“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other." This is the definition that Stuart Elliot gives us in his New York Times article "Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media." But this definition is about as boring and general as watching a white wall of paint dry. Although I have only worked in Public Relations for a short time, I think there's a little more to it than that. PR is about emotion, relationships, information, secrets, leaks, ethics, communication, personality, presentation and much more. The bottom line could be found in the definition provided by Elliot: basic and simple. But its nothing new that our society runs on complexity.
We learned in class that advertising and public relations go hand in hand. Lori talked about the "ubiquity of advertising" and that it is everywhere. So if advertising has masked the world over, so has public relations. Commodity Propaganda, which touches more universally between advertising and PR, is both industries "wrapping up the public's emotions and selling them back to the people" (Bindig, Class lecture). Nothing is ever given to chance, but is all intentional. Advertisers have specific goals when it comes to getting their product from the shelves to the home. Public Relations then act as the backbone for the ads, making sure that the message is relayed to company standards.
But PR companies act as more than just a buffer or link between the public and an organization. An alternative definition might look something like this: Public Relations create and maintain strong relationships between businesses and the public while sustaining a professional and ethical presence within the industry.
This definition not only gives more than a slight connection between the public and organizations, but it also brings the importance of ethics into the picture. Maintaining a professional presence is exceptionally important because often times the relationship between PR, Advertisers and the public becomes too relaxed. Advertisers are trying to win over the approval of the public, and what better way to do that, then to become buddy buddy? But crossing professional lines and not creating or maintaining strong relationships can lead to ethical issues potentially putting the organization on blast.
After looking the ethical issues presented in both articles, I feel that the Facebook/Google case breached important ethical standards. Facebook intentionally went after another corporation in a malicious manner. Most would think that lying to the public would be more problematic as deception tends to be very offensive, but for a company to intentionally harm another? Looks like friendly competition may only exist in sports. This doesn't bode well for facebooks sense of "community" that it talks so highly about it. Facebook is supposed to make you feel part of any community, whether you're in China, Ireland or the good old USA. You can feel accepted and a part of different social groups, while maintaining relationships with friends and family.
Like we've learned in class, ethical situations don't necessarily always have right or wrong answers. Monitoring various practices is a good start, but its a tedious monotonous job that may only go so far. Our human nature is to get lazy, and even the best cops, investigators, and doctors slack off from time to time. Companies, cases, and individuals will fall through the crack and there's nothing we can really do about it. No one is perfect. I think more specific laws within the PR industry might be another good attempt to keep ethical issues under wrap. However, rules are also made to be broken. Making formal regulations will also require to make consequences. Is it worth all the paperwork? It might be in our own interest to keep things the way they are now, but instead incorporate seminars, meetings, and other less formal presentations to help prevent future ethical wars between companies.
Perhaps I am naive by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. But I can't help remind everyone that we are all just trying to make it. We have rules to keep us in line, and when those rules are broken, there are consequences (or should be). Often times people get away with a slap on the wrist, but in the end it all goes back to the first amendment. We are a democratic nation right? We all want the right to say what we want, practice what we want, and think what we want. And aren't we all striving for the same thing? "Autonomy, self-esteem, happy family, loving relationships, leisure time, and good friendships all make the quality of life" each of us are searching (Binding, lecture).
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Livin the Dream: In High Spirits
I have chosen Case 10-D from Patterson and Wilkins Chapter 10. This particular scenario is about Naomi Campbell and how journalists violated her privacy during her drug addiction. The Code of Ethics I will be referring to is from the Society of Professional Journalists. I will also reference our Plaisance Ch. 2 reading for further analysis.
Let's begin with a rundown of the case. Naomi Campbell began her career as a supermodel at the age of 15. She is an African American woman who was discovered in London and became one of the worlds most successful models in the 80's and 90's. Apart from her success as an African American woman in the modeling industry, she gained much recognition for her "prima donna" attitude, violent behavior and drug abuse. The latter is what gave Campbell the front cover of many gossip magazines and newspapers even though she continually denied being involved with drugs.
But journalists refused to let the issue go no matter how hard Campbell fought. The public had a right to know if she was dealing illegally on the side. In 2001, London's Daily Mirror published an article that included a picture of Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The article gave specific details about the meeting and Campbell went straight for the British courts suing for invasion of privacy. After a long hard battle, the courts ruled that Campbell's privacy was invaded and that she be rewarded $6,000 in damages and the tabloid to pay $110,000 for court costs. The judge ruled that although celebrities are in the lime light most of the time, and aspects of their private lives become public, they are still entitled to privacy.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, the journalists who reported Campbell leaving the meeting were not in violation of the first code: Seek Truth and Report It. Campbell was in fact addicted to drugs. She continually lied about it and in the end, the courts allowed the Daily Mirror to report on her addiction; the public had a right to know they were being lied to. But where things go a little south is with the second code: Minimize Harm. The journalists unfortunately did not take into consideration Campbell's well being. They did not "show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage...Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance...Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy."
The case does not provide much detailed information about the rest of the case, but it seems that Daily Mirror and its journalists did not violate the other two codes: Act Independently and Be Accountable. The only violation committed was a breach of privacy. Campbell herself even said she regretted many aspects of the trail. It seems that if Campbell had admitted her drug addiction from the beginning, this may not have been such a big headache. At the same time, how far into ones private life should journalists really go? It seems that this situation was blown way out of proportion because Campbell denied using drugs in the first place. That only gave Journalists a fire under their butt because they knew she was lying. But according to the code of the ethics for journalists, they crossed the line with the photograph and article about her Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
This code of ethics is helpful in understanding the main ethical issues of the case. They are specific as what to do and not do, and we can clearly see where they committed a violation. But if we want to dig a little deeper and ask questions like "Should celebrities have their own categories of privacy compared to others?" the code can't really help us answer them. There is no right or wrong answer for that question, and it will always be up for debate. Overall It seems there are more ethical questions in this case that can't be answered using the code of ethics. The code is good starting point, but unfortunately there can never be a written set of rules for what is right or wrong in life. It's never just black and white, there is always going to be a grey area.
With this case, the Communitariasm Theory might be effectively applied. Communitariasm focuses solely on justice and that the "communities interest trumps the individual's interest." The public most likely continued to show interest in Naomi Campbells drug addiction because she kept denying it. The journalist made it their priority to make sure the public was fully informed; they believed the community deserved a right to know and therefore took precedent over Campbell's wants or beliefs.
If we look at this case from Mill's perspective however, the journalists who reported might have wanted to rethink their decision to publish Campbell's story. Mill focused his principal on the consequences of actions. The result of the Daily Mirror publishing the article led to a law suit and long drawn out battle. In the end, they were ordered to repay Campbell in money for the damage the article bestowed on her. Losing over a hundred thousand dollars probably wasn't good for the paper. On the contrary however, they didn't mind the money so much. The judge ruled they were allowed to run a story concluding that Campbell was indeed a drug addict. They saw their loss as a small victory.
This case in my opinion is cut and dry in terms of code of ethics. The Daily Mirror clearly over stepped their boundaries when they published the article about Campbell's NA meeting. But at the same time, how many tabloids have we seen to date where this kind of information is splashed across the front page? Have our code of ethics in journalism gone out the window? Or have we just become tolerant with certain subjects? Celebrities are constantly in the lime light and are therefore subject to public scrutiny. Being public, being famous, is what they live for. So I can't help but understand where journalists are coming from. If you don't want people to know what your life is like, then don't put yourself in that position.
Let's begin with a rundown of the case. Naomi Campbell began her career as a supermodel at the age of 15. She is an African American woman who was discovered in London and became one of the worlds most successful models in the 80's and 90's. Apart from her success as an African American woman in the modeling industry, she gained much recognition for her "prima donna" attitude, violent behavior and drug abuse. The latter is what gave Campbell the front cover of many gossip magazines and newspapers even though she continually denied being involved with drugs.
But journalists refused to let the issue go no matter how hard Campbell fought. The public had a right to know if she was dealing illegally on the side. In 2001, London's Daily Mirror published an article that included a picture of Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The article gave specific details about the meeting and Campbell went straight for the British courts suing for invasion of privacy. After a long hard battle, the courts ruled that Campbell's privacy was invaded and that she be rewarded $6,000 in damages and the tabloid to pay $110,000 for court costs. The judge ruled that although celebrities are in the lime light most of the time, and aspects of their private lives become public, they are still entitled to privacy.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, the journalists who reported Campbell leaving the meeting were not in violation of the first code: Seek Truth and Report It. Campbell was in fact addicted to drugs. She continually lied about it and in the end, the courts allowed the Daily Mirror to report on her addiction; the public had a right to know they were being lied to. But where things go a little south is with the second code: Minimize Harm. The journalists unfortunately did not take into consideration Campbell's well being. They did not "show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage...Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance...Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy."
The case does not provide much detailed information about the rest of the case, but it seems that Daily Mirror and its journalists did not violate the other two codes: Act Independently and Be Accountable. The only violation committed was a breach of privacy. Campbell herself even said she regretted many aspects of the trail. It seems that if Campbell had admitted her drug addiction from the beginning, this may not have been such a big headache. At the same time, how far into ones private life should journalists really go? It seems that this situation was blown way out of proportion because Campbell denied using drugs in the first place. That only gave Journalists a fire under their butt because they knew she was lying. But according to the code of the ethics for journalists, they crossed the line with the photograph and article about her Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
This code of ethics is helpful in understanding the main ethical issues of the case. They are specific as what to do and not do, and we can clearly see where they committed a violation. But if we want to dig a little deeper and ask questions like "Should celebrities have their own categories of privacy compared to others?" the code can't really help us answer them. There is no right or wrong answer for that question, and it will always be up for debate. Overall It seems there are more ethical questions in this case that can't be answered using the code of ethics. The code is good starting point, but unfortunately there can never be a written set of rules for what is right or wrong in life. It's never just black and white, there is always going to be a grey area.
With this case, the Communitariasm Theory might be effectively applied. Communitariasm focuses solely on justice and that the "communities interest trumps the individual's interest." The public most likely continued to show interest in Naomi Campbells drug addiction because she kept denying it. The journalist made it their priority to make sure the public was fully informed; they believed the community deserved a right to know and therefore took precedent over Campbell's wants or beliefs.
If we look at this case from Mill's perspective however, the journalists who reported might have wanted to rethink their decision to publish Campbell's story. Mill focused his principal on the consequences of actions. The result of the Daily Mirror publishing the article led to a law suit and long drawn out battle. In the end, they were ordered to repay Campbell in money for the damage the article bestowed on her. Losing over a hundred thousand dollars probably wasn't good for the paper. On the contrary however, they didn't mind the money so much. The judge ruled they were allowed to run a story concluding that Campbell was indeed a drug addict. They saw their loss as a small victory.
This case in my opinion is cut and dry in terms of code of ethics. The Daily Mirror clearly over stepped their boundaries when they published the article about Campbell's NA meeting. But at the same time, how many tabloids have we seen to date where this kind of information is splashed across the front page? Have our code of ethics in journalism gone out the window? Or have we just become tolerant with certain subjects? Celebrities are constantly in the lime light and are therefore subject to public scrutiny. Being public, being famous, is what they live for. So I can't help but understand where journalists are coming from. If you don't want people to know what your life is like, then don't put yourself in that position.
Friday, January 13, 2012
It's Only A Matter Of Lies
In the wonderful world of sports whether its amateur, college or professional, secrets have made their way into every gymnasium, locker room, and office. One example of this hits close to home back in California and my alma mater.
I had a full athletic scholarship for volleyball at the university that I graduated from. Right before my senior season that started in August 2010, I tore my ACL in April and had have to surgery putting me out for over a year. I met with my coach a few times to discuss my options. He didn't have money for me to play a 5th year and suggested I give up my scholarship or transfer. But I didn't want to do either. Giving up my scholarship would take away my eligibility, and transferring meant I would have to leave my team and school. I chose to stick around, graduate, and transfer to another school to play my last eligible season.
About a month later I received a letter in the mail from the school saying that my coach was not going to renew my scholarship and that I was "fully aware of this decision." The letter explained that if I chose to fight this decision I had to submit a letter stating my position. I called my coach and asked what this was about and he told me that he was hoping to give me the money in a few months, but that I could submit a letter if it made me feel more at ease. I had never had any issues with my scholarship money until I got hurt and my coach knew I would be out for the season. Scholarships are taken away from athletes due to bad behavior, grades or other major offenses, but not for getting hurt. My coach discussed with only a few others because he knew that taking away my scholarship due to injury was wrong. Unfortunately those others who knew did not do anything about it.
I was faced with a decision: Trust my coach that he would give me my scholarship in a few months or fight him. I fought the letter and he was forced to give me my scholarship. But the fight wasn't over. My school had hired a new athletic director at the beginning of the school year in August 2010. After the season was over myself and two other seniors went to lunch with him. He asked why I wasn't coming back and the Assistant Athletic Director (who was very close with my coach and talked frequently with him) told the A.D. that I had used up my eligibility. This of course wasn't true at all. I tried to politely interrupt but it wasn't the time nor the place to talk in depth about what my coach had done. So I sat in silence.
If I had chosen to speak up later to the Athletic Director, I know that I would not only have questioned my coach, but the entire program and school. My coach had previously won 2 back-to-back national championships in 2002 and 2003. Since then, the program had been in the top 15 every year. Without a doubt, I could have put my coaches job in jeopardy. I could have put myself in jeopardy making such accusations toward my coach. But my morals got the better of me and I chose not to tell my athletic director about what had happened. Because I chose to stay for my senior season, I didn't want anything to compromise the success of the team. Therefore I also kept this information from my teammates. I wasn't on good terms with my coach but didn't feel that everyone else needed to know. A few close friends were aware but that was it.
I could have easily put this situation on blast, attacking the program and coaches, but I knew this would damage how people viewed me. As a co-captain, I wanted to walk away from the program without burning any bridges.
Unfortunately this is the kind of secret that tends to get out all the time. Take for instance the Reggie Bush/Pete Carrol situation and USC's football team. Talk about secrets. These two and many, many others within the program kept more than a few secrets from everyone. As we all know, the program was suspended from participating in any bowl game for two years. Next season they are eligible again, but not without a lot of disgruntled athletes and coaching changes.
Our book talks about how journalists today are out just trying to get a good story. They focus on "packaging to highlight drama and human interest" (Patterson & Wilkins p. 29). And it seems that everyone has a secret to tell. Some are more juicy than others, and it is the latter ones journalists are seeking. So no, I don't think we can ever avoid getting entangled in such secrets. Especially with today's media via internet, television, radio and print, leaking secrets is all we do. Unfortunately half of them are false. Our book also talks about this and what is considered an "ok" lie. Chapter 2 talks about journalists being surveyed on how acceptable it is to lie to readers. Most said it is unethical to lie to readers, viewers and listenres, but more than half agreed that flattering a source for an interview is okay. Another question on the survey talked about omitting information and this seemed less of an offense than fabrication. So it seems that little white lies or okay, but those big fat nasty ones are just appalling? Who then is telling the truth these days??
"In other words, some journalists may believe it's acceptable to lie to a crook to get a story, but they professionally resent being lied to by any source, regardless of the motive" (Patterson & Wilkins p. 34).
I had a full athletic scholarship for volleyball at the university that I graduated from. Right before my senior season that started in August 2010, I tore my ACL in April and had have to surgery putting me out for over a year. I met with my coach a few times to discuss my options. He didn't have money for me to play a 5th year and suggested I give up my scholarship or transfer. But I didn't want to do either. Giving up my scholarship would take away my eligibility, and transferring meant I would have to leave my team and school. I chose to stick around, graduate, and transfer to another school to play my last eligible season.
About a month later I received a letter in the mail from the school saying that my coach was not going to renew my scholarship and that I was "fully aware of this decision." The letter explained that if I chose to fight this decision I had to submit a letter stating my position. I called my coach and asked what this was about and he told me that he was hoping to give me the money in a few months, but that I could submit a letter if it made me feel more at ease. I had never had any issues with my scholarship money until I got hurt and my coach knew I would be out for the season. Scholarships are taken away from athletes due to bad behavior, grades or other major offenses, but not for getting hurt. My coach discussed with only a few others because he knew that taking away my scholarship due to injury was wrong. Unfortunately those others who knew did not do anything about it.
I was faced with a decision: Trust my coach that he would give me my scholarship in a few months or fight him. I fought the letter and he was forced to give me my scholarship. But the fight wasn't over. My school had hired a new athletic director at the beginning of the school year in August 2010. After the season was over myself and two other seniors went to lunch with him. He asked why I wasn't coming back and the Assistant Athletic Director (who was very close with my coach and talked frequently with him) told the A.D. that I had used up my eligibility. This of course wasn't true at all. I tried to politely interrupt but it wasn't the time nor the place to talk in depth about what my coach had done. So I sat in silence.
If I had chosen to speak up later to the Athletic Director, I know that I would not only have questioned my coach, but the entire program and school. My coach had previously won 2 back-to-back national championships in 2002 and 2003. Since then, the program had been in the top 15 every year. Without a doubt, I could have put my coaches job in jeopardy. I could have put myself in jeopardy making such accusations toward my coach. But my morals got the better of me and I chose not to tell my athletic director about what had happened. Because I chose to stay for my senior season, I didn't want anything to compromise the success of the team. Therefore I also kept this information from my teammates. I wasn't on good terms with my coach but didn't feel that everyone else needed to know. A few close friends were aware but that was it.
I could have easily put this situation on blast, attacking the program and coaches, but I knew this would damage how people viewed me. As a co-captain, I wanted to walk away from the program without burning any bridges.
Unfortunately this is the kind of secret that tends to get out all the time. Take for instance the Reggie Bush/Pete Carrol situation and USC's football team. Talk about secrets. These two and many, many others within the program kept more than a few secrets from everyone. As we all know, the program was suspended from participating in any bowl game for two years. Next season they are eligible again, but not without a lot of disgruntled athletes and coaching changes.
Our book talks about how journalists today are out just trying to get a good story. They focus on "packaging to highlight drama and human interest" (Patterson & Wilkins p. 29). And it seems that everyone has a secret to tell. Some are more juicy than others, and it is the latter ones journalists are seeking. So no, I don't think we can ever avoid getting entangled in such secrets. Especially with today's media via internet, television, radio and print, leaking secrets is all we do. Unfortunately half of them are false. Our book also talks about this and what is considered an "ok" lie. Chapter 2 talks about journalists being surveyed on how acceptable it is to lie to readers. Most said it is unethical to lie to readers, viewers and listenres, but more than half agreed that flattering a source for an interview is okay. Another question on the survey talked about omitting information and this seemed less of an offense than fabrication. So it seems that little white lies or okay, but those big fat nasty ones are just appalling? Who then is telling the truth these days??
"In other words, some journalists may believe it's acceptable to lie to a crook to get a story, but they professionally resent being lied to by any source, regardless of the motive" (Patterson & Wilkins p. 34).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)