Tammy Thompson, Blog #2 1/14/2012
As I was reading the ethical dilemma Tammy wrote about, I couldn't help but put myself in the position of her co-worker. I can't even imagine the back and forth she went through on what to do. And then as I was reading and watching it all play out in my own head, for a split second I thought, "It's one time, not a big deal to report the incident." It's incredibly how relaxed our country can be when it comes to under aged drinking. I recall in a group discussion these very words coming out of my mouth, "everyone knows college is a time to get wasted." Students get into bars with fake ID's all the time. They become friends with bouncers and bar tenders, automatically giving themselves an "in." Every night a club or bar owner lets in an underage kid, they are walking the ethical tight rope. In Tammy's case, the mother might have been going back and forth between letting her daughter in so she was seen as cool, or keeping her integrity as a professional business woman. Unfortunately, in the long run, it wasn't worth it. Her mom isn't so cool now without a job and a connection to some pretty damn fun parties. I wonder how close her daughter was to turning 21? This is often an issue as well. We see it so outrageous for kids who are 15 or 16 years old to be let in to clubs or sold alcohol, but if they are 20? No big deal. Unfortunately this happened during a business trip and not their Christmas Vacation. When I read that Tammy's co-worker went to the authorities about it and why she ultimately chose to do so, I felt an enormous amount of respect. It is a hard thing to turn someone in, especially when they have ranking on you. My question though is, did her decision to report the violation strengthen the trust of the company? What happened in the offices after she was transferred? We all like to think of ourselves as individuals who play by the rules, but then our emotions get in the way like Tammy wrote about in her first blog. It's hard to do the right thing, and like Professor Bindig said in class, ethical decisions don't always feel like the right thing to do.
Lauren Tilton Blog #3 1/21/12
Having just touched on the issue of underage drinking above, let's take a look at Lauren's blog concerning Anheuser-Bush (AB) and their Bud Light campaign in 2009. Bud Light chose to coordinate their cans with the colors of several universities across the country. The issue? Does this promote underage drinking? Universities that matched up with these colored cans seemed to think so, and definitely gave their opinion. I was a sophomore/Junior in 2009, only 20 years old, and had my share of college parties/tailgates. I probably wouldn't have thought twice about the color of the can, but instead blown it off as "cool." Even now, I don't see a problem with the campaign as AB stayed within the provided ethical code. But just to play the devils advocate, I feel it doesn't matter whether Bud Light was intending to target 21 and over individuals. The bottom line is, they probably reached out to a large group of college kids, maybe even high schoolers who visit the college scene. The utilitarian view tells us to look at the end result. So in the case of Anheuser-Bush, the end result might be an increase in underage drinking at universities across the country in 2009. As a company who consistently promotes responsible drinking, how can the possibility of this as a result be anything but bad? Not only for the greater good of the country, but for their reputation as well. I am sure they profited quite a bit from this campaign as sports fan like to feel connected to their respected team (especially through team colors) but was it enough to overshadow the bad press? This goes back to my statement above about the relaxed views on underage drinking we have taken on as whole. It's just colors right? They could mean anything, technically. But do they mean just anything to the fans who specifically purchased a certain color can for that weekends game? And pulling the cans right before things got too "hairy" seems like AB might have had an idea the campaign wasn't a good idea.
Terrance White Blog #2 1/14/12
Naturally I am drawn to situations that happen within the wonderful world of sports. Being an athlete ever since I can remember, I have been in the middle of, heard about, and read about many scandals. It seems over the last few years, things have been pouring out like a facet. Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll, Terrance's example with Belichick and Mangini, and just recently Penn State and Joe Paterno. When you become heavily involved in athletics, playing, coaching or spectating, you start to understand there are lots of things behind the scenes that many don't know about. And then it becomes second nature when you hear of infractions, or unethical situations occurring around you. You start to think, "yeah well, who hasn't done that?" But that's no excuse for this kind of behavior and when the facts eventually do get out, its a good reminder that everyone has a responsibility to perform, act, talk and think ethically. It's not shocking that a coach was let go while another was hired. This kind of movement in athletics is quite normal. But the cheating? That's reason for a loss of respect. Like Terrance wrote in his blog, no many people knew, especially journalists about what happens behind the scenes on the practice field or in the offices. And when coaches have such prestige as Belichick did, well, we tend to let things slide. I speak so strongly about issues that happen within sports because I have seen first hand the indiscretions that take place on college campuses. And when athletes and coaches leave, you bet they take every indiscretion with them. There is no, it only happened once. Once a cheater always a cheater right? Absolutely journalists are accountable to their readers. The public has a right to know if these "role models" are being untruthful. Kids look up athletes, coaches and parents, wishing with every bone in their body to be like Brady or Belichick. These stories should be told, and serve as a lesson to those who wish to follow in their footsteps.
Billy Skelos Blog #4 1/26/12
Billy hit the nail on the head: "the lack of privacy the Internet and social networking sites have given our society." I am a pretty avid Facebooker and Tweeter, however there is one privacy setting that I will always "check the box" for: Location updates. It scares me to think that at any time, I can be checked into almost any location with my exact where-abouts just floating in cyberspace for everyone to see. I don't want people to know that I'm getting a Late at Starbucks, or that I've just worked out at 24 hour fitness. How safe am I if all of facebook knows where my bank is located? Or what freeways I take to work? For a lot of people, this doesn't even phase them. Who cares right? No one is going to find you. Well, tell that to those who have been cyberp-bullied and stalked through Facebook and MySpace. Anyone with an iPhone can be tracked in a heart beat. You can even download an application to find your iPhone if it gets lost. Whats preventing some tech-savy computer nerd from hacking into these applications? The article Billy refers to says the PR industry is starting to take more initiative to "monitor" PR practices. But we all know that security guards have to sleep sometime right? No body's perfect. Slip ups are going to happen; people will get hurt. I couldn't agree more with Billy on this issue. "It's time for a change."
Whitney Selby Blog #5 1/4/2012
Whitney chose to side with Polkin and his editor about leaving out the names of the family who bullied a 13 year old girl to hang herself. Standing by ones morals is courageous and should be seen as commendable. But to play the devils advocate again, what about the other 13, 14, 15 year olds who are still being bullied? What confidence do they have that authorities will take this seriously? It's not only closure for the family who lost their daughter, but for families across the country who have a son or daughter inflicted by cyber-bully pain. I understand where the paper was coming from, and in my own blog responded that probably would have made the same decision. But after reading Whitney's blog, my mind starting to think in another direction. Maybe those names should have been printed at the expense of the bullying family. Was the issue of cyber-bullying really brought to the public's attention by leaving out their names? Has there been a decrease in cyber-bully cases? I wonder what the statistics are for cyber-bullying at that time, and where they are now? There isn't a right or wrong answer for if the names should have been posted, but it's important that both sides are seriously considered.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Not "a better place", just a smaller space
"Bok's model is based on two premises: that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions, and that maintaining social trust is a fundamental goal." Bok's model includes three steps when it comes to making ethical decisions. First, she says to "consult your won conscience about the "rightness" of an action." Then, she says to "seek expert advice for alternatives to the act creating the ethical problem." And lastly, "conduct a public discussion with the parties involved in the dispute." (Patterson & Wilkins p.3-4) Let's use Bok's model to see if Polkin and the Journal made an ethical decision in keeping the neighbor's privacy who bullied Megan Meler into committing suicide.
Megan Meler was 13 years old when she hung herself in her closet. A boy she met online turned viciously aggressive, telling her "the world would be a better place without you." Polkin decided to take this story public, but was faced with a serious ethical decision: to name the neighbor who bullied Megan, or keep their privacy.
1. How do you (Polkin) feel about the action? The article states that Polkin and his superiors mulled over the situation and chose to wait a little before writing the story. It seems Polkin knew that if he didn't release the names of the neighbors, the community would be outraged and his reputation as a journalist might get hit. He could lose some trust in his readers. (The second premise of Bok's model) But at the same time, if he did release the names, a young kid and their family would be put on blast in the community. This might hurt them more and ruin an entire families life.
2. Seek expert advice for alternatives. Polkin went to the authorities on the case and discovered that there was no law the neighbors had broken. It was unfortunate that they partook in the bullying and Megan's death was a result, but ultimately no one could charge them with anything.
3. As far as we know as readers, Polkin didn't discuss this matter with the other family.
So, Pulkin (and his editor) make the decision to keep the family's privacy. This shows Pulkin's empathy for the parties involved in the decision, but may not show his maintenance of social trust. Unfortunately the community lashed out at Pulkin, calling him anything but a true journalist. Pulkin, however felt like he made the right decision. It would have cost the neighbors more pain than it would have cost him his reputation.
Let's take this from a different perspective. John Mill focused primarily on the outcome of an ethical decision. He says that "the consequences of actions are important into deciding whether they are ethical."
In Pulkin's case he chose to protect the bullying family because the damage to them would be far greater than the damage to himself. The Post however, chose to print the bullying families names because the outcome of Pulkin keeping them anonymous proved far worse for the rest of the community. Printing the names made the Post superman compared to the Journal. The Post believed the communities well being to be of more importance. Ultimately, it was wrong for Pulkin not to print the names.
But looking at the Utilitarian view, it seems privacy is a huge issue. The Bok model allowed Pulkin to take the familie's privacy into account and really think about what he was doing. Utilitarianism allows for people to be hurt if it is better for the overall good. But what overall good came from the Post printing the names? Not only did they invade their privacy, they possibly caused that family harm as the surrounding neighbors cast them aside. On the contrary, how can Pulkin not post the names? What these people did was far from anything ethical. They disrupted the community, they themselves caused harm on someone else, and Megan's family would not see any justice for their daughter. The Post may have invaded the neighbor's privacy, but they invaded Megan's privacy first.
I find the utilitarian view to be a bit more compelling. When you look solely on the result of a decision stemming from an ethical issue, you automatically produce an option: right or wrong. Utilitarianism makes things black and white. You either agree with the decision, or you don't. In turn, this causes great debate over the ethical situation. Everyone will have their own opinion, and there will always be someone who would have done it differently.
When it comes to social media sites like Facebook I think it's so far past the point of being able to control cyber bullying. Facebook is so huge, how are they going to create a system that can fairly manage this kind of use? It seems Facebook would have to produce a law or rule for the site that isn't too restraining but detailed enough that cyber bullies could be caught. And now that we've seen a case or two where kids are harmed due to cyber bullies, I think this is out of the hands of facebook. This is now a matter for the government now, to step up and take a shot at keeping cyber bullies out of cyberspace. The opposing argument to this is the first amendment, but if this so called "free speech" causes another person to commit suicide, how different is that really from driving the get-away car of a shooting? Facebook absolutely had a chance to step in and help on this issue, but I think they missed their opportunity. Cyberbullies aren't just on facebook or myspace. They penetrate e-mails, chat rooms, and other sites where people can exchange information and chat.
Law and Order SVU featured a story where the end of episode dealt with this exact issue. Episode 6 of season 10 titled "Babes," a pregnant girl is bullied by peers mother online and ends up committing suicide at the end of the show. The mother bullied this girl because she influenced her daughter to also get pregnant. The mother wrote nasty e-mails to her daughters friend, posing as someone else, and leading the friend to commit suicide. The mother is taken into custody and charged, not for murder however because there is no law against cyber bullying.
Megan Meler was 13 years old when she hung herself in her closet. A boy she met online turned viciously aggressive, telling her "the world would be a better place without you." Polkin decided to take this story public, but was faced with a serious ethical decision: to name the neighbor who bullied Megan, or keep their privacy.
1. How do you (Polkin) feel about the action? The article states that Polkin and his superiors mulled over the situation and chose to wait a little before writing the story. It seems Polkin knew that if he didn't release the names of the neighbors, the community would be outraged and his reputation as a journalist might get hit. He could lose some trust in his readers. (The second premise of Bok's model) But at the same time, if he did release the names, a young kid and their family would be put on blast in the community. This might hurt them more and ruin an entire families life.
2. Seek expert advice for alternatives. Polkin went to the authorities on the case and discovered that there was no law the neighbors had broken. It was unfortunate that they partook in the bullying and Megan's death was a result, but ultimately no one could charge them with anything.
3. As far as we know as readers, Polkin didn't discuss this matter with the other family.
So, Pulkin (and his editor) make the decision to keep the family's privacy. This shows Pulkin's empathy for the parties involved in the decision, but may not show his maintenance of social trust. Unfortunately the community lashed out at Pulkin, calling him anything but a true journalist. Pulkin, however felt like he made the right decision. It would have cost the neighbors more pain than it would have cost him his reputation.
Let's take this from a different perspective. John Mill focused primarily on the outcome of an ethical decision. He says that "the consequences of actions are important into deciding whether they are ethical."
In Pulkin's case he chose to protect the bullying family because the damage to them would be far greater than the damage to himself. The Post however, chose to print the bullying families names because the outcome of Pulkin keeping them anonymous proved far worse for the rest of the community. Printing the names made the Post superman compared to the Journal. The Post believed the communities well being to be of more importance. Ultimately, it was wrong for Pulkin not to print the names.
But looking at the Utilitarian view, it seems privacy is a huge issue. The Bok model allowed Pulkin to take the familie's privacy into account and really think about what he was doing. Utilitarianism allows for people to be hurt if it is better for the overall good. But what overall good came from the Post printing the names? Not only did they invade their privacy, they possibly caused that family harm as the surrounding neighbors cast them aside. On the contrary, how can Pulkin not post the names? What these people did was far from anything ethical. They disrupted the community, they themselves caused harm on someone else, and Megan's family would not see any justice for their daughter. The Post may have invaded the neighbor's privacy, but they invaded Megan's privacy first.
I find the utilitarian view to be a bit more compelling. When you look solely on the result of a decision stemming from an ethical issue, you automatically produce an option: right or wrong. Utilitarianism makes things black and white. You either agree with the decision, or you don't. In turn, this causes great debate over the ethical situation. Everyone will have their own opinion, and there will always be someone who would have done it differently.
When it comes to social media sites like Facebook I think it's so far past the point of being able to control cyber bullying. Facebook is so huge, how are they going to create a system that can fairly manage this kind of use? It seems Facebook would have to produce a law or rule for the site that isn't too restraining but detailed enough that cyber bullies could be caught. And now that we've seen a case or two where kids are harmed due to cyber bullies, I think this is out of the hands of facebook. This is now a matter for the government now, to step up and take a shot at keeping cyber bullies out of cyberspace. The opposing argument to this is the first amendment, but if this so called "free speech" causes another person to commit suicide, how different is that really from driving the get-away car of a shooting? Facebook absolutely had a chance to step in and help on this issue, but I think they missed their opportunity. Cyberbullies aren't just on facebook or myspace. They penetrate e-mails, chat rooms, and other sites where people can exchange information and chat.
Law and Order SVU featured a story where the end of episode dealt with this exact issue. Episode 6 of season 10 titled "Babes," a pregnant girl is bullied by peers mother online and ends up committing suicide at the end of the show. The mother bullied this girl because she influenced her daughter to also get pregnant. The mother wrote nasty e-mails to her daughters friend, posing as someone else, and leading the friend to commit suicide. The mother is taken into custody and charged, not for murder however because there is no law against cyber bullying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)