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.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Just Trying To Make It
“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).
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 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).
Sunday, December 4, 2011
OPI: Our Peoples Investment
When I think about investors, I think of big tall buildings run by Georgio Armani suited men, that drive Mercedes and have time share in the Bahamas. But obviosuly investing is more than that, and incredibly important to any company that wants to be successful. Without investors OPI wouldn't have become the leader in nail products in the beauty industry. Likewise, staying in touch with the surrounding community is equally as important as keeping the investors happy. The beauty community is where OPI gets its support, which is why staying in constant communication with them is imperative.
For starters, we know OPI reaches out to others beyond the beauty barriers. Their website's "Giving Back" page gives a run-down of all the charities and organizations that OPI is affiliated. The Schaeffer Family Foundation was created in order to give support to charities like The American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, City of Hope, the National Kidney Foundation, and money others. OPI has also dedicated specific nail lacquers to some organizations like the American Red Cross and to cancer research in hopes that they may raise awareness and offer financial support when each respected color is purchased. Having the Family Foundation and giving back to other organizations outside of the beauty industry shows investors, the community and the government that OPI is serious about company responsibility.
Additonally, the "Giving Back" page touches briefly on the importance for safe and happy employment within the company. They have provided "George's Place" where employees can enjoy healthy and fulfilling meals. They also provide health insurance for employees, a 401k retirement plan and a mandatory Employee Safety Program.
"When asked why OPI as a company feels so compelled to give so much back, year after year, George Schaeffer has a simple answer. 'Because it's the right thing to do.'"
OPI reaches out through their blogging, their social media sites (facebook and twitter,) and by always bringing in good reports from consumers. Reaching out to the community doesn't pose a problem as they have maintained good rapport within the beauty industry and continually produce top quality products. Beauty magazines like Cosmo and InStyle continue to print their full page ads every month and write OPI as the leader in nail lacquers.
When it comes to a crisis, it seems OPI would have to use its social networking sites to help steer the problem away. They rely heavily on magazines to speak for the companies progress and performance that utilizing a printed article in a magazine most definitely would help simmer any issue. We don't see a lot of in-depth articles written about nail polish, or OPI for that matter, and unless you are a nail polish fanatic, you have no clue what OPI is or what it stands for. Any nail polish crisis would consist of OPI producing a harmful product. But so far, OPI has no complaints and is continuing to become as green as possible with their lacquer creations.
For starters, we know OPI reaches out to others beyond the beauty barriers. Their website's "Giving Back" page gives a run-down of all the charities and organizations that OPI is affiliated. The Schaeffer Family Foundation was created in order to give support to charities like The American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, City of Hope, the National Kidney Foundation, and money others. OPI has also dedicated specific nail lacquers to some organizations like the American Red Cross and to cancer research in hopes that they may raise awareness and offer financial support when each respected color is purchased. Having the Family Foundation and giving back to other organizations outside of the beauty industry shows investors, the community and the government that OPI is serious about company responsibility.
Additonally, the "Giving Back" page touches briefly on the importance for safe and happy employment within the company. They have provided "George's Place" where employees can enjoy healthy and fulfilling meals. They also provide health insurance for employees, a 401k retirement plan and a mandatory Employee Safety Program.
"When asked why OPI as a company feels so compelled to give so much back, year after year, George Schaeffer has a simple answer. 'Because it's the right thing to do.'"
OPI reaches out through their blogging, their social media sites (facebook and twitter,) and by always bringing in good reports from consumers. Reaching out to the community doesn't pose a problem as they have maintained good rapport within the beauty industry and continually produce top quality products. Beauty magazines like Cosmo and InStyle continue to print their full page ads every month and write OPI as the leader in nail lacquers.
When it comes to a crisis, it seems OPI would have to use its social networking sites to help steer the problem away. They rely heavily on magazines to speak for the companies progress and performance that utilizing a printed article in a magazine most definitely would help simmer any issue. We don't see a lot of in-depth articles written about nail polish, or OPI for that matter, and unless you are a nail polish fanatic, you have no clue what OPI is or what it stands for. Any nail polish crisis would consist of OPI producing a harmful product. But so far, OPI has no complaints and is continuing to become as green as possible with their lacquer creations.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
OPI: Taking Turkey to the Tips
As blogs start to slowly take over company's leading form of communication between employees within corporate walls and consumers on the outside, OPI by Nicole makes sure not to miss their holiday blog how-to's. Their latest, "Taking Turkey to the Tips" features step-by-step instructions for properly painting a turkey on your thumb-nail. They even give you specific OPI colors to use (My Empire, My Rules should be used for the thumb). At the end they give us (the consumer) the ability to comment and interact with others reading the blog. We can also like it on facebook directly from that page, re-tweet, or post on other social networking sites. OPI by Nicole has their own blogs while they provide links to other fashion and beauty blogs they feel their costumers/readers will enjoy. These external blogs keep OPI fresh and fashion forward, and give us new content to read so we don't get bored. Additionally, OPI by Nicole is partnered with the Kardashian family. They have their own line and have done quite a bit of promotion from interviews to photo-shoots and mentions on Twitter.
OPI, the parent of OPI by Nicole, blogs via Suzi Weiss-Fischmann, the company's EVP and Artistic Director. Suzi's Beauty Blog gives you all the latest on "Beauty, Fashion, Travel, Wellness, and More!" Blogging categories start at Affordable luxury and end with Your Perfect Shade. I find odd however that some of her most recent posts date back to May even January 2011. This might be the case because OPI focuses on only a few launches per year and once 2012 hits the blogs will be updated? Like OPI by nicole, these external blogs are for the consumers to get involved and see whats happening not only with nail polish, but in the beauty and fashion worlds as well. It allows us to see a beauty professionals take on our own personal interests.
As far as I can see, there aren't any internal blogs set up within the company. In order to even become an employee of OPI, you must obtain a proper education within the beauty arena. OPI offers help in jump starting your career in cosmetology and/or Nail Care. But both fields require a 3-6 month program. OPI even has it owns program with scholarships available called the OPI National School Program offered at certain beauty schools around the country.
It seems that if OPI was to integrate an internal blog, they should focus on topics about maintaining what they already have. OPI is incredibly successful which means the company is doing things right internally as well. Our book talked in Ch. 5 about the need for successful companies to continue blogging in order to maintain company camaraderie. It's true you shouldn't try and fix something that isn't broken, but there's nothing wrong with a few tune ups. The blogs OPI currently have seem to cover plenty of topics interesting for consumers/readers. I would say Suzi might want to update more frequently through-out the year and not focus so much in the early months. Blogs should be like magazines in a way. We subscribe to magazines because we want to know whats new each month. We read blogs because we want to know whats new on a regular basis.
Although OPI has many celebrities endorsing their product (i.e. the Muppets, Niki Minaj, Pirates of the Carribean) The Kardashian's seem to have a strong hold within the OPI by Nicole branch. This is an incredibly smart move by both OPI and the Kardashian Family. Two very large brands have come together to create a line that is unique and stands out from the rest. Already thinking about Christmas and New Years, the Kardashian line features lots of sparkle and shine, perfect for a holiday party. Even if OPI customers don't necessarily "Keep up with the Kardashians," they for sure know who they are. And when you see an a bright sparkly pink shade on your co-workers fingers next week, who's to say it's probably not "Wear Something Spar-Kylie" from Kardashian line?
OPI, the parent of OPI by Nicole, blogs via Suzi Weiss-Fischmann, the company's EVP and Artistic Director. Suzi's Beauty Blog gives you all the latest on "Beauty, Fashion, Travel, Wellness, and More!" Blogging categories start at Affordable luxury and end with Your Perfect Shade. I find odd however that some of her most recent posts date back to May even January 2011. This might be the case because OPI focuses on only a few launches per year and once 2012 hits the blogs will be updated? Like OPI by nicole, these external blogs are for the consumers to get involved and see whats happening not only with nail polish, but in the beauty and fashion worlds as well. It allows us to see a beauty professionals take on our own personal interests.
As far as I can see, there aren't any internal blogs set up within the company. In order to even become an employee of OPI, you must obtain a proper education within the beauty arena. OPI offers help in jump starting your career in cosmetology and/or Nail Care. But both fields require a 3-6 month program. OPI even has it owns program with scholarships available called the OPI National School Program offered at certain beauty schools around the country.
It seems that if OPI was to integrate an internal blog, they should focus on topics about maintaining what they already have. OPI is incredibly successful which means the company is doing things right internally as well. Our book talked in Ch. 5 about the need for successful companies to continue blogging in order to maintain company camaraderie. It's true you shouldn't try and fix something that isn't broken, but there's nothing wrong with a few tune ups. The blogs OPI currently have seem to cover plenty of topics interesting for consumers/readers. I would say Suzi might want to update more frequently through-out the year and not focus so much in the early months. Blogs should be like magazines in a way. We subscribe to magazines because we want to know whats new each month. We read blogs because we want to know whats new on a regular basis.
Although OPI has many celebrities endorsing their product (i.e. the Muppets, Niki Minaj, Pirates of the Carribean) The Kardashian's seem to have a strong hold within the OPI by Nicole branch. This is an incredibly smart move by both OPI and the Kardashian Family. Two very large brands have come together to create a line that is unique and stands out from the rest. Already thinking about Christmas and New Years, the Kardashian line features lots of sparkle and shine, perfect for a holiday party. Even if OPI customers don't necessarily "Keep up with the Kardashians," they for sure know who they are. And when you see an a bright sparkly pink shade on your co-workers fingers next week, who's to say it's probably not "Wear Something Spar-Kylie" from Kardashian line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)