Final Ethics Post: The End

So, it has come down to this; the end of my ethics class. In this class I've learned quite a handful of values and skills to navigate the Communications world with an ethically open mind. As a graphic designer, I already have an idea of the values of the creative world. Ethical decisions don't always equal moral decisions. In this final ethics class post, I'll be picking out 5 different posts and commenting on them with my own thoughts/analysis. 

Crystal M. "Warning-Oft Times Indecisive": Post #4

Crystal's 4th blog post was very interesting to me. The topic was whether or not the definition of PR in a media context should be altered. Crystal wrote "The definition of PR currently is, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” To this end, PR would be defined by the actions and results of organizations working with the public. My post dealt with the nature of PR versus what the definition should be changed to. The focus of this assignment was to consider what ethical developments contribute to the change. Crystal used an example from Netflix to illustrate how ethical issues might change the context of Public Relations. The example was the recent price hike for their current customers. There was no notice beforehand; that was definitely an ethical dilemna as Netflix treated their customers very poorly in that situation. I think that honestly, this is a good example, but another example couldn't have hurt. The Netflix price hike wasn't exactly a public relations fiasco, but the way it was handled falls under PR. I would've also liked to see what school of thought Netflix would fall under: Community, Anonymity, Transparency, etc.

 
Lacey Gilleran "Media_NERD Blog": Post- "The Falling Man"

Lacey's blog has entertaining for me. We both enjoy internet jokes and memes, and are generally conscious of creative media. One of Lacey's posts that interested me the most was the "Falling Man" post from 2 weeks ago. I believe this post surrounded the ethics of releasing certain information to the public and how it was handled. The "Falling Man" story involves a story being published in a New York newspaper after 9/11 where on picture within the article displayed a man falling to his death after jumping. This picture raised a small but strong uproar as the ethical integrity of the paper was threatened for writing such a story. 

Lacey's post involved the ethical vs. moral dilemma with showing a fairly intense image on a public platform. She referred to our text: Media Ethics: Issues & Cases for details on the story itself. Lacey referenced the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. She notes that the code starts with a preamble that states:

 “The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.”

This means that the journalist who that story, as well as the editor, was ethical in displaying the picture. An unprofessional and irresponsible move would have been posting a picture of the carnage that followed jumping out the window, or of the injured survivors at their lowest points. Lacey abbreviates the following points from the code: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, Be Accountable. If there were any ethical dilemma that needed to be evaluated by those points, it was "The Falling Man". In my opinion, Lacey did a great job with this post and was very engaging in provoking thought about the ethical situation. To be honest, this seemed like a rare case that rocked back and forth over the lines of a moral problem and an ethical problem.

Kelly Elliot "Out and About" Cyberbullying- Age old behavior, new age twist

Kelly's blog was another interesting collection of insight and posts. One post that I found especially interesting was her take on the cyberbullying assignment/reading we had a couple of weeks ago. In her post, she listed links to sites that are dedicated to fighting cyberbullying, the cyberbullying laws for certain states, and spreading awareness. Personally I think the issue of exploiting cyberbullying and the releasing of details is ethical AND moral situation. Our assignment for this posting was to read an article that revealed that a newspaper chose to honor the anonymity of people responsible for a teen's suicide; they were bullying her through Myspace. My thoughts on cyberbullying is that it is up to the parents and adult figures to recognize and monitor the emotions and activity of potential victims.

Melissa Valerio "Professional Communication In the Digital Age" To Spill or Not To Spill

An entry from Melissa Valerio on her blog deals with ethics in releasing info. She brings up a VERY good point: being "ethical" is not the same as following the law. I agree with her view. The law is something that is followed or not followed and consequences ensue. Ethical thinking has no right or wrong outcome; there's more of a code or a known structure that is or isn't being breached when one thinks of ethics. Melissa says that laws can deviate from what is ethical. I don't completely agree with that. Personally, I think that people can interpret laws or cheat them in a non-ethical way. Further down in her post, Melissa provided a link (Should Classified Info Remain Classified?) for an online article questioning if classified information should be revealed to the public. For more light on the subject, Gabriel Schoenfield is interviewed in the article. There was a very interesting question in the article:

Is it the responsibility of the press to keep the government's secrets?

The answer underneath the question states that while it's the public's right to know, it is also the public's right not to know. Very interesting answer indeed.

Terrence White "Swag On Blast" You Can't Handle the Truth!

The last analysis/review for this post is Terrence White's blog. The particular post is his take on Case Study 2-E from our text books. In the post he offers a link to the code of ethics for APSE (Associated Press Sports Editors)- guidelines. Terrence makes a good point in noting "Guidelines can't cover everything. Use common sense and good judgement in applying these guidelines in adopting local codes" in the case study. I agree with that idea. Not all sports stories are black and white. There are dimensions and shades in which some stories develop. As a visual aid, Terrence posted pictures depicting the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal. I would've liked to see Terrence go into more detail about how case study 2-E applys to a specific story. Overall, it was a good review.

Ethics Post 5: A New Frontier of Bullying

This week's topic is pretty interesting: it involves privacy and the growing epidemic of cyber-bullying. The irony about the word itself is that it's fairly new (although two suggestions came up in spell check for this post) and that it puts a whole new spin on the bullying mythos. 15 years ago, people would have asked you "What's a cyber-bully?" Now, it's almost common knowledge as to what cyber bully is, and what the general nature/behavior of a cyber bully entails. A cyber-bully is basically someone who threatens or harasses another person or people using the internet (specifically but not limited to social media). In the past 3 years, there's been an escalation of  focus on cyber-bulling in the media as in the most extreme cases, intense cyber-bullying has lead to suicide.

It's perfectly safe to say that due to human nature, the cyber-bullies themselves most likely never think that their antics would result in suicide or physical complications. The article that was partnered with this assignment involves a young girl named Megan Meier. She was only 13 years old when she committed suicide due to cyber-bully over Myspace (another reason to hate Myspace). The culprits were a former friend, her mother, and a co-worker of the mother who created a fake account to heckle Meier; she had a falling out with the friend prior to the bullying. That in itself is a shame. Something that started with a trivial situation lead to a horrifying result. The newspaper that covered the story (Suburban Journals) decided not to release the identities of the three offenders until there were charges. However, there were no arrests, charges, or civil suits. Interestingly enough, when the story was released (with the anonymity of the responsible culprits), the writer (Steve Pokin) and his fellow staff recieved flack for not bringing forth names. Readers flocked to the internet to protest and ask for justice. Another paper (St. Louis Post Dispatch) did a little snooping and acquired the identities of the culprits and released the information. Pokin gave in and confirmed.

Personally, I think the Journals staff was ethical in not releasing the names of the neighbors responsible for the suicide. It's a horrible situation and I DO believe they should've been reprimanded in some way, but at the end of the day there were no major court charges and their anonymity could be preserved. In a way, I think Pokin was trying to protect the neighbors from being subjected to random acts of vigilantism. In a way, the Journal covered it's own tracks from backlash by keeping the neighbors anonymous; who knows what kind of lawsuits would be thrown at them for releasing information and the results that would follow. While there is an issue of upholding the community, the Journal was honoring the ethics of privacy.

On the flip side though, I think the Post was ethically justified in identifying the neighbors. In this situation, they were honoring the codes of transparency/accountability and community. People had a right to know who was responsible, no matter what their motives were for wanting to know. In releasing/confirming the identities, awareness was also raised further for cyber-bullying. They were ethically justified, but I have to say I don't completely agree with them releasing the names; the damage was already done. The culprits were getting away basically scott-free.

On a final note, I will say that cyber-bullying happens on a more watered down level across the internet. This doesn't just pertain to social media, but to forums and sites where content can be posted and rated. The irony of these environments is that people can (more times than not) expect to be subjected to teasing or ridicule for expressing views. On internet forums, phrases such as "Kill yourself" or "You're a derogatory term" flow almost as freely as water. Ironically, many of these people that sling these slanderous terms don't mean them, they simply mean to incite anger or confusion in the target. These aggressors are called "Trolls".

A Troll in front of a computer, ready to cause confusion and hurt feelings.

But on that note, the neighbors of the Meier girl were probably attempting to "troll" her; make her feel bad or remorseful for ending the friendship with the neighbor girl. The article in the assignment was not specific in details of who did what to whom first, but it's indicated that the neighbors' side was enraged enough to spark action. I think social media should have a disclaimer that the opinions found on the web are not theirs and should be interpreted as such. Furthermore, parents and teachers should be educating younger internet goers on the potential dangers of the internet. Not just illegal activity and information stealing, but the potential of being bullied online. Unfortunately, since the internet can only be seen through access (smartphones, computers, tablets), evidence of cyber-bullying is naturally narrowed down to the victims' words and behaviors. Hopefully as the awareness of cyber-bullying increases, so do the ways in which one can defend themselves and prevent horrible aftermath.

Ethics Post 4: "Upgrading" P.R.'s Definition

This week's blog deals with Public Relations and it's evolution (or re-definition, which ever floats your boat more). Currently the PR industry is debating over revamping the tried and true definition of "Public Relations" for the 21st Century. The current definition of Public Relations is as follows: "the practice of managing the flow of information between and organization and it's public".  Personally, I think such a definition could hold up in today's Information Age; social media, however, has created a new niche in the obtaining and distribution of information. This also changes the overall role that PR plays for a company. Now instead of just, persuading the public to trust or buy into a company, PR needs to police the information surrounding their client company and make sure it's accurate or that a private matter has not gone public. As mentioned in the New York Times article assigned to us this week, people quite often view Public Relations as "spin". In the past, we have grown accustomed to hearing and seeing messages for brands/companies that look something like this:

Merely a generalization, of course.

To be honest, I can't think of a good new definition for Public Relations, but it goes something like this: "Public Relations is the managing (AND consideration) of all information concerning an organization and it's stakeholders." I threw "consideration" in there because in these times, where people can post their grievances on a Facebook fan page (ironic because it's a fan page), a company has to be aware of an underlying message that might be floating just beneath the one they are broadcasting. Of course I'm talking about public opinion and word of mouth. "Consideration" isn't completely a fluff word; it allows for media ethics to be contemplated while executing a campaign, solving a crisis, or putting out a company message over a new medium (ex: social media). 

The Public Relations Society of America is in the process of officially changing the definition of Public Relations (as far as this country is concerned). They are allowing the public to weigh on what should be included in the definition. Word clouds will apparently be generated to help chart the focus.

Ironic. PR firms are usually responsible for putting these out for companies (Courtesy of Shutterstock)

The biggest point of changing the definition (in my opinion), is to further cover the potential breaches in ethics that occur with today's media. Apparently Facebook made a huge breach when they hired writers to write slander against Google (a healthy competitor), and their privacy. As I mentioned in the first blog post for Ethics class, BP messed up REAL bad and had a hard time recovering their image after their ghastly mistake concerning the oil spill.

Ethics Post 3: Good ol' Product Placement (Code of Conduct)

This week's assignment required our class to look for a case study in our textbooks and then break it down using the code of conduct from our professions/industries respectively. After looking throw the chapters specified, I found a case study that I could get into; product placement and the ethics connected to it. Product Placement is somewhat in the realm of my profession (Graphic Design, Multimedia Production, creative services in general). Upon further investigation of Graphic Design ethics, I stumbled upon the realization that there is no solid code for ALL Graphic Designers in America.

my subsequent reaction

Ignoring that slight quirk, the case study itself takes a look at comparisons between product placement here in the states and abroad (aka everywhere else). The study was written by Phillip Patterson of Oklahoma Christian University. This study contains mostly statistics by certain companies based on how often they pushed their products/logos on programs they didn't own. Actually, while these companies don't own the shows, they sponsor them, therefore securing a financial stake for them as far as the show's ratings are concerned. A chief executive of a firm that produces "The Office" said, "The fact is, these brands are part of our lives, and brands exist in these television environments, so why not showcase them." As a Graphic Designer, this is where I can see a code of conduct coming into effect. Apparently, an Apple logo was featured on a BBC program but was removed later on after the British media alleged that the logo (among some others) were snuck into BBC programming in exchange for cash and favors. This violates BBC rules. I find this funny as you can't watch many TV shows or movies nowadays with a Macbook or iPhone being visibly used by a main character. Hmmm...

For those of you who are unclear on what a Graphic Designer does, I'll put it in layman's terms concerning this post: we create logos, images, and animations that can (and are) used by companies as part of a branding or advertising strategy. Branding is what companies use to familiarize themselves with the public. Certain color combinations or font choices remind people of a specific company or their presence. Good examples of this are Coca-Cola, Twitter, Facebook, FedEx and Wal-Mart. Copyrights can even be put on the typefaces and images to secure a unique look and aesthetic. Below is a link of examples of clever logo brand designs.
http://www.truekolor.net/21-more-awesone-logos-with-hidden-meaning/

I lucked out in finding the AIGA Standards of Professional Practice.

AIGA stands for the "American Institute of Graphic Arts". They have a HUGE, I repeat, HUGE following in the design/art world. If you are connected to their membership/network, you have connections to seminars, conferences, events, job opportunities, and other artists. Being that they have such a structured group, it makes sense to have a list of standards (which can be translated to a "code of conduct"). To paraphrase the standards, AIGA touches on:

• A designer's responsibility to clients
• A designer's responsibility to other designers
• One interesting point in this section is that designers in pursuit of business should support fair and open competition. Way easier said that done!
• Fees (of course)
• Another interesting point is that this seciton states that a professional designer shall work ONLY for a fee, a royalty, salary or other agreed-upon form of compensation
• Publicity
• Authorship
• The designer's responsibility to the public
• The designer's responsibility to the environment and society

The Internet Is In Trouble!

Freedom of Speech. 

That's a pretty broad, expansive right in our country. It allows every voice to exist, and to have an opinion. Not to sound like that kind of Patriot but Freedom of Speech is a large part of what separates us from nations like North Korea, China & even Russia. Those countries have issued laws so that any unsanctioned or undesirable public opinion/information could potentially be found criminal. Some punishable by paying a fine, others by jail time, and even in the most extreme circumstances, death sentences. We have to remember that these countries have different social structures than America to begin with; structures that are infused with communist traits/ideals. Anyway, this brings me to what can now be viewed as the Internet's evil nemesis:

*cue evil church organ music*

Now, looking at the actual words that make up the acronym, it probably doesn't sound threatening to anyone who doesn't fully know the implications. SOPA is a bill that originated through major media corporations (mainly the film & music industries). SOPA's main objective is to basically put a physical restriction on the Internet: No more posting/uploading/downloading of copyrighted material without consent from the original source. Unfortunately the applications exceed the implications.

Having SOPA pass is basically like using one huge cannon to kill all the elephants left on this planet, just because a few got away with killing a couple of humans in the wild. YES piracy is an issue and should be addressed, but as I mentioned before, the applications exceed the implications. SOPA would give corporations incredible power over the internet; potentially no one could post content on YouTube that contains a popular song without being fined by a record company. Another example: if you feature a film clip in a blog entry or on a website without consent by the respective studio, they can have your entire site shutdown for that simple infringement. Naturally of course, this threatens the freedom of opinion AND creativity on the internet. There IS original content out there, but let's face it, many entertaining factors of the internet are fueled by "unsanctioned" use of copyrighted material; whether it's chopping up a video to create lyrics to a well-known song, or chopping up a movie and it's audio to form an entirely new piece of work, or even simply covering a song on your guitar and posting it to all your social media.

 

Pixar could sue Pogo for this awesome juxtaposition of "UP". Ironically they didn't. In fact they got him to produce a remix for Toy Story. Crazy right? I think so. The people are not alone though. Companies (mainly social media and Wikipedia) that have thrived on the internet regardless of piracy are stepping up to defend us and themselves. Google showcased a doodle today (January 18th) that solidifies their stance on the SOPA bill.

G****e

 Wikipedia's also getting in on the action. After all, their site is probably one of the most threatened by SOPA. With SOPA in effect, sites that offer "free" information about things would be under fire. Given most of Wikipedia's information is editable and therefore not a completely credible source, let's face it...we've all looked up things on Wikipedia for clarification at one point or another. Do we really want to go back to Encarta, folks? It wasn't that bad...but compared to Wikipedia, I'd stay with Wiki. In protest of voting for SOPA, Wikipedia has "shut down" it's usual services today (January 18th).

Of course, if you search "SOPA" or "PIPA", it will go through.

To wrap up this info-session/rant, I want to emphasize the impact SOPA would have on Graphic Design (my profession), Web Design, and Film. Creative liberties would be immensely restricted. We would no longer be able to create art/media that contains the smallest form of recognizable copyrighted content. We'd always have to pay a corporation for using their image or altering an image they've already established in Photoshop, Illustrator, AfterEffects, etc. Or else we'd face prison time or the shutting down of our site. Therefore SOPA is basically a control on opinion and expression. It's not as bad as China or Russia...yet. It has potential to be amended and have more controls added IF it is passed. So if you have no idea what SOPA or PIPA stand for, then please Google it and learn more. Your freedom is actually being challenged by these bills, whether or not you are directly affected. Who knows what the next step would be if this passes.

Gratuitous Fan Post

GIANT'S WON
Let's go San Francisco, show us what you've got!

Touchdown while under triple coverage on a Hail Mary play. *sheds tear*

 

Ethics Post 2: Mum's the Word (Does anyone say that anymore?)

 Information is valuable. You can never get enough of it, and without it you can easily find yourself in the dark. Since starting the MACOMM program, I've gained a better understanding of the importance of confidentiality from a media/communications standpoint. I've also gained a better understanding of the importance of some information being too sensitive. Whether it's information that needs to be shared or confined, that definitely depends on the situation and the information itself. A factor of ethics that I've found my self focusing on more than others is the potentiality that people don't tell the whole truth, whether they are whistle-blowers, journalists, or company reps. In one of the readings from this past week (Arnettetal, ch. 3), I saw a list of values that promote responsible behavior in the "Codes, Procedures, and Standards for Communication Ethics" section. 

The list reads as follows:

• Integrity
• Fairness
• Professional and Social Responsibility
• Equality of Opportunity
• Confidentiality
• Honesty and Openess
• Respect for Self & Others
• Freedom and Safety

....INTEGRITY, CONFIDENTIALITY, EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY...

HA!

 Pretty sure half (if not 3/4) of these values have not been practiced in full by any major corporation in the last 10 years (*cough* Enron and BP *cough). 

One company that entered Public Relations hell following an error and the subsequent Media/Communications backlash was Toyota. Their troubles involved possible faulty equipment, specifically brakes and unintended acceleration; in 2009, a deadly crash was credited to faulty brakes in the victims' Toyota (Lexus is you want to be technical). LESSON TIME (for those who don't know): Lexus is the luxury line of Toyota, much like Acura is the luxury line of Honda. This debacle involved a MASSIVE recall of vehicles to check the brake issue. However, they denied there was a "defect". However, the media saw it differently; The Los Angeles Times released an article that revealed Toyota had ignored 1,200 complaints of unintended acceleration. Ouch. To be quite frank, the Los Angeles Time was all over this issue in the beginning. The situation of the recall and it's complications lasted from September 2009 to January 2010. That's a LONG period in company stock/ Public Relations time. After the ordeal was over (for the most part), Toyota began releasing commercials that tried to clean the image they had over the last 4 1/2 months.

 In hindsight, it was important for the Toyota exploit to happen or else there would've been many more accidents that would have been blamed solely on human error. Los Angeles Times had a credible part in revealing that Toyota wasn't expressing full responsibility in certain areas of this crisis. Twitter wasn't exactly as big as it is now when this happened, but I'm sure there would've been multiple official Toyota accounts dedicated to putting out the fire. I think I would rather lose my job honorably than keeping a dark (or dangerous) secret from the public that will label me a criminal. Not that Toyota is criminal, but you have to consider the CEO's and Reps that probably tried to skate their way around the media frenzy surrounding this situation.