Here's my review of 5 of my classmate's blogs. To review the original blogs, click on the person's name/date of post, as it is directly linked to my classmates' blog post that I'm referencing. I hope you enjoy!
1) Ryan Arroyo - 1/7/12; Ryan's main point in his blog about the high school fight being posted on YouTube could've been developed further in class. I mean, if Ryan was in my discussion group, we spent about 20 minutes alone debating an issue similar to this. A few weeks ago, we spoke in class about an issue with American soldiers urinating on the bodies of deceased opposing forces and pictures surfacing online. When speaking about this topic, my discussion group also spoke about the release of video footage of former Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi being severely beaten, abused, and killed. Ryan gave me the insight that he would've agreed with most of my group. The majority of my group said that they did not believe the footage of Ghadafi or the soldiers urinating on the bodies should've been shown to the public. Ryan's idea of the YouTube video not being shown could've obviously been developed further had it been spoken about when issues like the soldiers picture and Ghadafi were brought up. I think that this is a great topic to discuss and, with regards to ethical issues, could've been something that was spoken about and debated due to the wide variety of differing opinions of our classmates. I would like to ask Ryan if he would reconsider showing the footage if it could potentially pose a change in the way situations like this are handled? In other words, if the footage being showed led to a call for change in the disciplinary actions taken by schools upon students that involve themselves in high school fights, would he still opt to not show it and potentially not deal with a huge issue in schools today? I, personally, don't agree with Ryan's choice to not show the footage, but do agree with his beliefs on ethics. I would have chosen to show the footage to the public in an attempt to raise awareness for issues like this and hopefully lead to some change in the way issues like this are handled. As far as his ethical beliefs go, I do agree with the "do unto others as you would have others do to you" idea. However, I think that my stance could be a little skewed from Ryan's, as I would do things no matter what was done back to me. The way Ryan puts it, it sounds like he would stray away from putting offensive, graphic things out there. However, I would do this and whatever else it took to let the public see what it was that I was filming, without worrying about the repercussions. I just think that most things are okay with being put out there, unless it is causing someone harm. That is my ethical rule.
2) Julien du Plessis - 1/13/12; Julien's insight into this issue is very similar to my own. I think that there is some parallel between what Julien is speaking about and some issues in class we discussed revolving around secrecy. For instance, I think that this topic is very similar to the issue we spoke about in class regarding WikiLeaks' releasing of classified information to the public. While this photo in Uganda is not of the same level of secrecy, I do believe that there are similarities in the issues that arose when discussing this in class. With regards to WikiLeaks, we spoke in class about how the information exposed by the controversial site was obtained via an ethically challenging way. It was reported that the man who gathered some of the information, a member of the U.S. military, obtained the information by hacking into government databases and then forwarded the information to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. While both issues deal with the release of controversial and potentially harmful information, the key separating factor here is that The Monitor released a photograph that could expose a corrupt and part of the military that was in place to protect the people but in fact was physically harming them and abusing power, while WikiLeaks released information that had a lot of controversy behind it and that was obtained illegally. I would like to ask Julien if he thinks that the editor's of The Monitor had an ethical OBLIGATION to post the picture in the newspaper, as opposed to just brushing it under the rug and if he would've followed up with the picture if it didn't cause an uprising upon its publishing in the newspaper? I agree with Julien's statement that he would've published the photo himself due to the impact the picture would have on a controversial issue like military abuse of civilians. I, myself, would have posted this picture, however, I would've included a story about the photo. I think that creating some stir around the photo, although dangerous to the lives of the editors, is something that's necessary in this situation. There are thousands of people that see the effects of military abuse and that especially don't deserve it and have NO means of having their story heard. When a photo like this is captured and put in the hands of the right people to do something about it, I think that they have an ethical obligation to get it exposed to the public.
3) Lauren Forgione - 1/21/12; In this blog, Lauren speaks about the conflict of interest that many companies face when dealing with how they convey their public relations and the issue of parent companies. Lauren speaks of a conflict of interest between Brita and its parent company Clorox. She speaks of how Clorox does not take back used water filters, while Brita's main campaign focus is on environmental consciousness and reducing the waste created by plastic bottles. In her blog, she gives some insight into how this violates the PRSA's Code of Ethics for public relations and rather than informing the public, could be considered profit driven. In class, we discussed one specific situation in which this conflict of interest between parent company and the misuse of P.R. was very prevalent. Gossip Girl is a very popular and widely viewed television show on the CW Network. Owned by Time Warner, The CW put out an ad campaign in 2008 for Nikon. In class, we discussed the conflict of interest here in this situation, where Nikon and The CW misused P.R. to promote products. The two angles here, Nikon promoting the CW and the CW promoting Nikon, both show examples of how P.R. can be misused for profit. Rather than informing the public about the show or the camera independently, the companies took to product association in an attempt to reach both audiences to promote other products. To me, this example goes right along with what Lauren is speaking of, as the public relations was strictly profit driven. I would like to ask Lauren how she, given that she clearly does not agree with the way P.R. is used at times, would redefine what public relations means in an attempt to address this gray area and make it more of an ethical obligation to avoid situations like she spoke about? It is very hard to disagree with Lauren's stance on the topic. Like the BP situation we spoke about in class (BP speaks about environmental concerns, has oil spill that devastates environment, now devotes entire P.R. scheme to promoting environmental awareness), the parent company has an ethical obligation to not flip-flop. Similar to politicians, when they make a stance and a statement to abide by a specific value, they must hold this stance and not take a different public stance under the name of an affiliated company to promote profit. So, I agree with what Lauren states here. There is an ethical obligation to use public relations to inform the public, but also to stand by the company's word for the greater good of the public not the almighty dollar.
4) Billy Skelos - 1/12/12; I chose to talk about this specific blog of Bill's because I personally relate to it very closely, specifically in the same exact light as Bill writes it. I also am a captain of our team and was challenged with the same issue he was faced with. It was a joint decision by all of the captains at the time to not tell our coach of what had gone on, simply because it was for the betterment of the team and our culture. Now, I know this seems as though we were lying, but I then raise the topic of lying vs. omission. Is there a difference? Well, in class, we discussed a situation that also involves the lying vs. omission idea. Daniel Ellsberg is the man responsible for exposing the "Pentagon Papers," which was a top-secret study conducted that revealed extended U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia conflicts, essentially leading up to our controversial involvement into the Vietnam War. Upon its leak, the study caused a huge stir of controversy as it showed that there were a handful of lies by the U.S. government and policymakers to cover up the fact that the U.S. was thrown into the war for essentially no clear reason. Ellsberg, a whistleblower, is one who believes that some things are wrongfully kept secret. I think that this goes hand in hand with what Bill and I were faced with. Had our coach found out about this, I do believe that we would've faced severe consequences at the time, as it appeared as though we lied to him. However, we believed that what we were doing was for the betterment of the team and that the "secret" was better kept secret as it would've brought un-needed negative attention to the team and our culture. Ellsberg believed that the secret study held information that the public needed to know, so he revealed the contents of it in a New York Times front page article. I think that this could've helped develop our dilemma some more, as the gravity of our situation was not nearly as significant as the study in the Pentagon Papers, yet was still an ethical issue we had to deal with and in turn, keep from our coach. We played the part of the U.S. government, as we felt the secret needed to be kept for the betterment of the team. Ellsberg, felt that the public needed to know, as some people would feel our coach deserved to know. I'd like to ask Bill if he would've made the same decision he did after learning more about ethics and the obligations that leaders (such as captains) have in regards to releasing important information to the parties it affects? I know that I would've done the same thing. I agree with what Bill did and says in his blog, as in some situations, the ends does not justify the means, and certain secrets can be kept secret if there is a rightful explanation behind it. Like Ellsberg states to the NY Times, "it's not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It's that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret." Bill and I believed that what we were keeping secret was justified and for the betterment of our team and culture.
5) Tom Herles - 1/5/12; In this blog post, Tom talks about two separate topics. I'd like to address the first one, under the "Potential Scenarios" headline. In this area, Tom speaks about the gossip media, such as TMZ. Tom makes a statement: "Are celebrities real people? I would hope so. Therefore people shouldn’t dig up any irrelevant detail about their private life and plaster it all over the internet." His insight into gossip media is troublesome to me, simply because I don't agree with this stance. In the next paragraph, however, he says, "However, this kind of information sells. Drama regarding Kim Kardashian or Charlie Sheen makes its way into actual newspapers and magazines because people are intrigued and interested." I believe that he's onto something here. In our discussion group that next week, we discussed Kim Kardashian and her rise to fame. Essentially, Kim is famous for flatout nothing but marrying famous people. Her entire "celebrity" and "fame" persona is created on nothing but inflated gossip. Online, she's classified as a socialite. But who made her this? Well, if it weren't for the gossip media, Kim Kardashian wouldn't be a socialite. Her connections to the celebrity lifestyle are all thanks to gossip media. So, I do disagree with Tom's claim that she's a real person and shouldn't have her private life plastered all over the internet. The challenge here is that celebrities are used in society as examples and as people to look up to. They are used by companies to promote products and ideas, both in their career choice (i.e. movies and shows) and external endeavors (i.e. ad campaigns). I think that this responsibility leaves them open to have their lives in the public eye. They make money off of their exposure to the public. From Tom Cruise to Kim Kardashian, celebrities of all levels are only considered famous because of their lives in the public eye. I'd like to ask Tom, if celebrities are real people and their private life doesn't belong in the public eye...where do we draw the line? Should Michael Vick's private life been exposed? He's a celebrity. Should Jerry Sandusky's private life been exposed? He's a celebrity too. Or is there a specific classification for celebrities and what he thinks should be put out for the public to see?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The line must be drawn
Topics like this are hard to blog about. They're hard to even read. How can you even begin to comprehend a story like this? Innocent people, children nevertheless, feeling so pressured by others that they take their own life. This has got to be where the line is drawn in regards to cyberbullying.
Let me begin by stating that this is not my opinion. I am merely playing devil's advocate for the sole purpose of following the guidelines set forth in the blog prompt. There could potentially be an argument supporting Pokin and the Journal's decision to withhold the names of the neighbors responsible for bullying this 13 year old girl into killing herself. From a strictly ethical perspective, what Pokin and the Journal did technically did a lot for the purpose of changing the way issues like this are handled. By not mentioning the names of the neighbors in the article, I think Pokin and the Journal actually did this issue a service. They changed the focus of attention with cyberbullying from attacking and seeking revenge on the neighbors to sympathy for the loss of life for a 13 year old girl victimized. As Pokin said in his column, "this story has been read across the nation [...] now is being read throughout the world. Local, state, and federal officials, in response, are looking at how laws can be changed." While it's awful to say, this situation can lend a hand in improving the way issues like this are handled. Maybe there is a new law that comes about or reform to a current law that does not thoroughly protect victims from cyberbullying, and the best that can come from this is that there is not another life lost over something so petty and ruthless. Again, while it is awful to say, Pokin and the Journal not releasing the names, focused the attention on change, turned Megan's story into a world lesson, and her name into a martyr for the cause.
On the other end of the spectrum, I actually believe that the Post was acting within ethical responsibility when it released the names of the neighbors. While not breaking any laws, I do believe that the neighbors acted inhumanely and immorally. This was a 13 year old girl! The article tells us that the neighbors were "a woman, her daughter, and an 18 year old female employee." This would be disgusting for another 13 year old to do, let alone two supposed adults. You are supposed to be mature and set examples for the youth of society. What kind of a lesson is this? You victimize a 13 year old girl under the false pretense of a fake MySpace page? Imagine the ruthlessness of these messages. They were so devastating to the 13 year old's psyche that she took her own life. I believe that the Post did the correct thing here. By exposing the names of the neighbors, they make the community aware that they have social and moral deviants living within their confines. These neighbors should be shunned for victimizing this 13 year old like this. The Post brings the attention to the irresponsibility of these neighbors. They bring attention to the issue and the best that can be hoped for is that others see this example set forth by the neighbors and decide that they will never act the same way as the neighbors did. It's disgusting. While I do believe Pokin and the Journal should've released the names earlier, by it waiting until the Post did, I think that some good can still be achieved and hopefully will affect future changes in the legislation revolving around this topic.
I think in this instance, there are a couple ethical issues that play into the perspectives I spoke about. Harm, justice, privacy, and community are all applicable in regards to Megan's cyberbullying. Harm and justice really go well with each other here. Speaking ethically, harm refers to the banning of something as a result of it causing harm. In this case, the reader learns in Malone's article that cyberbullying has no legislation attached to it. Harm and justice play so much into each other because with the worldwide exposure of this topic now that Megan's death occurred, Malone talks about how "local, state, and federal officials [...] are looking at how laws can be changed," and there is some new legislation in the works to prevent such a thing from happening. Maybe if the acts involved with cyberbullying were illegal, people like Megan's neighbors won't engage in it and one life could've been saved. Privacy and community also play into each other. By not adhering to the privacy of the neighbors, the Post can seemingly make the community a better, safer place. Like I previously stated, the community can look forward to having knowledge of people in their community intentionally verbally abusing and targeting children. The problem here is that the community has the right to know the names of individuals that intentionally victimized a child. Megan was only 13 years old. Malone tells us that at least 2 of the neighbors were above 18 years of age, making them adults. The privacy of the neighbors should not be honored, as the community needs to protect itself from predators that target children.
I find the ethical perspective behind the Post is more compelling here than that of Pokin and the Journal. I strongly believe that the Post releasing the names was correct thing to do. These people victimized a 13 year old girl. They were adults and members of the community. The community had every right to know the names of them. They put the life of a youth at risk in verbally abusing her online relentlessly to the point of her taking her own life. I think that the absence of the names poses a huge danger to the children of that community. It's important that attention was paid to making this a worldwide issue in hopes of future legislation, but in regards to the community's immediate safety, it is a more significant piece that the Post released the names of the neighbors. Once again, they put the life and welfare of a child in danger, and should be scrutinized publicly for it.
I, personally, do believe that social media is responsibility to intervene with cyberbullying. While it would be a tedious task to handle, I believe that sites like MySpace and Facebook have an obligation to the users to screen what is being put on their channels for others to consume. It's social media sites where cyberbullying takes place and they act as a forum for them. While there are many platforms for cyberbullying to take place on, the fact that social media sites are a commonly used one means that they do hold a moral and ethical obligation to monitor what's being posted on them. I think that the first step to this happening and social media sites taking some responsibility for their platforms being used for cyberbullying. Megan's story can hopefully shed some light on what needs to be changed and where the line needs to be drawn to avoid losing another life.
 |
| Meier, 13, committed suicide after cyberbullying |
On the other end of the spectrum, I actually believe that the Post was acting within ethical responsibility when it released the names of the neighbors. While not breaking any laws, I do believe that the neighbors acted inhumanely and immorally. This was a 13 year old girl! The article tells us that the neighbors were "a woman, her daughter, and an 18 year old female employee." This would be disgusting for another 13 year old to do, let alone two supposed adults. You are supposed to be mature and set examples for the youth of society. What kind of a lesson is this? You victimize a 13 year old girl under the false pretense of a fake MySpace page? Imagine the ruthlessness of these messages. They were so devastating to the 13 year old's psyche that she took her own life. I believe that the Post did the correct thing here. By exposing the names of the neighbors, they make the community aware that they have social and moral deviants living within their confines. These neighbors should be shunned for victimizing this 13 year old like this. The Post brings the attention to the irresponsibility of these neighbors. They bring attention to the issue and the best that can be hoped for is that others see this example set forth by the neighbors and decide that they will never act the same way as the neighbors did. It's disgusting. While I do believe Pokin and the Journal should've released the names earlier, by it waiting until the Post did, I think that some good can still be achieved and hopefully will affect future changes in the legislation revolving around this topic.
I think in this instance, there are a couple ethical issues that play into the perspectives I spoke about. Harm, justice, privacy, and community are all applicable in regards to Megan's cyberbullying. Harm and justice really go well with each other here. Speaking ethically, harm refers to the banning of something as a result of it causing harm. In this case, the reader learns in Malone's article that cyberbullying has no legislation attached to it. Harm and justice play so much into each other because with the worldwide exposure of this topic now that Megan's death occurred, Malone talks about how "local, state, and federal officials [...] are looking at how laws can be changed," and there is some new legislation in the works to prevent such a thing from happening. Maybe if the acts involved with cyberbullying were illegal, people like Megan's neighbors won't engage in it and one life could've been saved. Privacy and community also play into each other. By not adhering to the privacy of the neighbors, the Post can seemingly make the community a better, safer place. Like I previously stated, the community can look forward to having knowledge of people in their community intentionally verbally abusing and targeting children. The problem here is that the community has the right to know the names of individuals that intentionally victimized a child. Megan was only 13 years old. Malone tells us that at least 2 of the neighbors were above 18 years of age, making them adults. The privacy of the neighbors should not be honored, as the community needs to protect itself from predators that target children.
I find the ethical perspective behind the Post is more compelling here than that of Pokin and the Journal. I strongly believe that the Post releasing the names was correct thing to do. These people victimized a 13 year old girl. They were adults and members of the community. The community had every right to know the names of them. They put the life of a youth at risk in verbally abusing her online relentlessly to the point of her taking her own life. I think that the absence of the names poses a huge danger to the children of that community. It's important that attention was paid to making this a worldwide issue in hopes of future legislation, but in regards to the community's immediate safety, it is a more significant piece that the Post released the names of the neighbors. Once again, they put the life and welfare of a child in danger, and should be scrutinized publicly for it.
I, personally, do believe that social media is responsibility to intervene with cyberbullying. While it would be a tedious task to handle, I believe that sites like MySpace and Facebook have an obligation to the users to screen what is being put on their channels for others to consume. It's social media sites where cyberbullying takes place and they act as a forum for them. While there are many platforms for cyberbullying to take place on, the fact that social media sites are a commonly used one means that they do hold a moral and ethical obligation to monitor what's being posted on them. I think that the first step to this happening and social media sites taking some responsibility for their platforms being used for cyberbullying. Megan's story can hopefully shed some light on what needs to be changed and where the line needs to be drawn to avoid losing another life.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
PR's True Meaning
After 3 decades, there is an enormous change coming to the public relations game. After years of failed attempts, the Public Relations Society of America is once again looking to refine, recharge, and revamp the public relations industry's image by changing what they say is the definition of public relations. Since 1982, there's been a definition in place, but years of professional evolution and technological developments have left the definition depleted and in a very vague form. The society hopes that these efforts will leave them with a "more appropriate [definition] for the 21st century," according to a Stuart Elliott NY Times article.
Currently, the definition for public relations is: "Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other." I think that Elliott's comment on the definition and its vagueness is spot on. It is far too general to do its job and define the public relations industry and its purpose. This definition is very problematic in essence. In today's day and age, I don't believe that public relations is intended to get consumers and the companies that hire PR firms to "adapt mutually to each other." Public relations is way more cutthroat than that. PR is an industry that in modern times is commissioned by a company to create competition. Sometimes, the methods by which PR firms and departments go about gaining this competitive edge is to simply try to eliminate competition. There are too many instances where we as consumers are exposed to some form of PR in which one party is attempting to negatively impact another competing company in their industry. In March of 2011, Ford came under some serious fire when it sponsored a series of YouTube webisodes depicting real police officers bad-mouthing the competitions police interceptors. The webisodes weren't just simple marketing clips, they were essentially slandering of the competitors' products and displayed real cops facing some challenges with the products. They were especially personal forms of PR and in my opinion don't remotely follow the current definition of what public relations is. Now, while the definition needs some serious work and refining, the way by which PR firms and companies go about advertising also needs some change, as it should be doing its job of promoting a product while at the same time not attempting to negatively impact the competition. A proper PR device is to promote a product based on its own characteristics, not those characteristics as superior to the competition.
If given the opportunity, my definition for public relations would be as follows..."Public relations is a marketing scheme set forth to ethically highlight the features of a company and its products to its consumers and the general public." I think that my definition is slightly more in-depth and specific to the purpose of PR and its obligation to consumers and its competition. In my definition, I think the most important improvement is the mention of ethics and upholding a standard of ethics in regards to the functionality of a company or its products on their own, not necessarily in comparison to its competitors or their products. I made sure to, in my opinion, properly word this by stating that it is to "ethically highlight the features of a company and its products," rather than including anything about how PR is to get consumers to "adapt" to the company. I believe that public relations should give the consumers a look at the company's products and services and in making them attractive on their own, give the consumer an option, rather than completely persuading them one way or another. Allow the consumer to make their own choice based solely on their own independent opinion of the product and how it relates to its competition.
I think that it's imperative that the new definition, whatever it may be, has a strong connection, link, and emphasis on ethics, specifically the PRSA's Code of Ethics. My new definition mentions ethical standards in it, reminding public relations firms of their duty and professional obligation to adhere to the ethical codes in place. My opinion is that the PRSA should function as a governing body for public relations. In doing this, the PRSA can not only set forth the definition of PR, but also ensure that all public relations efforts are adhering to its Code of Ethics. Being professionals in their field, PR firms should be held to a very high standard, as they oftentimes are the direct outlet in the exchange of information from a company to its consumers. The Code of Ethics was written for a specific purpose, much like the definition of PR is. Being that the society is already in place, it should utilize itself for the greater purpose of acting like a governing body for all of public relations. I think that this would eliminate unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal actions of PR firms.
In my opinion, I believe that autonomy is the most problematic ethical violation at hand. In lamens terms, autonomy is essentially the belief that one can give them-self their own law. As Wikipedia states, it's the "capacity of a rational individual to make an uninformed, uncoerced decision." In regards to ethics, this is an enormously problematic issue, as it threatens the general principle of a governing body, a code of ethics, and the superiority complex that is often seen in industries nowadays. This self-proclaimed power to work under one's own law as opposed to one's already set forth and in place is challenging to guidelines of professionalism. If one company decides to not adhere to the code of ethics the PRSA has drawn up, that can be damaging for the entire industry. The code of ethics is drawn up with the strict ideology that all companies taking part in forms of public relations must follow the code in order to eliminate unfair competitiveness and unprofessional tactics in marketing. Autonomy in the workplace is like a god-complex. It's one company's belief that it is above general PR principles that make the industry fair and ethically proper.
With the PRSA and FTC monitoring public relations practice, I think that this could be the start of something good...yet still very far from getting to where it needs to be. I do believe that these efforts will improve the field in terms of ethics. I think that they will challenge PR professionals that do not adhere to a code of ethics and could lead to changes in future practices that have come under fire. However, I do not believe that this will be enough. Corbett brings up a couple ethical issues that he says the PRSA will be monitoring in the new year. Such issues are PR firms representing dictators, the unethical use of unpaid interns, and maintaining PR ethical standards in the digital age to name a few. I believe that these 3 issues in particular are huge issues, all of which can be time-consuming, expensive, and if not properly monitored, extremely damaging to the industry. The PRSA's Code of Ethics was drawn up originally in 1950. While not strictly enforced per say, it was still in place, much like it is today. Over the last 60 years, there have been many violations, some more serious than others, of this code. On the PRSA's website, the page titled "About Enforcement" actually speaks about this. In one part, it states, "In fact, over the 50-year span of the initial PRSA Code of Ethics, only a handful of actions reached a point where they could be brought to the PRSA Board of Directors for action. None of these actions resulted in sanctions or official notifications of 'violations.'" The society states that efforts like this were unsuccessful in the past mainly "due to a lack of cooperation; enormous legal and investigative expenses; significant investments of time, money and resources for investigating alleged violations." I think that two main things need to happen in order to make these efforts successful. For one, I believe that the FTC, a government agency, needs to join forces officially with the PRSA and form a cooperative attempt to govern the industry of public relations. With the FTC's backing, I believe that with stricter punishments for violations on a legal level will force a change in the industry. Secondly, I think that the PRSA's Code of Ethics is something that needs to become more prevalent in the teaching practices of institutions. In addition to more education regarding ethical standards, I think that there should be a requirement by the PRSA and the government for those practicing in the public relations industry to become due-paying members of the PRSA. In doing this, the PRSA can create a stream of revenue by way of public relations professionals. The money collected can be used to fund investigative measures by the PRSA of public relations professionals accused of violations of the code.
Currently, the definition for public relations is: "Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other." I think that Elliott's comment on the definition and its vagueness is spot on. It is far too general to do its job and define the public relations industry and its purpose. This definition is very problematic in essence. In today's day and age, I don't believe that public relations is intended to get consumers and the companies that hire PR firms to "adapt mutually to each other." Public relations is way more cutthroat than that. PR is an industry that in modern times is commissioned by a company to create competition. Sometimes, the methods by which PR firms and departments go about gaining this competitive edge is to simply try to eliminate competition. There are too many instances where we as consumers are exposed to some form of PR in which one party is attempting to negatively impact another competing company in their industry. In March of 2011, Ford came under some serious fire when it sponsored a series of YouTube webisodes depicting real police officers bad-mouthing the competitions police interceptors. The webisodes weren't just simple marketing clips, they were essentially slandering of the competitors' products and displayed real cops facing some challenges with the products. They were especially personal forms of PR and in my opinion don't remotely follow the current definition of what public relations is. Now, while the definition needs some serious work and refining, the way by which PR firms and companies go about advertising also needs some change, as it should be doing its job of promoting a product while at the same time not attempting to negatively impact the competition. A proper PR device is to promote a product based on its own characteristics, not those characteristics as superior to the competition.
If given the opportunity, my definition for public relations would be as follows..."Public relations is a marketing scheme set forth to ethically highlight the features of a company and its products to its consumers and the general public." I think that my definition is slightly more in-depth and specific to the purpose of PR and its obligation to consumers and its competition. In my definition, I think the most important improvement is the mention of ethics and upholding a standard of ethics in regards to the functionality of a company or its products on their own, not necessarily in comparison to its competitors or their products. I made sure to, in my opinion, properly word this by stating that it is to "ethically highlight the features of a company and its products," rather than including anything about how PR is to get consumers to "adapt" to the company. I believe that public relations should give the consumers a look at the company's products and services and in making them attractive on their own, give the consumer an option, rather than completely persuading them one way or another. Allow the consumer to make their own choice based solely on their own independent opinion of the product and how it relates to its competition.
I think that it's imperative that the new definition, whatever it may be, has a strong connection, link, and emphasis on ethics, specifically the PRSA's Code of Ethics. My new definition mentions ethical standards in it, reminding public relations firms of their duty and professional obligation to adhere to the ethical codes in place. My opinion is that the PRSA should function as a governing body for public relations. In doing this, the PRSA can not only set forth the definition of PR, but also ensure that all public relations efforts are adhering to its Code of Ethics. Being professionals in their field, PR firms should be held to a very high standard, as they oftentimes are the direct outlet in the exchange of information from a company to its consumers. The Code of Ethics was written for a specific purpose, much like the definition of PR is. Being that the society is already in place, it should utilize itself for the greater purpose of acting like a governing body for all of public relations. I think that this would eliminate unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal actions of PR firms.
In my opinion, I believe that autonomy is the most problematic ethical violation at hand. In lamens terms, autonomy is essentially the belief that one can give them-self their own law. As Wikipedia states, it's the "capacity of a rational individual to make an uninformed, uncoerced decision." In regards to ethics, this is an enormously problematic issue, as it threatens the general principle of a governing body, a code of ethics, and the superiority complex that is often seen in industries nowadays. This self-proclaimed power to work under one's own law as opposed to one's already set forth and in place is challenging to guidelines of professionalism. If one company decides to not adhere to the code of ethics the PRSA has drawn up, that can be damaging for the entire industry. The code of ethics is drawn up with the strict ideology that all companies taking part in forms of public relations must follow the code in order to eliminate unfair competitiveness and unprofessional tactics in marketing. Autonomy in the workplace is like a god-complex. It's one company's belief that it is above general PR principles that make the industry fair and ethically proper.
With the PRSA and FTC monitoring public relations practice, I think that this could be the start of something good...yet still very far from getting to where it needs to be. I do believe that these efforts will improve the field in terms of ethics. I think that they will challenge PR professionals that do not adhere to a code of ethics and could lead to changes in future practices that have come under fire. However, I do not believe that this will be enough. Corbett brings up a couple ethical issues that he says the PRSA will be monitoring in the new year. Such issues are PR firms representing dictators, the unethical use of unpaid interns, and maintaining PR ethical standards in the digital age to name a few. I believe that these 3 issues in particular are huge issues, all of which can be time-consuming, expensive, and if not properly monitored, extremely damaging to the industry. The PRSA's Code of Ethics was drawn up originally in 1950. While not strictly enforced per say, it was still in place, much like it is today. Over the last 60 years, there have been many violations, some more serious than others, of this code. On the PRSA's website, the page titled "About Enforcement" actually speaks about this. In one part, it states, "In fact, over the 50-year span of the initial PRSA Code of Ethics, only a handful of actions reached a point where they could be brought to the PRSA Board of Directors for action. None of these actions resulted in sanctions or official notifications of 'violations.'" The society states that efforts like this were unsuccessful in the past mainly "due to a lack of cooperation; enormous legal and investigative expenses; significant investments of time, money and resources for investigating alleged violations." I think that two main things need to happen in order to make these efforts successful. For one, I believe that the FTC, a government agency, needs to join forces officially with the PRSA and form a cooperative attempt to govern the industry of public relations. With the FTC's backing, I believe that with stricter punishments for violations on a legal level will force a change in the industry. Secondly, I think that the PRSA's Code of Ethics is something that needs to become more prevalent in the teaching practices of institutions. In addition to more education regarding ethical standards, I think that there should be a requirement by the PRSA and the government for those practicing in the public relations industry to become due-paying members of the PRSA. In doing this, the PRSA can create a stream of revenue by way of public relations professionals. The money collected can be used to fund investigative measures by the PRSA of public relations professionals accused of violations of the code.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
To intervene, or not to intervene...that IS the question!
There are many scenarios in life where one is posed with challenging decisions. In certain careers, people are faced with rather different, yet difficult decisions they must make in the spur of the moment. Being an aspiring documentarian and filmmaker, it is inevitable that I too will be faced with these challenging decisions. In some instances, the perplexing choices made by individuals in my field have either made or broke their respective careers. I will examine and relate my career choice to a case study found in the textbook.
The case study I chose can be found in Chapter 1. Case 1-A deals with a photographer who was faced with an extremely trying decision at the spur of the moment. In 1976, Boston Herald photographer Stanley Forman won a Pulitzer Prize in the "Spot News Photography" category for a piece he covered of a young woman and a young girl falling from a fire escape during a city fire. As the story goes, Forman answered a call on a July afternoon about a fire in one of Boston's older city sections. Upon responding to the cal, Forman ran down an alley in the neighborhood to find a sight he didn't expect. He found the 2-year old girl and her 19-year old godmother trapped on a fifth floor balcony. Amidst the craziness, Forman noted a fire truck ladder being raised to the girls and another firefighter already in place on the roof. Before Forman knew it, the balcony had collapsed and the two girls fell to the ground. The entire time, Forman was shooting the scenario with his 135mm camera lens, capturing the entire ordeal on film.
I did some research on the situation and came across the NPPA's, or National Press Photographers Association, Code of Ethics. Being a photographer for the Boston Herald, a nationally recognized news publication, Forman would be expected to uphold the ethics set forth by the NPPA. After reviewing the broad (and noticeably short) code, I came across an interesting point set forth by the organization. The code states, "Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view." In relating Forman's work in this instance to the code, I noted that Forman, in fact, did what the code says. However, the question that I would like to raise is the idea of moral values. In saying that, I mean, if you are witnessing a tragedy in where someone's life is at stake, is there a certain point in which the camera should go down and the journalist should attempt to intervene and lend their services? In other words, does the price of a picture overpower the price of one's life?
In this specific situation, the code of ethics set forth by the NPPA covers the general issue. If Forman had a manual with this specific code on hand on that faithful day in July, he would've been able to turn to the code and read the "rule" I listed above and probably would've gone on with his photographing. The code is helpful in evaluating this situation on the level that it does state that the photographer should "strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view." In taking a backseat look at what Forman shot, he did successfully follow the guidelines set forth in the code of ethics. He was able to capture a situation that most of the population would never encounter, or in other words unpopular, and he did give the public an unrestricted view to the subjects at hand, in this instance, a young girl and her godmother unfortunately falling from a fire escape. So, as I find, Forman acted accordingly with the code of ethics set forth by the NPPA.
In my personal opinion, this code of ethics seemingly fails Forman's and basic humanity's unstated moral code. Again, in my personal opinion, this code is not helpful in examining the ethical considerations of this case study. However, as opposed to the professional ethics discussion at hand, I believe that Forman should have acted accordingly with the moral code of all society. This code deals with the ethics of photojournalists strictly on a professional level. Yes, it is the duty of photojournalists everywhere to capture the shots that fall out of the realm of the "norm." By this standard, Forman did his job. However, as a human, I believe that Forman did not fulfill his duty to put his camera down and intervene, either lending a hand with the efforts to rescue the young girl and her teenage godmother, or with respecting the family's privacy and not, in my opinion, exploiting the loss of their loved ones. Like I previously stated, Forman acted as a professional, which is what the code outlines, but neglects the ethics and morals of humans and the respect of the subjects at hand. Some things are meant to be photographed, while others should be kept privately.
One in-class discussion and article that I can relate to this situation deals with the WikiLeaks situation. A NY Times article provided to us in class discussed the scrutiny which WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange came under regarding their releasing of top-secret, classified government cables. The scrutiny they faced was largely due to the idea of releasing very real, kept-as-a-secret information that they did not have permission to exploit. I think that this relates to this case study in the idea of, when is real too real? Much like the photographs Forman shot, the cables that were released, including a specific one of a video of U.S. military forces bombing in Afghanistan, were extremely graphic. A photo of two young people falling to their death and videos of lethal bombings in Afghanistan, to me, fall in the same category as being something that the public does not necessarily need access to. The fact that people died in both instances that were visually documented is something that should be kept in archives and private. While both acted as professionals and did adhere to the code set forth by the NPPA, I do believe that it is a little extensive and unnecessarily publicized.
A second in-class discussion that I relate to this case study to occurred during my group's discussion period. In discussing the Hayes Code, my group seemingly got a tad bit off topic and wound up on the topic of video games in America (I know...very weird). In speaking about video games, we got on the topic of the graphic nature of some video games and their relation to domestic violence in the U.S. I see how this relates to the topic at hand with Forman's graphic photographs in the fact that the real nature of the visuals is too much. In regards to the video games, the extremely realistic graphics in the game have been linked to the growing domestic violence among youths in America. While seemingly unrelated, I think the two can be linked due to the realness of both. In our discussion group, we talked about, while visually appealing, the graphic nature of visuals should be toned down and not involve so much detail. I think that Forman's photographs are of such a graphic nature that they should be kept private, much like the detailed nature of the visuals in video games should be toned down...obviously for different reasons.
In this particular case, I found that seeing the other side of topic was most helpful. In my first blog post, I wrote about how in my desired career path I won't experience ethical issues. However, seeing a case study like this, I understand more how going out to visually document real events could lead me to encounter ethical issues. When documenting real events, the issue of intervening or not intervening and valuing the privacy of the subjects before the price of a "getting the shot" does come up. Professor Bindig brought up while making a documentary, should the person intervene in certain situations that pose a threat to the subjects, does raise an interesting point. I could see myself running into this dilemma while filming a documentary, as I do consider myself someone with strict moral values. If there were a situation that posed a threat to a subjects life, I would find myself putting my camera down and either choosing not to film or looking to help with efforts to avoid serious injury to my subjects. This case study on Forman's professional devotion did open my eyes to the problems I could see myself facing.
The case study I chose can be found in Chapter 1. Case 1-A deals with a photographer who was faced with an extremely trying decision at the spur of the moment. In 1976, Boston Herald photographer Stanley Forman won a Pulitzer Prize in the "Spot News Photography" category for a piece he covered of a young woman and a young girl falling from a fire escape during a city fire. As the story goes, Forman answered a call on a July afternoon about a fire in one of Boston's older city sections. Upon responding to the cal, Forman ran down an alley in the neighborhood to find a sight he didn't expect. He found the 2-year old girl and her 19-year old godmother trapped on a fifth floor balcony. Amidst the craziness, Forman noted a fire truck ladder being raised to the girls and another firefighter already in place on the roof. Before Forman knew it, the balcony had collapsed and the two girls fell to the ground. The entire time, Forman was shooting the scenario with his 135mm camera lens, capturing the entire ordeal on film.
I did some research on the situation and came across the NPPA's, or National Press Photographers Association, Code of Ethics. Being a photographer for the Boston Herald, a nationally recognized news publication, Forman would be expected to uphold the ethics set forth by the NPPA. After reviewing the broad (and noticeably short) code, I came across an interesting point set forth by the organization. The code states, "Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view." In relating Forman's work in this instance to the code, I noted that Forman, in fact, did what the code says. However, the question that I would like to raise is the idea of moral values. In saying that, I mean, if you are witnessing a tragedy in where someone's life is at stake, is there a certain point in which the camera should go down and the journalist should attempt to intervene and lend their services? In other words, does the price of a picture overpower the price of one's life?
In this specific situation, the code of ethics set forth by the NPPA covers the general issue. If Forman had a manual with this specific code on hand on that faithful day in July, he would've been able to turn to the code and read the "rule" I listed above and probably would've gone on with his photographing. The code is helpful in evaluating this situation on the level that it does state that the photographer should "strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view." In taking a backseat look at what Forman shot, he did successfully follow the guidelines set forth in the code of ethics. He was able to capture a situation that most of the population would never encounter, or in other words unpopular, and he did give the public an unrestricted view to the subjects at hand, in this instance, a young girl and her godmother unfortunately falling from a fire escape. So, as I find, Forman acted accordingly with the code of ethics set forth by the NPPA.
In my personal opinion, this code of ethics seemingly fails Forman's and basic humanity's unstated moral code. Again, in my personal opinion, this code is not helpful in examining the ethical considerations of this case study. However, as opposed to the professional ethics discussion at hand, I believe that Forman should have acted accordingly with the moral code of all society. This code deals with the ethics of photojournalists strictly on a professional level. Yes, it is the duty of photojournalists everywhere to capture the shots that fall out of the realm of the "norm." By this standard, Forman did his job. However, as a human, I believe that Forman did not fulfill his duty to put his camera down and intervene, either lending a hand with the efforts to rescue the young girl and her teenage godmother, or with respecting the family's privacy and not, in my opinion, exploiting the loss of their loved ones. Like I previously stated, Forman acted as a professional, which is what the code outlines, but neglects the ethics and morals of humans and the respect of the subjects at hand. Some things are meant to be photographed, while others should be kept privately.
One in-class discussion and article that I can relate to this situation deals with the WikiLeaks situation. A NY Times article provided to us in class discussed the scrutiny which WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange came under regarding their releasing of top-secret, classified government cables. The scrutiny they faced was largely due to the idea of releasing very real, kept-as-a-secret information that they did not have permission to exploit. I think that this relates to this case study in the idea of, when is real too real? Much like the photographs Forman shot, the cables that were released, including a specific one of a video of U.S. military forces bombing in Afghanistan, were extremely graphic. A photo of two young people falling to their death and videos of lethal bombings in Afghanistan, to me, fall in the same category as being something that the public does not necessarily need access to. The fact that people died in both instances that were visually documented is something that should be kept in archives and private. While both acted as professionals and did adhere to the code set forth by the NPPA, I do believe that it is a little extensive and unnecessarily publicized.
A second in-class discussion that I relate to this case study to occurred during my group's discussion period. In discussing the Hayes Code, my group seemingly got a tad bit off topic and wound up on the topic of video games in America (I know...very weird). In speaking about video games, we got on the topic of the graphic nature of some video games and their relation to domestic violence in the U.S. I see how this relates to the topic at hand with Forman's graphic photographs in the fact that the real nature of the visuals is too much. In regards to the video games, the extremely realistic graphics in the game have been linked to the growing domestic violence among youths in America. While seemingly unrelated, I think the two can be linked due to the realness of both. In our discussion group, we talked about, while visually appealing, the graphic nature of visuals should be toned down and not involve so much detail. I think that Forman's photographs are of such a graphic nature that they should be kept private, much like the detailed nature of the visuals in video games should be toned down...obviously for different reasons.
In this particular case, I found that seeing the other side of topic was most helpful. In my first blog post, I wrote about how in my desired career path I won't experience ethical issues. However, seeing a case study like this, I understand more how going out to visually document real events could lead me to encounter ethical issues. When documenting real events, the issue of intervening or not intervening and valuing the privacy of the subjects before the price of a "getting the shot" does come up. Professor Bindig brought up while making a documentary, should the person intervene in certain situations that pose a threat to the subjects, does raise an interesting point. I could see myself running into this dilemma while filming a documentary, as I do consider myself someone with strict moral values. If there were a situation that posed a threat to a subjects life, I would find myself putting my camera down and either choosing not to film or looking to help with efforts to avoid serious injury to my subjects. This case study on Forman's professional devotion did open my eyes to the problems I could see myself facing.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Secrets, secrets are no fun...
Paper trails. Oh, how they are a curious thing. Word of mouth. No proof necessary. These two factors have shaped the way the media and the world is today. Throughout history, important information has been transferred via these ideas. Due to the overwhelming demand of such information, many of the sources of this information have come under scrutiny for the secrecy of their identities. In this blog, I'll examine the issue on whether or not sources of vital information should be kept secret or if it's important enough to print, then it's public knowledge who leaked it.
In last week's readings, we learned about a the French government coming under public criticism for its accused abuse of its power. Last year, the French interior minister, Claude Gueant, admitted to the French government using its power to obtain detailed lists of calls made by a journalist at Le Monde, according to a NY Times article. In doing so, they were able to identify a government whistle-blower who leaked vital information regarding an investigation on billionaire Liliane Bettencourt. In a similar case, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange came under criticism as a result of a leaked government document over an unencrypted telephone line. In addition to Assange being ridiculed, one of his sources, former U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning was arrested on suspicion of leaking information to Assange and WikiLeaks in what the U.S. government called "aiding an enemy," a high capitol offense.
In these two cases, where do ethics come into play? In both instances, a "journalist"'s source's identity was obtained due to government intervention. In reference to vital information, I believe that the source's identity should be revealed. In the world we live in today, many rumors and not-wholly-true "facts" are released to the media. If not entirely true, these information leaks can seemingly insight dangerous situations. Like Daniel Ellsberg said in his NY Times article, "It’ s not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It’s that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret." In regards to information on government doings, I do believe that if there is something that is good enough to be known to the public, then the source of that information should be revealed. I don't believe that journalists should have the ability to gauge whether or not a source is credible or reliable.In regards to what Ellsberg said, I do believe that there is a fine line between tasteful discretion and wrongfully secretive. When it comes down to instances like the WikiLeaks situation, where a government is accused of wrongdoings, I do believe that the source should be revealed. If it turns out that the information is indeed factual, then as a public, I believe it is our right to know who the source of the leak is. Especially when it involves the government in a negative light, the public should be privy to know who is spreading the information. On the other end of the spectrum, this can be very dangerous for the source. It's not inconceivable that a government accused of wrongdoings would go to extreme lengths to validate sources and protect their reputation. However, I believe that if the information is vital enough for the public to know, then the source should be revealed as well. I think of it like a court trial. People are not permitted to testify in secrecy or anonymously for purposes of credibility. Even in dangerous situations involving murder, the witness is required to expose their identity to the public. I believe that the same goes in the instance of source leaking. Again, if the information is vital enough to be revealed to the public, then it should be public knowledge of who is leaking this information to those capable of printing it.
Like I previously mentioned in the instance of Bradley Manning, there is an assumed risk of revealing sources. The fallout in this situation was the ultimate jailing of Manning and public scrutiny of Julian Assange. As far as the other end of the spectrum, journalists also assume risk in not providing information on sources of information. Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer and formerly of the NY Times-Washington Bureau, was jailed in 2005 and charged with contempt of court for refusing to reveal sources in a 2003 investigation. Although the government had obtained the identity of the source, Miller was arrested due to her refusal to testify in court regarding the source's identity. Personally, I think that Miller was wrong in refusing to testify in court. Again, the information was released under a secretive pretense. Once revealed to the public, I believe that it is fair game. If I were in her shoes, I would've testified in court towards the identity of the source. With information regarding governments, it is my belief that the identity of the source should be revealed as it is a question of ethics. Because the information is so important, I believe it's the public's right to know how the information was obtained as well as the government's right to knowledge, to ensure the information was obtained legally and distributed truthfully.
I do believe that this is an inescapable dilemma. Although I do not plan to work within the news and media outlets, I recognize that even in the feature film industry, information on factual events must come from somewhere. I think that while unfortunate, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to avoid becoming entangled in scandals involving secrecy. The issue at hand is that much our current society is based upon the idea of "honesty" and "truth." However, I believe that while we are taught to live by these ideas, there are very few times where we as the public are given the entire truth, whether at the hands of the media or the government. In the event where we ARE given information that is said to be "truthful" and "factual," there will always be an issue arising regarding the source of the information, on either side of the topic, whether it be the accuser or the accused. However, in my case, if I were to adhere to my beliefs on source identity and secrecy...I think I would have a severe problem finding anyone to act as a source for information.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Cooking up some Ethics
Ethics are a tricky thing. Typically in the media business, you encounter issues with ethics constantly. Journalists and news reporters, magazine writers, publishers...they all must have a strong ethical core in order to become successful at what they're doing. Me, well, I don't think I will have to worry too much about ethics. Being that I want to become a filmmaker, I don't think that I will encounter issues with ethics that often.
I think the one area where I'll encounter issues with ethics in film-making is when covering topics that are based on true stories (i.e. documentaries, reality shows). I think that filmmakers are held to a certain standard in regards to telling true stories. My personal perception of what ethics in honest film-making is is to make sure that I have gathered the entire story and all the facts possible. I think that sometimes, filmmakers tend to find themselves being critiqued and receiving controversial reception due to their gathering of maybe only "one side" of the facts. While I think it's important for documentaries to sometimes tell only one side of a story, I also do believe that filmmakers hold a certain responsibility to try and not place their own opinions and prejudices in a documentary when telling the story, which some tend to do (i.e. Michael Moore). Not that I think that's unethical, but for me personally, I don't think I would get myself involved in a project where I could take the risk of stirring up controversy by, maybe, telling a story that can be viewed as one-sided. I, myself, am just not interested in being a controversial storyteller. With the projects and industry I'd like to work in, I don't think that other ethical issues will arise.
I think that Michael Moore's controversial documentaries are perfect examples of these ethical issues. If you look back to the release of Bowling for Columbine, Moore came under much scrutiny, mainly from right-wing Conservatives, that he was defending criminals and murderers of innocent people and criminalizing politicians, that they argued, had nothing to do with what the shooters did. In the film, he targets Charlton Heston and while interviewing him and capturing seemingly innocent footage of him speaking at an NRA rally, Moore's formatting and layout of the clips in the film add to his sarcastic, narcissistic tone about the Conservative view. Again in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore took to the screen to "expose the truth." However, unlike the hard-hitting Bowling for Columbine, Moore came under fire for taking it too easy on his subject...the Bush administration. At the other end of the spectrum, fans of Moore's works criticized the filmmaker for only grazing the surface of the "injustices" of the administration. Ethically speaking, Moore's two films experienced a lot of critical feedback mainly due to the fact that in an attempt to tell a story, he only was telling one side of it. Now, not that that wasn't his original plan, but to me, a true storyteller is someone who can portray both sides of the story and all the facts, and still have an emotionally gripping story.
Some tools that I already have that can help me from experiencing ethical issues in the workplace is simply the fact that I don't want to be a controversial storyteller. While I have a huge interest in becoming a documentary filmmaker, the stories that I would like to tell are not on the same level as Michael Moore's. The documentaries I'd like to make are emotional and gripping, but the stories basically tell themselves. Typically with film-making, it's the politically inspired documentaries that tend to experience ethical issues. Me, personally, I have no desire to cover anything regarding political of myself or others. I believe that I am capable of keeping my own feelings and emotions out of my works, as well as not covering stories that can often make accusations at one side. At the end of the day, documentaries are just a small part of my interest, so I believe that my interest in other projects, most of which are not based on true stories, will lead me down a path where I do not need to worry about ethical issues.
Given my interests in film-making, I haven't really read much course work in this class that can be applied to my profession. However, in my academic past, I have encountered much knowledge of this subject. Actually, in regards to overall ethical consciousness, it was my News Writing and Reporting I class with Professor Kabak that first basically introduced me to the awareness of ethics in my work. And it was there that I not only encountered my first issues with ethics and withholding the standards of a writer, but also learned how to keep my writing objective and unbiased. When it came to writing news articles for The Spectrum about topics concerning the student body and the university, ethical issues were huge. We had to ensure that not only were we telling two sides of the story, not inciting conflict or uprising, but that we had all the facts and that we had them right. In gathering facts and truths, I encountered an unbelievable amount of issues with sources. As we discussed in class, many people want to voice their opinions on topics, but do not want their names published. Well, when it comes to telling a story and exposing facts and truths of one side versus the other, it's almost necessary to publish sources. When printing facts, many people that read them begin to question the reliability of the sources they come from. This can become a ridiculously tricky situation when it comes to being a college newspaper writer. To be honest, this played a large part in my losing interest of becoming a media writer. In my line of work now, I have a little bit more freedom to express certain topics without walking on eggshells or coming under any scrutiny regarding ethics.
One big thing I'd like to discuss regarding ethics is the loose legality around spamming. We discussed it in our discussion group...the idea of spamming with intent to cause harm to servers not being considered illegal. I think that this is an unbelievable topic and is something that needs to be reviewed by the court system. In my opinion, companies like Anonymous that intentionally spam companies' websites in an attempt to crash servers should be shut down. It should be illegal for a company to display intent to cause harm to a company's servers. I understand that they are not illegally retrieving any information, but to me, it is the same as the plotline of the show Dexter. I'm not sure if you're familiar or not, but Dexter takes the law into his own hands, killing criminals and "bad people" in an attempt to get them off the streets. While doing something harmless by taking a criminal off the street, the intent of this is illegal and does cause harm. Just a thought though...
I think the one area where I'll encounter issues with ethics in film-making is when covering topics that are based on true stories (i.e. documentaries, reality shows). I think that filmmakers are held to a certain standard in regards to telling true stories. My personal perception of what ethics in honest film-making is is to make sure that I have gathered the entire story and all the facts possible. I think that sometimes, filmmakers tend to find themselves being critiqued and receiving controversial reception due to their gathering of maybe only "one side" of the facts. While I think it's important for documentaries to sometimes tell only one side of a story, I also do believe that filmmakers hold a certain responsibility to try and not place their own opinions and prejudices in a documentary when telling the story, which some tend to do (i.e. Michael Moore). Not that I think that's unethical, but for me personally, I don't think I would get myself involved in a project where I could take the risk of stirring up controversy by, maybe, telling a story that can be viewed as one-sided. I, myself, am just not interested in being a controversial storyteller. With the projects and industry I'd like to work in, I don't think that other ethical issues will arise.
I think that Michael Moore's controversial documentaries are perfect examples of these ethical issues. If you look back to the release of Bowling for Columbine, Moore came under much scrutiny, mainly from right-wing Conservatives, that he was defending criminals and murderers of innocent people and criminalizing politicians, that they argued, had nothing to do with what the shooters did. In the film, he targets Charlton Heston and while interviewing him and capturing seemingly innocent footage of him speaking at an NRA rally, Moore's formatting and layout of the clips in the film add to his sarcastic, narcissistic tone about the Conservative view. Again in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore took to the screen to "expose the truth." However, unlike the hard-hitting Bowling for Columbine, Moore came under fire for taking it too easy on his subject...the Bush administration. At the other end of the spectrum, fans of Moore's works criticized the filmmaker for only grazing the surface of the "injustices" of the administration. Ethically speaking, Moore's two films experienced a lot of critical feedback mainly due to the fact that in an attempt to tell a story, he only was telling one side of it. Now, not that that wasn't his original plan, but to me, a true storyteller is someone who can portray both sides of the story and all the facts, and still have an emotionally gripping story.
Some tools that I already have that can help me from experiencing ethical issues in the workplace is simply the fact that I don't want to be a controversial storyteller. While I have a huge interest in becoming a documentary filmmaker, the stories that I would like to tell are not on the same level as Michael Moore's. The documentaries I'd like to make are emotional and gripping, but the stories basically tell themselves. Typically with film-making, it's the politically inspired documentaries that tend to experience ethical issues. Me, personally, I have no desire to cover anything regarding political of myself or others. I believe that I am capable of keeping my own feelings and emotions out of my works, as well as not covering stories that can often make accusations at one side. At the end of the day, documentaries are just a small part of my interest, so I believe that my interest in other projects, most of which are not based on true stories, will lead me down a path where I do not need to worry about ethical issues.
Given my interests in film-making, I haven't really read much course work in this class that can be applied to my profession. However, in my academic past, I have encountered much knowledge of this subject. Actually, in regards to overall ethical consciousness, it was my News Writing and Reporting I class with Professor Kabak that first basically introduced me to the awareness of ethics in my work. And it was there that I not only encountered my first issues with ethics and withholding the standards of a writer, but also learned how to keep my writing objective and unbiased. When it came to writing news articles for The Spectrum about topics concerning the student body and the university, ethical issues were huge. We had to ensure that not only were we telling two sides of the story, not inciting conflict or uprising, but that we had all the facts and that we had them right. In gathering facts and truths, I encountered an unbelievable amount of issues with sources. As we discussed in class, many people want to voice their opinions on topics, but do not want their names published. Well, when it comes to telling a story and exposing facts and truths of one side versus the other, it's almost necessary to publish sources. When printing facts, many people that read them begin to question the reliability of the sources they come from. This can become a ridiculously tricky situation when it comes to being a college newspaper writer. To be honest, this played a large part in my losing interest of becoming a media writer. In my line of work now, I have a little bit more freedom to express certain topics without walking on eggshells or coming under any scrutiny regarding ethics.
One big thing I'd like to discuss regarding ethics is the loose legality around spamming. We discussed it in our discussion group...the idea of spamming with intent to cause harm to servers not being considered illegal. I think that this is an unbelievable topic and is something that needs to be reviewed by the court system. In my opinion, companies like Anonymous that intentionally spam companies' websites in an attempt to crash servers should be shut down. It should be illegal for a company to display intent to cause harm to a company's servers. I understand that they are not illegally retrieving any information, but to me, it is the same as the plotline of the show Dexter. I'm not sure if you're familiar or not, but Dexter takes the law into his own hands, killing criminals and "bad people" in an attempt to get them off the streets. While doing something harmless by taking a criminal off the street, the intent of this is illegal and does cause harm. Just a thought though...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)