1445

So I think I determined after this that I write waaaaaaaaay too much and rant more often than not, as everyone's blogs are clear, concise and to the point: It was a pleasure to read back through these posts and see what everyone was thinking, and it made me rethink some of the views I took on some of my own decisions.

But that's enough about this...lets move on, shall we?

So Jon DeBenedictis' analysis of the cyber-bullying on Saturday, February 4th was interesting. While we both took on the role of Sissela Bok for Pokin's article in the Suburban Journal, he shed light on the role of the Post in a more interesting light: The idea of Utilitarianism actually fits this whole segment really well, since the Post's actions in naming the assailants could very well be deemed Utilitarian is many different ways:  The first way would be since its a greatest good mentality, as not only do people find out who the people were and justice could be exacted in the public domain, but also the Post comes out as the paper who found out the names first.  This could be looked at as unwavering dedication to the truth, justice, and transparency for the best outlook on society.

It also makes sense that this could be looked at in the Utilitarian sense of the "least amount of pain," as unveiling the names causes civilian search actions to cease at that point, as well as stop the assailants if they ever decided to bully again. 

I do agree with Jon's final thoughts on the matter - I still think that Pokin was right in how he handled the situation, as it was sensitive and we shouldn't immediately deem them guilty by throwing the bully's names into articles and pointing fingers.  Jon's thoughts of Utilitarianism do make more sense than my use of the Categorical Imperative as a model to view the situation from the Post's point of view. 

I also agree with his view on social media - The moderation of indecency on social media and networks shouldn't be left to the ethical judgment of the owners of the site, but rather the people who use it.  It's not that hard to click the "remove post" button on Facebook - if people want drama, don't click it.

Lucy Cox's post on Friday, January 27th delved into the PRSA code of conduct overhaul and the issues that they've had with their definition.  She goes in depth to describe that the original definition was broad - and I mean "pimp" and "matchmaker" broad: The definition fit both personalities easily.  What I enjoyed about this blog was that she addresses that all of these codes are just that: Codes.  While we have them and they hopefully keep people in place and protected, we still find that we can omit a following to these codes and do our own thing - if anything, a code could be used as an excuse, as she describes Chapstick's Facebook dilemma and how they finally apologized for deleting negative posts simply by ducking behind the Facebook code of conduct in that they were removing negative posts.  I think Lucy hits home hard with the issues that are discussed in the article, and how they don't really "have much to do with false advertising, misleading and half-truths."  Instead, the men and women of the PRSA are worried about paying interns and supporting dictators.  Finally, her analysis of the three PR definitions was great, although she did put a bit of extra scrutiny on "profit."  While I think the ethical arena is important, the work of PR is still a business, and money will still be made.  This aside, Lucy does still bring up a good point in that the first definition is solid and regards only ethics as its main "engine" of sorts, as opposed to a monetary thing.  This is something great that we should strive for more, and Lucy points that out.

Liz Cross' blog on January 7th makes me think back to some early philosophy classes I had undergone in my undergraduate days.  She begins by addressing the ethical dilemma of a student posing as an SAT test taker for other high schoolers.  The 19 year old Samuel Eshaghoff's actions bring Liz to an interesting realization: no one can trust Eshaghoff at such an early age, as he'll always be remembered for his fraudulent activities, but as well, the cheating students go unnamed and unknown.  She lists what a university could do to exact reparations for unethical test-taking by using stand-ins, but it seems a bit harder to see a University's reactions, as they generally have smaller classes, and standardized test-taking simply has a moderator for a multitude of students - I think she should have looked at the situation from the standpoint of high schools, as they're the students and systems more open to using the standardized test format.  I also like how Liz brings up a great situation of plagiarism in a professional setting - her client's situation in regards to using their daughter's song is something of an ethical situation.  I do think that Liz should have gone a bit deeper into the dilemma and used some of the models we had come across in the reading, as it would have really given us a good dichotomy of how the situation could have unfolded, instead of bringing up a random situation and comparing ethical processes to unfold the cashier-incorrect change problem.  She does bring one final note that does ring true to me: it takes a team to come up with the right decision, as it helps us look at an ethical dilemma from more than one point of view and really utilize the democratic communications ethics method.

Julien du Plessis' blog on Secrets (January 13th, 2012) was a good lesson in the uses of the Bok models and the Utility principles.  He uses the case study of Uganda's Monitor publishing a molestation photo, and the repercussions they faced in doing so.  Before going further, I should note that Julien makes a wonderful point in the very beginning that the most when deciding to release information, one should consider the "level of the secret," "who will be impacted," and "whether or not the secret will allow others to use it for harmful reasons."  After going in depth on the reaction that the Ugandan justice system incites, Julien brings his own views to the table and uses both Bok and Mill.  Would jail-time be worth the exposure?  How much are you willing to risk on a photo like this being run in a paper where their politics are hunting anything that makes them look bad?  He makes a good point that the paper's decision to release the photo was great for two reasons: it unveils this information and it also keeps anyone from finding out in the future that they withheld information of a great magnitude.  Julien mentions something interesting at the end of his piece: media professionals must struggle with getting entangled in secrets.  He states that he thinks "the only way to avoid getting entangled in secrets is to not dig for information," but I have to disagree with him: secrets are something that are part of the job, and with secrets come those who don't want you to know.  Unfortunately, it's a necessary evil: much like decision we have to release said secrets when we know them.

Jeff Crane's blog on the September 11th Photo (January 21st, 2012) was an interesting viewpoint of the controversial photo of the man jumping from the building on September 11th.  What I enjoyed about this blog was how the code of the Society of Professional Journalists matched very well to the statement given by Richard Drew regarding the controversy revolving around the photo.  What is striking about this controversy is how people do take both sides in that the photo shouldn't be published because it's something that should not be seen, but should be published because it has helped family members track down the missing family member that resembles the jumping man.  Jeff makes note that not only was the SPJ code a good one to utilize, the placement they chose for the article made it more "palatable," since we weren't bombarded with the image of a man falling to his death from A1.  Jeff also does well in using two other methods to interpret the decision of Richard Drew: Utilitarianism (oh Mill, you devil you) and something a bit different: Communitarianism.  While Jeff argues that the Utilitarian view can be used as a great educator for the pain of having to see this photo, the Communitarian view intrigues me, since I feel no one really poked into this view too much, maybe since it's so close to Utilitarianism, as it emphasizes thinking in terms of the community, especially since the photo helped people identify and locate their missing family.  Overall, I liked Jeff's decision to include communitarianism on account that it really does make the photo a power tool.

Write or Wrong?

Like most things that we encounter in life, there's always more than one side:  Let's take the situation at hand: A child has committed suicide and you have to report about it.  So how do you go about doing this?  According to Malone's article regarding Megan Meier and cyber-bullying, there are two ways to take this argument. 

Before I get into anything, I do have to say that I wish (and this is solely in a perfect world) that social media and social networks could have a filter or a way to intervene in situations of cyberbullying - my only real qualm with this method is that how does anyone know what is bullying or what isn't? Furthermore, why don't those being bullied just stop using their account, or start a new one, without the bullies in question.  You can always unfriend people, delete posts, or just flat-out block comments/filter comments. 

To be honest, when you look at the situations involving a girl being bullied on myspace or anyone being bullied on Facebook, the easiest way to divert attention from the bullying and move on would be to just shut down the old account and make a new one. 
Problem solved.
But sometimes there are cases when people search and try to find others that can give vital information to find out who the person is.  This is when it's starting to go too far.

If it's a minor case of bullying, then generally, changing your account status would solve the problem.  Its at a severity level that people don't really care.  If something, say loyalties, were to really become a main factor in the bullying, then you might have people researching, investigating, and trying to locate the bullied child.  This is when something needs to be done. 

So The Suburban Journals writer Steve Pokin, a 30 year veteran of journalism, took the approach of writing the story without identifying the neighbors, but by writing a story about a girl's heartache and two parents who were grieving.  I look at this from Bok's point of view - First, lets look at our own personal gains and ethics:  We could say as Pokin that we are writing this from a standpoint of justice - we need to let the world know that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.  But what about the lack of crimes and allegations?  What about the parents' point of view. 

The next level would reveal from the opposing side, the neighbors in question of being identified, as terrified as to what would happen if they were singled out and punished as an example not from the law-abiding hands of the law, but from the rough hand of the common public.  Let's face it - there are men and women that wanted to beat, maim, and even kill the neighbors that did this to the child. 

Since we're still at an ethical dilemma, we should see what would happen if we take other points of views - the police don't know how to treat it, since they don't have any crimes they can tag onto the perpetrators; the common man would want to strike down those who would do something like that to a child, as well as those who protect their names.  But was that a bad thing for Pokin to do?  Unveiling those names could have still provided more disaster on a secondary and tertiary level:  What if someone used those names to find them and harm them in an act of vigilantism. 

The best thing to do is go from the other side and see how that would work out - in this case, the Post identified the neighbors after it finally appeared on the blogosphere.  Let's take something like Kant's Categorical Imperative and put this to use, as that we would want to treat those the way we want to be treated.  Based on this, we could say in defense of the Post that they merely identified the neighbors first off because they were already identified, and had false information added.  SImply put, if I were being identified in this situation, I would have wanted the whole truth, and no false allegations added to my name.   Really, the Post could be following Kant's imperative by the fact that we should know - that we would want to know anyone else's name, and therefore there shouldn't be any reason to withhold those names.

Honestly, I find the first situation more compelling of the two I have worked out:  while transparency is clear in Kant's method, as well as Justice (we known the truth, and we want Justice for their crimes), the situation of harm becomes the biggest problem - people are sure they want to hurt these neighbors as a whole, and that they are willing to tarnish a man's journalistic career because he is being loyal to his code of fairness - he has simply presented a story, and explained a situation that is a problem, and instead of people doing something about the situation, they wish to deal with the problem at hand - the unknown neighbors.  in a case like this, Autonomy is key - the actions of the journalist was to keep people safe (in my opinion), and as well, since no laws were found broken, why violate these people's privacy?  While they were not necessarily punished in public, the severity of the situation will be found on their shoulders (that is, to say, that they aren't sociopathic and devoid of all emotion). 

Really, I think of community here as failing a big, despite their desire to right the wrongs done against the child:  While a girl died from this, an example needs to be made, but as the saying goes: an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Tortilla with Cheese, Meat and Vegetables.

So I had to check out the definition of Public Relations, as defined by Public Relations Society of America:

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."

This is as broad of a definition as one I've ever seen.  In fact, this feels similar to saying that a burrito is a tortilla with meat, cheese and vegetables, and be completely confident in saying that a Fajita is a tortilla with meat, cheese and vegetables (Thank you so much for that one, Jim Gaffigan).  Heck, I could take my job and say that I am a public relations expert:  I make coffee and talk to my customers.  In doing so, I and helping the company and its publics adapt mutually to each other, through the process of drinking and making coffee.

This is like finding a loophole in a contract:  this definition is just to easy to manipulate and turn into something different, based on its simplicity.  In addition, journalists can claim to be Public Relations people as well, since they are helping their publications and their readers adapt to each other, in as mutual a way as possible.  Furthermore, how do we define mutually?  Surely, someone could be mutual in adapting to someone else if they don't know the whole truth. 

Example: Person A has is a master linguist, but he has killed many people.  Person B needs a friend.  B meets A, and A doesn't say anything about being a killer - Based on what B knows, he thinks that A is fairly well educated and a nice, decent guy.

Let's try a bit of an overhaul - Public relations fosters the relationship between an organization and their current and potential stakeholders through advertising, journalism and discussion.

So why do I like this definition: Public relations doesn't just help an organization adapt to its peoples, and vice versa: Public Relations is trying to get you to like us, and create a relationship to one another, hence the "fostering."  While our targets are the "publics," there's no way you're going to "sell beef to a vegetarian" - we need to establish a relationship to those that are targets of our audience, as well as reinforce our relationships with those who already have a stake in the company.  The last part was simple - we need to show some methods of giving us "the message."

 As far as problematic issues in PR today, I want to point out a quote in Keith Trivitt's article, which was linked into Mr. Corbett's article on PR:

"That said, I was a little shocked to read in PRWeek UK a quote from Speed Communications MD Steve Earl that, “Smearing is an integral part of PR.”

This scares me - the fact that people are seriously thinking that this is ethical just shows a lack of ethics: What Transparency is here?  You are literally creating a bad image for a competitor using any means, whether it be digging up dirt or fabricating something.  This is BLATANTLY harmful.  This is a terrible way to call justice to a company.  This shows a lack of privacy. 

You can argue that smear campaigns are autonomous and for the community, but that's simply based on our own decision making process and what we choose to believe.  What should be noted is that we are being fed the negative, which will only create more negative.

Finally, a note on the practices that are being researched by the FTC and the PRSA - I am personally in hysterics for the first one: If someone chooses to align themselves with a dictator, they've already got a couple of screws loose, but on the other hand, it's just a business with a poor sense of ethical theory taking whatever job they can scrounge up. 

I digress - really, a dictator doesn't need a PR campaign: that's why he has propagandists and a military, to boot. 

What could be looked into would be finding a way to make sure that the above style of using smear campaigns be stopped - it's almost like a resurfacing of yellow journalism, which really was a terrible way of enticing readers to choose one source over another.  Aside from that, smears should be considered "hearsay" and "libel."

/end rant.

Product Placement and Us

I took a look at chapter 3's case studies today and found a very interesting concept that I would love to address - Product Placement.  The case study I chose to look at was Case 3-D in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, 7th Edition by Phillip Patterson and Lee Wilkins.  The case study makes claim that "brand integration," or what more of us common folk like to call product placement, is a growing trend in television.  

So the code of ethics i decided to try out with this would be the Institute for Advertising Ethics Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics.  I chose this because in my current endeavors, I spend a lot of time making sure that people are not advertising anything, down to a little logo that might end up on a shirt, to a blank, black baseball cap with no logo on it (which let me tell you, is incredibly difficult to find in downtown Stamford.)  This code is in relation to how if advertising is being used, how it should be used ethically, and as it quotes in the preamble, "The one constant is transparency, and the need to conduct ourselves, our businesses, and our relationships with consumers in a fair, honest, and forthright manner." (p,2)

I feel that this is an incredible piece of the puzzle, when it comes to placing anything into any medium - we should know at some point, whether it be in the credits, or in the opening, or in a commercial by a television spot, that we are being sold to by some sort of business, and that dropping that product should be rightfully credited to the writer, or whomever placed it.  Equally, the person that included it should be compensated in some way.  As stated in Patterson's case study, "…television writers protested outside a panel discussing the state of brand integration in television programming.  Among their gripes: they want more of a say in how products will be placed and, inevitably, a share of the profits generated from writing a product into the script." (Patterson, 76) 
That is to say, though that an equally important argument takes place in the same article by Patterson, "But while commercials under girded the television industry for the first 50 years, the advent of the remote, and more recently TiVo have allowed consumers to avoid the very commercials that make the programming free." (Patterson, 76)

So we know that it needs to be done - but what of the Code?  Principle 4 of the code states, "Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. (p.6), but if writers are not being paid or compensated in any way, is this truly being practiced?  This brings up Sissela Bok's model of  ethical reasoning - first, take into account your personal feelings.  Obviously, if someone wants to promote a company and make some money, they would want the ad to run - it seems like a Win-Win situation.  Now lets look at stage two: at those being affected: The producers and writers: If they aren't being compensated in some way, is it really right to insert something into their show when it could cause a flaw in the creative process?  And what of the viewers?  Seeing an iPhone, or att's MiFi pimped perpetually in "The Vampire Diaries" is just silly, and makes me realize I'm being sold to.  Any other viewer could just look passed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xKnvOhulBs

So maybe we should check out something different - maybe some good ol' Utilitarianism: The greatest amount of good for the smallest amount of grief.  We can take a look at this and see that economically, an advertiser would want product placement in a show - it provides advertisement, which in turn raises revenue due to more eyes reached by the product.  Similarly, the company is given more money to work with, which means more budget, and greater production value.  So the writer doesn't get paid as much, or doesn't get a new toy to play with.  Is it that big of a deal?
Take into account later on in Patterson's article, when he mentions that the public Austrian broadcaster ORF airs "more than 1000 product placements a year on its shows and provides the ORF with about $24 million in funds to supplement its budget of approximately $1 billion." (Patterson, 77)

Personally, I'd be a bit peeved if I wasn't compensated.  I had to do some extra work to make sure that your ad was seen in the end-result, and if i wasn't being compensated when $24 million dollars was being disposed of to put an iPhone or a pair of Levi's into my show, I'd be expected to see some of that money.  At least give me some of the product as a gift to take home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trc9Nu_e6qE

Well, check out the Code, if anything here.  You can download it off of the AAF's website.

http://www.aaf.org/default.asp?id=1236

BIB:
Patterson, Philip. "Was That an Apple Computer I Just Saw?  A comparison of Product Placement in U.S. Network Television and Abroad"  Media Ethics: Issues and Cases: 7th ed.  Patterson, Philip and Wilkinson, Lee.  New York, NY.  McGraw-Hill.  2011.  p. 76-77.  Print.

Dirty Little Secrets

Secret Information is something we come across on a daily basis.  The question at hand is always, "do I reveal it, or not?  I think that for our purposes and in today's context, All i need to pull up is this passage:

"Telling the 'truth' therefore is not solely a matter of moral character; it is also a matter of correct appreciation of real situations and of serious reflection upon them...Telling the truth, therefore, is something which must be learnt." (Bok 1978, 302-303)

What is Sissela Bok talking about here?  Truth is something learned?  Yet we all know that truth is something that we are all fixed to know - that truth is the right thing to do, and telling the truth is simply pointing out the facts.
Wrong.
Truth is something much more convoluted and more dynamic today than it was back in the days when we pushed our way in horse-and-carriage.  Secret information is secret for a reason: it has the potential to hurt and/or harm. depending on several factors.  Take, for instance, this personal example:

An employee at a small retail company begins engaging in a serious relationship with one of his fellow employees.  Now both employees keep this fact to themselves, as they know that this has the potential of separation and termination, as stated in the company code of conduct.  Upon promotion, the gentleman approaches his manager and tells her that he is in a serious relationship and he did not want to jeopardize his job or his significant others' employment.  The manager decides to keep it secret, as does the whole store - She believes that both employees understand that they have obligations to their job that come before their personal obligations, and that they would act appropriately in the workplace.  Also, she has had this situation happen before, and upon reflection she has only had good experiences with employees that share a relationship in the workplace.
 
Months later, a separate manager who discovers that these two employees are engaging in a relationship, who is approached with the same situation, decides to blow the whistle on not only the two employees that she is working with (as they are not complying with company policy and placing personal obligations before job obligations), but also call out the previous manager on the relationship that is currently in process at her store.

So what makes the secrets good secrets?  What makes them wrongful?  Honestly the situation isn't as clear-cut as one would think anymore.  As Bok mentioned in the quote above, a situation like this requires not just moral character, but appreciation of real situations and serious reflection.  As with all situations we encounter, it's not as simple as just going "by the book."  Sometimes, that could lead to a very negative response.  Instead, in the above example, the manager above used her prior knowledge of similar situations, as well as her own knowledge of the two employees that were in question and decided that this was something worth keeping a secret - good could be had if no one blew the whistle on this.

The second manager, on the other hand, needed to blow the whistle.  While both employees could be viewed as good workers, they were definitely not benefiting in the workplace, and instead other priorities had taken place instead of work priorities.

How does this relate to media?  Surely, a relationship in the workplace doesn't completely transmit to a situation government information being leaked and exposing national secrets.  This does expose a way of dealing with a secret.  According to Bok, it's as simple of using your prior knowledge and making a judgement call.  Bok's criteria for discerning the right ethical choice seems fairly logical - Think about the possible ramifications for yourself, then for the opposing party, and finally about everyone that hypothetically could be involved.

So could I be able to get around this whole secrets thing?

Absolutely not.

This is definitely something that you cannot avoid (unless you decided to live in a hole...or equally as isolated - under a rock).  So what can we do to prepare ourselves for these secrets that we are inevitably come in contact with, and what are we supposed to get from them? 

I do believe that these secrets that we encounter and our own reactions to them and the reactions of others are necessary to what Bok states above, that we are learning the truth.  The truth is something that has different sides to it and different timings that are integral to how it reacts in the public view.  The best part about it is that it will never necessarily be wrong to let the truth out - just a different reaction can and will be expected. 

Just remember to state the truth at some point.

I feel Ancestral

We all have problems that we need to resolve...so how do we resolve them not only correctly, but also righteously?  I think about my future in filmmaking as well as my own creations in the past and I feel that I have my fair share of moments that I am going to encounter.

Of the scenarios that I plan to face are some that I am already familiar with, my favorite being the producer-as-boss scenario.  I find this to be a dangerous, yet important scenario that any up-and-coming filmmaker needs to prepare for: that no matter how good you can make something look, the producer will never just say "This is perfect...lets finalize this and produce!"

Oh how I wish.

Really, anything I create is generally scrutinized to the producer's wants and desires.  It is never EXACTLY what they want, but rather something close that could only achieve their own dream if they make it themselves.  What makes this scenario so tense is my own input - If it goes against their wishes, they could become aggressive, apprehensive and even boot me off of the project.  I know this because it's almost happened before to me.  It's tough - we sometimes are told to scrap the whole project and start from scratch, but no matter how we feel, we have to nod and go back to work. 

It reminds me of a time when I had finished a project for a corporation, and the night before their large congregation, they asked me to make more changes and produce a new project.  I had to take my aggression out on the old DVD I had given them, but at the same time I used my night to recreate their vision and give them a work that made some of the people cry in the audience.

I anticipate more than this - I'm in a field where anything can happen at any time, and if I pull my camera out at the right time I can have a shot similar to Stanley Forman's Pulitzer Prize photograph.  I can easily find myself in a situation where I have footage or something important, whether creatively or non-fictionally, and be given the choice - run it or hide it.

I believe I have a huge set of ethics and decisions prepared for these situations not just from course work, but also from personal experience.  In my undergraduate studies I had not only taken basic classes on philosophy, but also on ethical theory.  I am familiar with works like Plato's Republic, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, as well as the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanual Kant.

I wouldn't know many questions I would ask in class, mostly because I'm not sure I am faced with many situations in my current juncture in life.  What I would want to learn more about is the ethical relationships between boss and employee.  I feel that I have had my strongest situations revolving around this relationship, as I have always been close to a supervisor, whether it be professionally or as a friend.