FINAL BLOG POST

In my final blog and final attempt to receive an ‘A’ for my participation grade, I will be talking about 5 different questions, from 4 different assignments, answered by 6 different people. In one of the questions, I use two people from my discussion group and compare their answer that is why there are six people. So without further ado, here is the mother of all blogs, the cowabunga from down unda, the colossus of clout, the GREAT BLOGINO. (Sorry for the movie references, I couldn’t resist).

In L.C.’s first blog, Media Ethics, she describes what the “real tools” that are used for ethical decision-making. She says, “The real tools… come from personal experiences and personal values. The hypothetical scenarios in the readings are useful in practicing putting your self in those tricky situations.” I could not agree with her more! To add on to her comments, I feel these hypothetical scenarios that we read only help if the reader is willing to listen to and actually consider another belief system.

My Offensive Line Coach, Kevin Bolis, once told me, “Not everyone is coachable.” Even though he was talking about football when he said this, I believe his words of wisdom occur throughout life with the ethical decisions we make everyday. I say this because a person’s ethical beliefs can be self-centered, they read these scenarios but the reader is not fazed. Their belief system runs only though their personal gain, that my friends is an “non-coachable” person.

Personal experiences especially play a part in finding ethical beliefs. One can say that they would act a certain way in a certain situation, but when you are actually in that situation that is when your true colors come out. And not everyone is going to do the right thing their first time around, but that is why God gave us tomorrow, to fix from yesterday.

The second blog that I am going to discuss is Boston Julien’s 2nd blog, Media Ethics- Handling Secret information. In this particular blog Julien discusses his thoughts and thought process in handling top-secret information. He believes that one must look over a few things before releasing secret information, the level of secrecy, who would this information impact, and could this information allow harmful use towards others. I think that this thought process is perfect with handling secret information, so I ask you this, “Do you reveal how you came across your secret information?”

Further into the blog, Julien describes a case about a newspaper in Uganda, which printed some photos that raised some questions. The photo was of group of men, dressed in Ugandan Army uniforms, that had a woman pinned down while they were shaving her genitalia area with scissors. Julien states, “my decision would be a mix of Mills Utility principle and Bok's ethical decision making.” First he says he would have to think long and hard about the jail time that he might face for releasing this photo. But on the contrary he also states that releasing these pictures could ultimately put a stop to such unethical behavior. To rebuttal, I feel that the jail time is irrelevant in the thought process. This is a story that has to be told, no matter what. With this case in particular, the Ugandan Army men are supposed to be protecting the people. This type of action coming from army men that are supposed to be protecting the people is unacceptable and it needs to be exposed. Toward the end of his comments, Julien then sides with the picture being printed, saying that he would try and present the picture in a way that could breed a positive outcome.

Blog number four asked us to redefine the meaning of Public Relations. I decided to read over Jon’s blog, Redefining Public Relations & Giving it a Facelift and in reading, it was noticed that Jon and I had a lot of the same thoughts on the definition. Jon said that the definition of Public Relations:
“helping an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”
…was too vague, too simplistic; and I said the definition was lacking words, and that it was too bland. It needed a pick me up.

Jon picks the definition apart throughout his blog, he starts off saying that the definition doesn’t work because public relations is not “aiding and abetting in the mutual adaptation of publics and organizations.” He also adds that the definition should mention how public relations promote the mission of an organization. I agree, throughout my blog I say that the definition needs a section that states how public relations provide an organization with exposer to their audience.

He completed his discussion with his new and improved definition of Public Relations. Jon says the definition should be as fallowed:Public relations attempts to aid an organization and its publics by providing support and communicating the message of an organization in a manner and fashion that is both appropriate and in keeping with the PRSA’s (Public Relations Society of America) Code of Ethics.

I think that his definition is a good one. I would have worded it a little different but through it all Jon’s definition tells you exactly what public relations does. Personally I liked the definition that was used in 1978. That particular definition said that:
Public Relations is the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interests.”
Both definitions though are 100% better than the definition that is currently up. Hell, I don’t think that you any worse then the definition that’s already up.

Our fifth blog assignment was an emotional story. The story behind the article was about a 13 year old girl who committed suicide, and it appeared that it was due to cyber-bullying. This article however was also about journalist Steve Polkin, who covered the story for the Suburban Journals for St. Charles County, and his choice not to release the names of the cyber bullies (who were actually her neighbors). In Lucy’s blog, The Son Also Rises, Lucy defends Mr. Polkin, saying he was ethically correct for not printing the bullies names in his story. Her defense is based off of a line in the article “police, prosecutors and the FBI said they could find no law had been broken”. Lucy believes that since no law had been broken, then no name should be released. She puts up a great argument throughout her story and defends Polkin well; unfortunately I have a different opinion.

To start, Mr. Polkin is a writer, he is not a prosecutor, and so stating these names in an article is not illegal or wrong in any way. He covered a story about a little girl who just committed suicide, and there was a ton of evidence saying that the suicide was caused because of cyber-bullying. I agree with Lucy, the Internet is the Wild, Wild West, but there is a new Sherriff in town and his name is Stevey Polkin. Polkin had a chance to nip this cyber-bullying in the butt, and he blew it like Tom Brady’s wide receivers in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. What the neighbors did was ethically wrong, and they should have been called out on it. Sorry Lucy, but Mr. Polkin failed journalism.

The fifth question that I chose to pick was also in the 5th blog assignment. The final question in the assignment asked us if the social networking sites should monitor cyber-bullying. I studied both, Liz’s Media Ethics- Blog Privacy & Cyber Bullying and Femi’s The Privacy Debacle, and found that they had the same thought on monitoring social network sites. Both Liz and Femi say that it is impossible for social networking sites to be monitored, and I cannot argue with them there. There is no way that social networking sites can monitor everyone’s posts and comments, it would take too much man power but also all the time that would be wasted.

However Facebook does have a tab on the side of the post button that allows readers to mark the post as inappropriate. So those who should be monitoring the social networking sites are the “friends,” of the site. Ignoring the problem is almost as bas as being the problem. As Lucy said in her blog on this assignment, the Internet is the Wild, Wild West; almost anything goes out there. But it is our jobs to monitor it our selves and open our mouths when something is not right.

In conclusion it was nice having discussion groups, and talking about our class readings. You get a better sense of where the person is coming from. However I feel that our views on ethics, as a nations is very poor. It seems that that everyone is out for them selves anymore. I always like to finish my essays with a quote so I will leave you with this Socrates quote.
“Not life, but good life is to be chiefly valued” - Socrates

Thank you… I’m OUT!

cyber-bullies

Throughout these few past years cyerbullying has taken a turn for the worst. It is a shame that it is happening, but it is more of a shame that children are committing suicide over this issue. Though cyberbullying is very unethical, there is no law against it, just as there is no law against ‘face-to-face’ bullying. However, bullying is controlled in schools, so cyber-bullying can also be somewhat controlled. To control cyber-bullying: parents, teachers, administrators, and even other students have to keep their eyes and ears open to it. And because cyber-bullying is low key and a newer “trend” it will take time to get it under control.

Now based on the course readings, I feel that social networks do have the ethical obligation to intervene in cases of cyber-bullying because it is needed. Consider Facebook as a “boys and girls” club, if there was bullying going on in the club’s building it would be handled by a counselor. The same thing applies with Facebook and cyber-bullying.

But before I stream too far off topic, I will move on to the article, A hoax, a suicide- a journalistic nightmare written by Roy Malone. In this particular case on cyber-bullying, journalist Steve Pokin, his publisher and their lawyer, refused to identify the culprits behind a cyber-bullying scandal that ultimately led to the suicide of a young Megan Meier.

Now this is the part where I am supposed to make a case for the Journal and Polkin, and how they were ethically justified to maintaining the privacy of the neighbors. That is bullshit! There is no justification, they (the mom, the girl, and the employee) are the reason why this young girl is dead, and their names have the right to be aired. It is true journalism to announce their names, with that I agree with what the woman from New Orleans said, “thanks for killing journalism.” Because that is what Pokin and the Journal did. In conclusion, if the victim is revealed the perpetrator should be revealed also.

Public Relations Redefined!

In Stuart Elliott’s article that was posted New York Times, Public Relations is defined as “helping an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” To me this definition seems like it is missing a few words, it’s too bland, the definition doesn’t really tell us anything and this is why the definition is problematic. Public relations provide an organization with “exposer to their audience.” Their main focus is to keep a certain point of view about this organization no matter what field. The current definition says nothing of the sort.

In August of 1978, at the first World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, the definition of public relations was perfect. Though a bit wordy the old definition explains Public Relations in detail, it is more concrete and should have never been changed.
“Public Relations – is the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interests.”

Even after 34 years the definition still tells you what PR is today. This is where I am confused; Why was there a change in the definition, what needed to be changed? It’s understood that times will change and public relations will broaden, but the core of the definition will always remain the same.

With out question, out of all the ethical dilemmas from 2011, the Rabbi story was the most problematic. Anytime time money, especially donated money, goes missing you are going to run into problems. And I am not talking about chump change here. No, we are talking about MILLIONS of donated dollars missing… stolen! And this stolen money is going into the pockets of men who are already wealthy. It is a shame that people have to be taught ethics, especially people with such a high power. This reminds me of something I once told my Grandfather. I was at this wedding party, and the Brides mother said she is expecting no less than $300 in her daughters Wedding Cards. My grandfather replied with “she must come from money, because people with money do not act like that.”

I find it funny too that ethics will fly out the window faster when money is involved. As Roger Waters of Pink Floyd wrote, “Money, it’s a hit. Don’t give me that Do Goody Good Bullshit.”

I guess though it is better to fix your mistakes later on down the road then to never fix them at all. In the Corbett article, Time for Revolutions, he mentions that PRSA and the FTC are monitoring public relations practices. This I feel will improve in the field of ethics because organizations now know that they are being regulated. For example if you compare this to Major League Baseball, player are very cautious about taking banned substances because of how regulated it is. The same idea applies here. All in all, we are just another brick in the wall.

Code of Ethics - To print or not to print

The case study that I chose to discus was Visualizing September 11th(Case2-C). The reason why I chose this particular case was because it hit so close to home. I am sure that most of us, if not all of us, remember what were doing that day that subsequently changed our lives forever. The particular issue in this case was when, AP photographer, Richard Drew photographed people jumping from the World Trade Towers during the attacks on 9/11, including one man, who was in many frames, wearing a white coat and dark pants. These pictures were then used in many newspapers and magazines as coverage of this tragic story. This however is where the dilemma lies. After seeing these pictures published many raised questions and complaints, saying that there is no need to have these graphic images. With that I fallowed up on National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), and looked p their code of ethics.

One of the main focuses in NPPA’s Code of Ethics is photo alterations and staged photos, which clearly this is not. But it also says in the Code of Ethics to treat all subjects with respect and dignity. To “give special consideration to vulnerable subject and compassion to the victims of crime and tragedy.” How the text is stated above, some may believe that such a picture is going against this code of ethics. I, however, have to disagree. This day was tragic for the nation, so I feel that it in some way this photo had the right to be published and the facts still have the right to be told, even if the facts are hard to bear. During the time of reading this case and writing this I couldn’t stop thinking about these pictures that I have seen during the Holocaust. Most of you should have seen them too. The photos that I am talking about are the hundreds of starved bodies lying dead in a pit. Though these are two very different times in history I believe that both still fall along the same lines, and the dignity and respect of those who have passed away are never lost. However if the circumstances were different and this was a picture of a man jumping off of a building to commit suicide, then this picture would go against the NPPA’s Code of ethics. Any with that person’s respect and dignity is lost in the photograph, and this picture would not have the right to be shown.

In what we have learned from class, I think that the two ethical perspectives that the NPPA’s Code of Ethics reflects are Communitarianism and Rational vs. Emotion. Communitarianism is where the community’s interests are more important than the individuals. With this case study in particular, I feel that is the reason why this picture was published. Because the reasoning behind why the picture, of the man jumping, was published is greater then any individuals complaint about the picture. And the reason why I think that Rational vs. Emotion also reflects the NPPA’s Code of Ethics is because of that fact that you have to think rationally before you act as a photographer. A couple of the codes that come to mind are # 7. Do not pay sources and # 8. Do not accept gifts from those who might seek influence coverage. At first (emotionally) its sounds good, but after you think about it (rationally) it’s not as good as it sounds. You have to think about what you are taking pictures of before you click for the shutter. As Alfred Eisenstaedt once said, “you have to be as much diplomat as a photographer.”

Secrets are no fun... but are Secrets are for Everyone?

This is an interesting topic; we actually discussed this last week in our group meetings. So this blog is about the release of the Pentagon Papers, and whether or not it is ethically correct to leak that information, or keep some things secret. The first bullet point that Professor Bindig acknowledges, is about our takes on the information that should be kept secret or not. Now I understand that the government keeps things from us in order to protect us. But if government has a secret that they do not want anyone to know, then it is the government’s job to keep that a secret. So the question is if I were in a predicament where I found top-secret government documents that no one knew about, would I release it? I have mixed feelings on this topic. One part of me says that there are things that should be kept a secret in order to protect the people. But there is another side of me that says, why not tell the people the truth. Because the people’s reactions could go over a lot smoother if the government says, “ This is our problem, and this is how we are going to deal with this,” rather than keeping a secret until leaks, and loosing the trust of the people.
So again if I were to come across top-secret documents, would I tell? You are damn right, especially if it is a document such as the Pentagon Papers. That my friends is what is wrong with our government officials today… they lie to us to get them into office, they lie to us when they are in office, and they lie to us when they are out of office. No wonder why people don’t trust them (politicians). But anyway, staying on topic I have 2 rules in keeping secrets, and they are both FULL and FOOL PROOF.

Ryan’s Rules in keeping secrets:
1. Don’t tell anybody anything if you do not want anyone else to find out.
a. So if Person ‘A’ and Person ‘B’ have a secret, there should never be a Person ‘C’
2. NO PAPER TRAIL
a. This simply means do not write down secrets, that’s just common sense. There is a chance that the wrong eyes may find them.

When it comes to secrets, especially secrets at that high of a level, there are a few steps that one has to take. The first step is to see if anyone would be directly and physically harmed by the secret. An example of a secret that should be told, would be telling some one that you are about to get “personal” with, that you have an STD. So really, I guess that is the only step you have to take in keeping secrets.
But I also believe that people lose sight in the difference between secrets and something that isn’t anyone’s business. For example, people feel that it is their right to know where Beyoncé Knowles had her baby. People feel that she is keeping it a secret, when really it’s not anyone’s business where she has her baby.

When I am stuck in an ethical dilemma, I just put my self in the other person’s shoes and ask, “ Would I want that done to me?” And there is where I find my answer. My views as a media professional and as a person will never differ. My objective in life is to always do what is right even if it is harms me. Just fallowing in the steps of Good Ol’ J.C. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

My Book of Ethics

In the book, ethics is defined as a “rational process founded on certain agreed-on principles” (pg. 3). After reading the first chapter, An Introduction to Ethical Decision Making, I realize that there are tons of ethical decisions that are made daily. Now the field that I plan on entering is Production, and in that field you can be faced with some tough ethical decisions. Of course it all depends on the situation. An example of a scenario where ethics comes to play with production would be like Scenario #2 (page 1). That is the video of the high-school fight that was released on Youtube. Personally, I would not have aired the footage; the video is irrelevant to the story and may stir up trouble. I assume that this happens all the time in the news but off the top of my head I cannot really think of one particular incident.

The tools that I have built in for ethics is my faith, and the Golden Rule in the Bible is “Do unto others as you would have others do to you. “ This is my first rule in any type of ethical situation, I often think about how this would affect the other party and then myself. The same with film, you have to put yourself in the other person’s shoes before you can start writing, filming, or reporting anything about the person. With that being said and after reading the first chapter I learned that my views are somewhat similar to Immanuel Kant’s. On page 9 it says that his categorical imperative is stated in two ways “first is that an individual should act as if the choices the one makes for oneself could become universal law. And second that you should act so that you treat each individual as an end and never as merely a means.” After reading this I realized that Kant’s first “manifestation” and the Golden Rule in the Bible are quite similar in their focus on duty (pg10).

When it comes to learning though, I would like to discuss ethical situations that would happen within production. The only ethical decisions I can really come up with, is how you expose people or organizations in media, or what you expose in a documentary. I am sure there is more and that is what I am here for.

ALIFE-stlye like no other (Assignment 5)

When I think of “investors” I think of big firms on Wall Street and things like that. And if that is the case, then I know ALIFE isn’t looking for investors. There are people who actually believe in ALIFE and what they stand for. Those are the types of people they look to invest in their company. That being said there is no bullshit strategy that the “big wigs” of the company put together to get people interested. It is not their dream to have everyone wearing ALIFE, because not everyone is going to believe what they believe in. That’s right; ALIFE has beliefs and stands by them, unlike these other brands that could give a damn about beliefs. But this isn’t the time to rant about who or who doesn’t have beliefs. When ALIFE first started, they were looking for NIKE to invest in their brand. This eventually paid off because now they have a tier 0 account with the most popular sneaker name in the world.

ALIFE is especially not looking to reach any government body, that’s easy to see. This company is defined as art. Some types that the government does not seem to like. The artists that ALIFE represents are graffiti artists, hip-hop artists, skaters, bikers, writers, photographers, the list goes on.

ALIFE Occupied Wall Street with the people, you really think they are looking to reach a government body. That’s the last people I think they want to reach. They want to reach the people, “Cuz aint no power like the power of the people!”

The way that ALIFE reaches their community is by doing what they have been doing. They put the art that represents this unique culture on their cloths, sneakers and accessories. But as I said before they are not you average company. They promote graffiti, loud music, smoking weed, drinking, basically they promote things that are frowned upon by your everyday corporate ass hole. So ALIFE’s goals of their Corporate Social Responsibility may not be like everyone else’s.

Through all of this I feel that the way ALIFE is handling things is great. Even in a “crisis” I still wouldn’t change any of the strategies, because I feel that would take away from their message. And that is something they will not do. Lupe Fiasco said, “if you are afraid, the fear that you are gonna change some… All you have to do is just remember where you came from.” Something I feel a lot of these companies forgot a long time ago.