The Ultimate Blog

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?