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.