Last weekend I was in Los Angeles for the 54th Annual Grammy Awards. It was a surreal experience. Not that I was in Los Angeles at this time, but that as a PR professional I found myself facing what I used to consider everyday decisions, but what, after taking course CM 503, I now recognize as ethical dilemmas. Whitney Houston died on Saturday, February 11th hours before two of Grammy’s biggest events – the Clive Davis pre-Grammy party and the Creative Artist Agency (CAA) event, the latter of which I was sponsoring. A music legend has died – does the show still go on? All afternoon we heard conflicting reports about which events would still happen and which would be cancelled. Was it too gruesome to hold Davis’s bash several floors beneath the room where Ms. Houston’s body still lay? Do we still push our PR agency to try to get as much press for our brand as possible when we knew that at a time like this most celebrities would not want to pose on the red carpet or be interviewed about how much they like this or that sponsor’s product. In the end, Mr. Davis’s bash continued as planned, as did the CAA event that I attended. But it was as if the entire city were aware of the ethical dilemma Ms. Houston’s death placed on the weekend’s celebrations. The show did go on, but the celebrations were much more subdued and less “in your face” in acknowledgement of the passing of one of music’s greatest stars.
I will definitely miss the lively debates we had during CM503, but before it ends, here’s a quick look back on what I’ve learned from the course and from some of my classmates:
Terrance White - CM503 Blog post 4 – January 28, 2012
What I appreciated most about Terrance White’s blog post of January 28 was his adaptation of the official definition of PR. I believe that Terrance hit the mark by recognizing that in today’s world of social media, the art of public relations is no longer one sided, but an interactive form of communication. A successful public relations practitioner today recognizes the power held by consumers who have quick and easy access to tools that can be used to directly impact the bottom line of their client’s businesses. With Twitter, YouTube and the like, consumers can turn a whisper into the roar of a stadium crowd. I found his definition, “a strategy for organizations to communicate ideas to their publics and gauge public sentiment,” much more aligned with today’s reality.
However, what I didn’t agree with from this blog post – but can fully understand – was Terrance’s belief that the practice of ethics is unrealistic in the workplace. I believe that we make ethical decisions multiple times throughout the day whether it be the decision to use our work computer (and our job’s time) to take advantage of all those “Cyber Monday” deals after Christmas or whether we decide to use our company’s email system to forward along the joke that some might find inappropriate for distribution at the workplace. Whether the ethical dilemmas we face are what some might consider small, there can be no doubt that people choose to do right or wrong on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. Terrance would most likely label me idealistic, but I find it completely depressing to believe that most people would not choose to do the right thing when faced with the ‘big’ things too.
Kimmie Roleder – ‘Livin the Dream: In High Spirits” – January 20, 2012
I believe that Kimmie Roleder’s post about Patterson & Wilkins’ Case 10-D (Naomi Campbell vs. the Daily Mirror), could have been enhanced with the introduction of philosopher William David Ross’s Pluralistic Theory of Value. In his book “The Right and The Good” Ross proposes that “there is often more than one ethical value simultaneously ‘competing’ for preeminence in our ethical decision making,” (Patterson & Wilkins, Chapter 1, p. 12). I believe that to be the case in the dilemma that faced Daily Mirror staffers. Although it’s true that according to the code of professional journalists the reporters following the case of whether or not Naomi Campbell was a drug addict or not did not violate the first edict – Seek Truth and Report it – the question remains, who benefitted from exposing the truth of Ms. Campbell’s drug habit? Using Ross’s pluralistic theory of value – the act of the paper to reveal the photo of Ms. Campbell leaving a drug/alcohol meeting had little if any ethical value.
If we think about the right and the good, even if the public (the community) is interested in the goings on of someone’s private life, splashing those goings on across the front page of a national newspaper isn’t necessarily right. In this case, I disagree with Kimmie’s application of the ethical theory of Communitarianism. If Ms. Campbell were a political or religious figure, or an educator, perhaps her personal habits would be of great important to the healthy functioning of society (community), but as a model whose chief job is to help designers sell clothes and beauty companies sell make-up – the public doesn’t have an undeniable right to know about her struggles with addiction.
Pricilla Pauta – “When You Harm Others, YOUR Privacy Shouldn’t Matter”
– February 4, 2012
In Pricilla Pauta’s blog ‘When You Harm Others, YOUR Privacy Shouldn’t Matter’, she contends that the mistake or wrongful act of a person strips him or her of their right to privacy. I disagree with this premise as it does not take into account the shades of grey that permeate life. I guess in some ways Pricilla’s position follows Kant’s Categorical Imperative principle that closely mirrors the scriptural edict: do unto others what you would have done unto you. In this vein, exposing the names of Megan Meier’s tormentors to the public would expose them to the sort of bullying treatment they inflicted on Megan. However, is perpetuating this cycle of behavior what’s best for the society at large? If we consider the Communitarianism theory of ethics the answer is an emphatic ‘no’.
I also disagree with Pricilla’s position to hold social networks accountable for the harm that can sometimes be done via electronic platforms. If we consider social networks like Facebook and Myspace as electronic billboards on which users can voice their opinions and personal thoughts, asking these platforms to police the content their users post is akin to asking a piece of paper to monitor and correct the words a writer places on it. Other users of these platforms have the right to look or not to look at the content that anyone places online. Just was we control what we watch by a press of a button on a television’s remote control – we have the ability to ‘friend’ or ‘like’ a person, statement or post on Facebook. We also have the ability to ‘unlike’ or ‘unfriend’ someone whose opinions we find disagreeable. In the case of younger people, I believe that parents should monitor their child’s use of these networks, determining at what age their child is mature enough to view or filter the content found there and at what age their child will know what to do with or how to handle negative information found there.
Billy Skelos – “Snitches get Stiches” – January 12, 2012
I can relate to Billy’s January 12th post, specifically the maturity that recognizes the need for caution when dealing with social media. I’m so cautious (…or is it paranoid) about what can be revealed about me via social media that I hesitated when deciding to attached my name or photo to our course blog. I’d assumed that it would be private – kept within the University’s computing system. Once I found out that it would be public, I found myself watching more closely what opinions I shared for fear that some could prove damaging to my career. Social media can be fun…but it can also cause a lot of harm…so must be used with care.
I also agree with Billy’s position on secrets. In today’s world of instant communication it’s sometimes hard to maintain privacy. What’s worse is that some people forget that everyone has a right to privacy. In many ways the internet and social media have worked to shrink our personal boundaries. Without personal boundaries, without privacy, people are exposed to undo criticism that can ultimately wear on one’s self esteem and feeling of self-worth. It is this constant feeling of exposure that causes those – such as teens – to become overwhelmed and suffer from insecurity, which can lead to all sorts of unhealthy coping mechanisms.
Lauren Tilton – “We All Have Our Secrets…” – January 14, 2012
I appreciated Lauren’s blog on secrets. I found it well written and appreciated the example she gave to make her point of the Boston Globe’s decision to publish the name of the whistleblower in the capture of gangster James “Whitey” Bulger. I agree with Lauren that the name of the woman who pointed the finger at Bulger – who was wanted for 19 murders – should not have been released. Those who choose to do the right thing and turn in someone for breaking the law should be protected from any repercussions associated with their actions.
It would appear that the Globe faced some backlash for releasing this information given the follow-up articles it published in defense of its actions and the statements made by the FBI that appeared to contradict statements made by the reporters who leaked the whistleblower’s name.
Although I agree with Lauren’s position, I believe her post could have been enhanced by using the ethical theories studied in class to underpin her position. Specifically, the argument against publishing the name of a whistleblower could be supported by John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism philosophy, which proposes that “The consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical.” (Patterson & Wilkins, Chapter 1, p.10). Using this theory would move the blog post from the statement of an opinion to the result of sound ethical theory.
***
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Bullies Beware
When I was a child my four brothers and sisters and I enjoyed a sometimes bucolic childhood filled with lots of cousins, and therefore, lots of play and lots of love. These carefree years were also filled with lots of bullying in the form of harsh words and criticism. Back then neither we children nor, to my knowledge, our parents, recognized it as such, but years later I know that the harm done was just the same. Bullying manifested itself in the form of derogatory comments made to our cousins Michael and Michelle because they were the lightest skinned of us all and similarly cruel comments and behavior towards our cousin Andre. I’m still not sure why he was fair game to be picked on, I just know that my older siblings and other cousins treated him poorly, so in my mind I was allowed to do so as well. As an adult today I recognize the behaviors I witnessed and participated in as bullying and deeply regret that as a child I didn’t know how to recognize this as wrong behavior or inform an adult.
In the case described by Roy Malone, I believe that the decision by Steve Pokin not to publish the name of the offenders in the case of the Megan Meier suicide was ethically sound based on Mill’s theory of ethical decision making. Mills’s utilitarian view of ethical dilemmas suggests that the greatest good for the greatest number of people [Patterson/Wilkins, p.11] should drive the process of deciding what to do in the face of an ethical dilemma. This model focuses on the outcome of an action. Using this model, Malone could argue that releasing the names of the offenders could have increased the threat of harm (or mob justice) towards the mother, her daughter and the 18-year-old employee. Looking at the situation from this perspective, releasing the names of these people would be unethical as it could generate the very behavior towards these people that they inflicted on Megan Meier.
Conversely, Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory placed the emphasis on the act itself, not the outcome (Patterson/Wilkins, p.9-10). Kant suggested that an act was morally justified if it was completed from a position of duty. In the case of the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s decision to print the names of the Megan Meier’s tormentors, one could say that the paper acted out of duty to its readers to tell as complete a story as possible. In this view, their decision was ethical as they provided their readers with the whole story, or rather, as much of the story as they had access to.
Personally, I find Mill’s ethical theory more compelling in the case of Megan Meier. I would place more weight on the greater good or the outcome of releasing or withholding the names of those who bullied her to death. I find the threat of vigilantism a compelling reason not to release the names.
In my opinion, the duty of a newspaper is to provide its readers with valuable information to help them make decisions or form opinions on issues that affect their lives. I believe that most readers expect their publications to provide them with thorough and true information devoid of opinion or bias. In this way our media should be autonomous and should investigate issues that benefit our communities in such a way as to make transparent issues that are being hidden or covered up by industry, politicians and the like. Our media should strive to bring no harm to its readers, but rather, provide justice for those whose voices are not being heard. Taking these issues into consideration, it could be argued that the decision to release the names of Megan’s tormentors by the Post Dispatch was justified as doing so meant that the paper was making transparent a situation that had been covered up by other media and by the police. The public has a right to know when members of their community are accused of, or have admitted to committing, what some might consider a crime. Today our society recognizes the real danger bullying. Therefore, it should be held on par with other crimes, especially those that harm a child. Just as its important to know when someone has admitted to or has been convicted of molesting a child, the public has the right to know when an adult has admitted to bullying a child – especially when the result of that behavior resulted in the child’s death.
Conversely, I believe that Polkin and his Suburban Journals editor placed more weight on the issues of harm, privacy and community when deciding not to release the names of the neighbors who drove Megan to suicide. From this perspective one could argue that releasing the names would cause more harm than good as it could drive vigilantism, which in the long run would undermine our country’s justice system and cause more overall harm to the community. Our justice system is based on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the neighbor, her daughter and the employee admitted to the act of bullying, but with no anti-bullying laws on the books, the police could not hold them for judgement by a jury of their peers. Should someone be ostracized for acts not distinguished as a crime by our justice system? Perhaps not.
A majority of our class discussions have touched on the fundamentals of the First Amendment – the right to free speech. This basic right is the most valued, and perhaps the most defended, of all our rights. In my opinion, social networks like Myspace and Facebook are platforms for users to exercise their freedom of speech. These platforms allow users to share their personal thoughts with friends and acquaintances, and depending on their privacy settings, the public at large. In many ways they are electronic pieces of paper or electronic diaries. Should the piece of paper be held accountable for the words and opinions that are written on them? I say no.
I believe that the danger of holding social networks accountable for cases of cyber-bullying and other such activity is a reducing of human accountability. The ultimate responsibility and ethical burden should reside with the person who posts the negative or harmful language – the person “guilty” of the bullying. To rely on the creators of social media sites like Myspace and Facebook to determine when social communication crosses the line into bullying is akin to challenging the right to free speech. A business, like a government, shouldn’t have the right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot say. Similarly, although I am an African American I cannot condemn the right of followers of the Ku Klux Klan to march in the streets when that same right is what helped leaders of the Civil Rights movement spread their message of equality. The right to free speech is what draws people to this country. The right to voice our opinions should not be restricted because a few choose to use today’s most popular platform – social media – to speak in a way that some consider harmful to others. In the end, the words that come out of someone’s mouth or that is typed by someone’s fingers are the responsibility of that person.
###
In the case described by Roy Malone, I believe that the decision by Steve Pokin not to publish the name of the offenders in the case of the Megan Meier suicide was ethically sound based on Mill’s theory of ethical decision making. Mills’s utilitarian view of ethical dilemmas suggests that the greatest good for the greatest number of people [Patterson/Wilkins, p.11] should drive the process of deciding what to do in the face of an ethical dilemma. This model focuses on the outcome of an action. Using this model, Malone could argue that releasing the names of the offenders could have increased the threat of harm (or mob justice) towards the mother, her daughter and the 18-year-old employee. Looking at the situation from this perspective, releasing the names of these people would be unethical as it could generate the very behavior towards these people that they inflicted on Megan Meier.
Conversely, Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory placed the emphasis on the act itself, not the outcome (Patterson/Wilkins, p.9-10). Kant suggested that an act was morally justified if it was completed from a position of duty. In the case of the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s decision to print the names of the Megan Meier’s tormentors, one could say that the paper acted out of duty to its readers to tell as complete a story as possible. In this view, their decision was ethical as they provided their readers with the whole story, or rather, as much of the story as they had access to.
Personally, I find Mill’s ethical theory more compelling in the case of Megan Meier. I would place more weight on the greater good or the outcome of releasing or withholding the names of those who bullied her to death. I find the threat of vigilantism a compelling reason not to release the names.
In my opinion, the duty of a newspaper is to provide its readers with valuable information to help them make decisions or form opinions on issues that affect their lives. I believe that most readers expect their publications to provide them with thorough and true information devoid of opinion or bias. In this way our media should be autonomous and should investigate issues that benefit our communities in such a way as to make transparent issues that are being hidden or covered up by industry, politicians and the like. Our media should strive to bring no harm to its readers, but rather, provide justice for those whose voices are not being heard. Taking these issues into consideration, it could be argued that the decision to release the names of Megan’s tormentors by the Post Dispatch was justified as doing so meant that the paper was making transparent a situation that had been covered up by other media and by the police. The public has a right to know when members of their community are accused of, or have admitted to committing, what some might consider a crime. Today our society recognizes the real danger bullying. Therefore, it should be held on par with other crimes, especially those that harm a child. Just as its important to know when someone has admitted to or has been convicted of molesting a child, the public has the right to know when an adult has admitted to bullying a child – especially when the result of that behavior resulted in the child’s death.
Conversely, I believe that Polkin and his Suburban Journals editor placed more weight on the issues of harm, privacy and community when deciding not to release the names of the neighbors who drove Megan to suicide. From this perspective one could argue that releasing the names would cause more harm than good as it could drive vigilantism, which in the long run would undermine our country’s justice system and cause more overall harm to the community. Our justice system is based on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the neighbor, her daughter and the employee admitted to the act of bullying, but with no anti-bullying laws on the books, the police could not hold them for judgement by a jury of their peers. Should someone be ostracized for acts not distinguished as a crime by our justice system? Perhaps not.
A majority of our class discussions have touched on the fundamentals of the First Amendment – the right to free speech. This basic right is the most valued, and perhaps the most defended, of all our rights. In my opinion, social networks like Myspace and Facebook are platforms for users to exercise their freedom of speech. These platforms allow users to share their personal thoughts with friends and acquaintances, and depending on their privacy settings, the public at large. In many ways they are electronic pieces of paper or electronic diaries. Should the piece of paper be held accountable for the words and opinions that are written on them? I say no.
I believe that the danger of holding social networks accountable for cases of cyber-bullying and other such activity is a reducing of human accountability. The ultimate responsibility and ethical burden should reside with the person who posts the negative or harmful language – the person “guilty” of the bullying. To rely on the creators of social media sites like Myspace and Facebook to determine when social communication crosses the line into bullying is akin to challenging the right to free speech. A business, like a government, shouldn’t have the right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot say. Similarly, although I am an African American I cannot condemn the right of followers of the Ku Klux Klan to march in the streets when that same right is what helped leaders of the Civil Rights movement spread their message of equality. The right to free speech is what draws people to this country. The right to voice our opinions should not be restricted because a few choose to use today’s most popular platform – social media – to speak in a way that some consider harmful to others. In the end, the words that come out of someone’s mouth or that is typed by someone’s fingers are the responsibility of that person.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)