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.