency Departments seems like it may be trivial, I believe that it gave me a solid foundation of ethics.  However, I found that the guideline questions for discussing a case in the Media Ethics books to be very useful.   As our other class reading from Plansance says, “ethics is about asking the right questions rather than reaching the ‘right’ answers”.  A question that I have starting this class is, what are the best ways to determine what is best for the common good?  Journalists, for example, are supposed to be unbiased, but I feel that it is nearly impossible for them not to form an opinion.  Therefore, every article has to be read with a grain of salt.    A PR company on the other hand, is going to choose to release the information that paints its product or company in the best light.  Where ethics can be such a gray area, how does one make the decision?  
Even though I feel like I could make an ethical decision, in reading some of these cases, I realize that I am guilty when they say that most of us make ethical choices prematurely.  When I first read the examples, the answer seems so simple and obvious.  But upon further investigation you realize that even with “the small stuff”, how you choice to respond to the dilemma has several consequences and affects numerous people.
It’s not always as easy as it seems.