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.