What My Group Really Thinks About Ethical Decisions

What My Group Really Thinks About Ethical Decisions

Knowing the people in my group, it proved interesting to read their blog entries.  I found the perspectives expressed in text offered additional insight into the discussions we shared in class.  Personal philosophies applied to the ethical topics we consider and comment upon offered me diverse views to contemplate.  Everyone made valid points and offered appropriate evidence in defense of their opinions.  While I didn’t agree with everything I read, considering alternate points-of-view forced me to reevaluate my own position on various issues and required that I determine whether my views were valid and useful as guides for me in the practice of Public Relations.

In Bart’s first post, about ethical decisions, he included the image of a Skittle package.   The purple, rainbow adorned package shows an assortment of “s” colored Skittles floating across the front.  This not so subtle design also uses two oversized letters to emphasize the excitement created by eating their candy.  What letters?  Cleverly, they place an oversized red “S” just before the word “Explosion.”  Red just screams sex, especially when the “S” is placed at a 45⁰ angle to the letters EX.  It doesn’t take a genius to see the word SEX prominently displayed on their package, a package with children as its target audience.  This not so subliminal, subliminal message is evident to everyone looking at the package.  But, I agree with Bart, though obviously inappropriate, it is hard to control or legislate.  Subliminal messaging is a creative and sneaky way to get around controls and the ethics must be driven internally, by the organization.  Mars, Inc. and its subsidiary, Wm. Wrigley Co. made an advertising decision that I think crosses the line.  I appreciate Bart reminding me of how often companies make this sort of decision and how frequently I see it but overlook it.

In the second post of the semester, Justine wrote about using her gut to help determine “the right thing to do” when confronted by an ethical decision making situation.  Though simplistic in nature, it is a bottom line sort of place to start and end.  I think about decisions I’ve made, especially those that I didn’t give enough consideration to, and realize that decisions that proved “wrong” for one reason or another really did make me feel sick to my stomach.  My gut was telling me what to or not to do, but I really didn’t tune in. Justine says a good night’s sleep is a good indicator, and I agree, however, I also think that keeping an eye, or ear, on my gut reaction is a good place to start my decision making process.

Joel’s third blog post was an eye opener for me.  I am astonished by the idea that I can, legally, without infringing on anyone’s rights, freely use iBooks Author and my iPad to plagiarize a vast array of materials and use them, without permission or citation.  What is the purpose of copyrighting material?  It seems that Apple feels that copyright infringement no longer exists.  This is very disconcerting and seems a completely unethical position.  Obviously, legislation can’t keep pace with technology and this decision reflects the power of organizations.  They are able to legally collect information, in this case intellectual property, and share it with consumers without concern for the ethical implications.  Technology appears to be the driver of this, but it is, ultimately, the money.  Money dismantles the ethical standards of many people and businesses.  Is nothing sacred?  It appears not.  Perhaps I should, we all should, keep our thoughts to ourselves!

Cecilia offered me a view of Public Relations run amuck.  Cecilia has good reason to remember Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.  I also remember them but not with the same personal experience as Cecilia expresses.  It sounds ridiculous to think of a government hiring a Public Relations person or firm and yet that was what the unscrupulous Marcos regime did.  Though the hiring did not have the intended result, it was a strategic move that resonates today.  Political parties and individual politicians are constantly testing the voter’s pulse and adjusting their spin to match the climate.  Thus, in this way, it can be argued, the US government is no different than the Philippines between 1965 and 1986.   We may vote for our politicians but how they are represented in the media is nothing more than a “spin” to help them win.

Like James, I find bullying unacceptable and indefensible and agree that there are competing values at stake when reporting on such a sensitive issue.  His point of community interests conflicting with individual interests is pause for thought.  But, justice is the foundation of our government and taking it in to our own hands, even for lofty reasons, is not right either.  Ethical decision-making is very difficult under any circumstance, but when it involves the bullying and harassment of a child, it is easier to imagine justifying the revelation of sensitive information, such as the names of the neighbors involved.  However, at the end of the day, choosing the ethical high road is clearly right.  It is better to hold on to your objectivity and remain unbiased than it is to compromise your judgment and become part of the story.

Blog writing has been an interesting activity, cause for reflection, and a good way to think things through.  Reading my peers’ blogs has provided me with additional food for thought.  It has reinforced my perception that ethics is fundamentally and inextricably entwined in Public Relations and the decisions that I will need to make as I continue in my career.

The Cyberbullying Dilemma

The Cyberbullying Dilemma

Chapter 1, Page 4, Introduction to Media Ethics by Patterson & Wilkins

“Ethics begin when elements within a moral system conflict.”

Cyberbullying Research Center @ www.cyberbullying.us

The definition of cyberbullying:

“willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, & other electronic devices.”

Bullying of all sorts is most prevalent during adolescence, and cyber bullying is no exception.  However, the Malone article has the added twist of an adult being an active participant in the bullying of a middle school neighbor who eventually committed suicide. Statistically, bullying appears to peak during adolescence though research is now revealing it is also prevalent in the adult population. As a result, journalists are routinely confronted by the dilemmas surrounding the issue of how to report these incidents. 

In 2006 Steve Pokin, of The Suburban Journals of St. Charles County, Missouri, reported on the tragic suicide of local teenager, Megan Meier.  Megan took her life in response to an onslaught of destructive messages sent to her MySpace page.  The message that pushed her over the edge was, “The world would be a better place without you.”  Cruel, destructive, harmful, whatever you call it, the end was tragic.  Pokin’s job was to tell the story.

Pokin had conflicting responsibilities.  No matter what his personal feelings, his job was to investigate and then provide accurate, timely, and complete information regarding the story.  Simultaneously, he had to consider his employer, the newspaper, his audience, the readers, the Meier family, and finally, the perpetrators of the bullying.  Pokin looked to his editor and the newspaper’s attorney to provide guidance on what should be published.  Pokin seemed to use the steps listed in the Multidimensional Ethical Reasoning and Inquiry Task Sheet  (MERITS).  In seeking help, it appears that he looked at the Values, Framework, Stakeholders, and his own responsibilities as a journalist.  He also met the Code of Ethics for journalists, as paraphrased in Pliaisance, chapter 2: "Seek truth and report it, Minimize harm, Act independently, and Be accountable."  So what did he do? 

In the first of many articles, on November 11, 2006, Pokin provided clear and sensitive coverage of the bullying and harassment Meagan suffered, and the tragic results of that onslaught.  What he didn’t provide, and the what public wanted, was the name, or names, of the perpetrator(s). Readers were a combination of horrified and furious.  The story hit a nerve, a deep nerve, and people wanted someone to blame.  Pokin and his newspaper were easy targets and they took a solid hit.

Reporters seek to answer five basic questions every time, “Who, what, when, where, why, and how.”   This time, the answers to those questions were not simple, and revealing those answers could do further harm.  Additionally, since there were no charges pending, the revelations might create legal problems for the newspaper, jeopardize police and FBI investigations, impede prosecution, harm the under-age perpetrator, create a “blood-letting, revenge seeking mentality” that could spiral out of control, and finally, personally, it could make or break Steve Pokin’s professional reputation.

Ethically, Pokin followed standards and codes of conduct drafted for his profession.   He could have justified a decision to publish the perpetrators’ names.  PRSA’s standards dictate that practitioners  “Protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information.”   And the Journalists’ code includes "Seek truth and report it.”   However, Pokin’s decision not to publish the names of the participating bullies is equally defensible but perhaps marginally more persuasive.  Why?  The PRSA’s standard includes ”Protect confidential and private information.” And the Journalists’ Code of Conduct includes ”Minimize harm” and “Be accountable." and MERITS’ position that professionals consider “the Values, Framework, Stakeholders, and journalistic responsibilities.”  

Pokin was in a lose-lose position.  He was going to be “damned” either way.  In this case, he had two things going for him, his editor’s support and the knowledge that the story was NOT going to end with the first issue.  It is hard to say whether he anticipated the firestorm that followed, but for four more years he continued to write about Megan’s tragic death and the repercussions of the Social Media bullying and harassment that led to her death.  One could argue, that no matter how dreadful the content, this was a really good story.

In the end, the court of public opinion, and the legal system, had the final word.  Pokin continued to follow the story through the courts and until a verdict was reached.  A compilation of his articles can be found at: http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/some-of-pokin-s-stories-about-megan-meier-s-suicide/collection_04ba6500-017a-11e1-9cac-0019bb30f31a.html

The follow up, today, should be Pokin reporting on the growing impact of Social Media on individuals, organizations, and legislation.  Should the providers, though “just” a conduit, feel an ethical responsibility toward their users?  YES!  Emphatically, YES!  Organizations are making millions, billions, unknown, sums of money and garnering power that is unimaginable, and largely invisible, as a result of the users and their networks.  With power comes responsibility.  Onlookers silently contribute when bullying occurs but providers create the venue for cyberbullying abuse.  Yes, they should feel responsible and yes, they should be held accountable.

Public Relations Redefined: 2012

What are Public Relations and to what standards should a P.R. professional be held accountable?  How should the criteria be established? What body or organizations should have ultimate responsibility?  Should there be required training and/or certification for individuals, groups, and organizations?  Is legislation necessary?  If so, for what purpose and who will draft it?  These are just some of the questions that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is considering.  The simple, old, one line, ambiguous definition of Public Relations, from 1982, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” is going to be replaced.  The definition is archaic and needs to be honorably retired.  A new definition of Public Relations is overdue.

The new definition is needed because the definition’s content is outdated and it is not flexible enough to be applied to issues prevalent in 2012.  The definition seems to start with Public Relations occupying a one-sided position, acting as the hub for dispensing and controlling information.  This stance does not recognize the impact technology has had on the roles of consumer and P.R. professional.  No longer does the P.R. professional control the arena, the consumer is an equal in the process.  Along with this is the issue of adaptation, which generally means change over time.  However with the advent of new technology time has been compacted, change is rapid, and the change reflects the consumer’s response to the P.R. used.  The consumer is likely to force a change in Public Relations strategies rather than P.R. changing the consumer.  The consumer now influences P.R. decisions, content, and methods used.  The immediacy of the interaction between consumer and P.R. decisions has repercussions. 

The “old” definition leaves out more than it includes. The definition lacks clarity and does not address any major issues such as privacy, ethics, certification, professional standards and regulations.  Therefore, lines get drawn and then blurred.  People and organizations, if anyone cares, have a lot more gray area than black and white in which to work, and since less than 10% of P.R. professionals belong to a professional organization, it is hard to imagine that change is going to be voluntary.  Systemic change is required.

Elliott and Corbett’s articles, November 20^th and 21^st, 2011, respectively, articulated reasons change is necessary.  I agree with their positions and with PRSA, which is spearheading the drive to establish more professional and unified standards for all P.R. professionals.  But, how should the new definition be worded?  Noting that Elliott and Corbett’s articles were not current, and because Elliott provided a Dec. 2^nd date for final submissions for new definitions, I checked to see where PRSA was in the process of determining the new definition.  In Corbett’s January PRSA post, the new decision-making timeline was revealed and with it, the three finalists for the new P.R. definition.  Rather than draft my own competing model, I evaluated the three finalists and chose a “winner” I feel should be adopted.  Definition No. 1:  Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.

This definition is clear, concise, and identifies the position and responsibilities of the P.R. professional.  It includes ethics and points to a less manipulative approach to P.R. by indicating that both parties should profit from the relationship.  This simultaneously honors and protects both parties.  Additionally, this definition will allow PRSA to address inconsistencies around terminology, standards for professional conduct, and codes, standards, regulations and laws.

The fundamental reason for a new PRSA definition is certainly ethics, including the need for formal and consistent structure to use in evaluating ethical dilemmas and decisions.  The drafting of the new definition has highlighted other significant “tangential issues” that have to be addressed.   The questions currently outweigh the answers.  But, the stakes are high for everyone.  We will all be impacted, directly or indirectly, P.R. professional and consumer alike.  Therefore, to protect all stakeholders it is essential that a formal Board be established, and a Code of Conduct, Certification and review process, and uniform rules and regulations be drafted and enacted.  Without such structure, P.R. will remain nebulous and unprofessional, and the industry and its practitioners will continue to suffer when scrutinized.

The need for these guidelines is escalating.  Ethical breaches appear to be significant and their exposure contributes to the frequently low opinion the public has toward P.R. activities.  One could argue that there are many levels of inappropriateness and degrees of ethical violations.  However, I feel that once that line is crossed the degree of the transgression is irrelevant.  Once a professional strays, harm has been done.  “Harm” is the umbrella under which all other breaches can be lumped.  Every ethical choice actually has harm, or do no harm, as its guiding principle.  When ethics are ignored, privacy, justice, transparency, autonomy, and/or community are sacrificed with what some would view as a graduated level of harm occurring as a result of the decision.  Again, I see no gray.  Harm or damage is done and the ethics of the individual practitioner, all stakeholders, and the profession itself are compromised.  This perspective reinforces the drive toward uniform and systemic requirements for all P.R. professionals and the profession.

How should these changes be wrought?  PRSA is a great place to start.  PRSA is the industry’s standard-bearer and it is, therefore, appropriate for the organization to be instrumental in crafting the necessary changes.  However, it is somewhat questionable as to whether the fox really can watch the chicken coop.  Creating your own guiding principles is tricky at best and suspect at worst.  Transparency in this process, and in the resulting guidelines, is integral to initial and long-term success.  Will it be enough or is legislation necessary?  It is one thing to have a code of conduct and another to have the means to require, monitor, and enforce compliance.

Individuals and organizations will continue to be faced with ethical challenges and decisions.  Some of the issues will be familiar, yet other new ones will unfold.  I’m sure that no matter what system is put in place there will be the consummate professionals who adhere to ethical principles without guidelines and others who will not be confined by such requirements.  I agree with PRSA that “ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member” and I also agree that this will not occur without systemic change.  The process begins with the drafting and adoption of a new definition of P.R., and it should continue with a complete overhaul of the profession itself.

Football Anyone?

Blog Post 3

Excerpt from: Page 70 CHAPTER 3: Strategic Communication: Does Client Advocate Mean Consumer Adversary? CASE 3- B Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can ERIN SCHAUSTER University of Missouri

“Near the end of the summer of 2009, Anheuser- Busch ( AB) launched a unique Bud Light promotion, just in time for football tailgating season. The promotion consisted of beer cans color- coordinated to coincide with school colors from 27 colleges nationwide. Aside from color palettes identifiable to specific colleges, Bud Light cans were void of reference to college names, logos, or school mascots. Examples of product packaging can be seen at the promotional Web site, www.tailgateapproved.com. According to Anheuser- Busch spokesperson Carol Clark, the promotion was planned to coincide with the launch of football season and baseball playoffs. Timing was an important tactic, which was developed in part to revive the suffering sales of the company’s flagship brand, Bud Light. During the first two years of the 2007 deep recession, sales of the nation’s biggest beer brand declined for the first time in 27 years. The Fan Cans were a voluntary promotion for beer wholesalers and nearly half opted in, according to Anheuser- Busch’s Carol Clark. With half of AB’s wholesalers distributing promotional cans, college campuses and college towns became the new promotional distribution grounds for Bud Light just in time for tailgating season. The high levels of participation initially appeared to underscore acceptance within college markets nationwide. However, it didn’t take long for college administrators to notice. Many pro-tested the promotion and those comments were reported as news in the LA Times and by the Associated Press.” 

When I finished reading CASE 3-B Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can by Erin Schauster, I realized that by defining my ethical standards I am also refining my career options. Knowing that I have a professional code of conduct will obviously have an impact on my professional decisions, but it will also influence my application process by narrowing my pool of potential employers. 

I reviewed many Codes of Ethics, philosophic and industry created, that could be used to evaluate the “Fan-Can Advertising” case study.  Going through the process, I found much to consider.

The ancient Greek’s definition of ethics stated that the determination of “good” needed to be applicable to both the individual and society.  Today, when scrutinized, an ethical decision or position must be morally justifiable, defensible, and explainable.  Additionally, the choice must be universal in its reasoning and application.  These philosophic stances, combined with the Beer Institute’s Ethical Codes in Advertising and Marketing, provide ethical criteria aplenty to use in assessing the issue.  However, it is also appropriate to note that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the American Advertising Federation (AAF) both provide clear definitions and guidelines for making decisions related to ethical issues. 

With this overwhelming level of evaluative criteria, what does the individual do when faced with a dilemma?  Do I choose one?  Hybridize and combine philosophies?  Ignore them all and go on my gut?  At the end of the day, these ethical codes don’t appear completely helpful in determining whether to Anheuser-Bush’s “Fan-Can” advertising campaign is defensible.  So, I think that there must be a “Golden Rule” level to this particular case study that can surmount or synthesize the checklist for ethical decision-making.  I think I will default and use the “Do No Harm” position as my guide.

Anheuser-Bush, using a shrewd marketing strategy, identified individual audiences and tailored their advertising to those markets.  On the surface, this appears to be nothing more than a well-designed marketing campaign for legal consumers of their products.  In reality, it is a thinly veiled strategy to appeal to a younger, more vulnerable, less discerning audience, consumers who are too young to enter a bar.  This campaign goes against industry Codes of Conduct for Advertising and Marketing and their own stated code that is an adopted version of the original code.  A portion of The Beer Ethical Codes in Advertising and Marketing states:

“3. Brewers are committed to a policy and practice of responsible advertising and marketing. As a part of this philosophy, beer advertising and marketing materials are intended for adult consumers of legal drinking age. Advertising or marketing materials should avoid elements that appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age. Advertising and marketing materials appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age if they have special attractiveness to such persons beyond their general attractiveness for persons above the legal drinking age.

a. In considering whether beer advertising and marketing materials appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age, Brewers should take into account the following elements among others:

• Symbols • Language • Music • Gestures •Entertainers or celebrities

•Cartoon characters •Groups or organizations

i. Placements made by or under the control of the Brewer in magazines, newspapers, on television, on radio, and in digital media in which there is no dialogue between a Brewer and user, may only be made where at least 71.6% of the audience is expected to be adults of legal drinking age. A placement will be considered compliant if the audience composition data reviewed prior to placement meets the percentages set forth above.”

Anheuser-Bush defends their position and connects it to their stated ethical code.  In the case study it is explained,

 “Anheuser- Busch agreed to drop the program within any college market that requested it. However, the company through its spokesperson insisted that its decision was not due to any agreement with the claims of irresponsible advertising. Anheuser- Busch maintained that it had neither infringed on any rights nor contributed to a socially irresponsible program. According to the firm’s Customer Relationship Group, the promotion was neither college- specific nor team- specific, and the only correlation to sports was the promotion’s launch time. Instead, the campaign was a promotion for the brand in general. Anheuser- Busch promotes a high level of corporate social responsibility. At www.beeresponsible.com, which is also linked to the tailgate promotional Web site, the consumer is told, “ Our message on college campuses is clear. If you’re 21 and older and choose to drink, please drink responsibly. If you’re under 21, respect the law; don’t drink.” Despite abandoning some college markets, the promotion continued to run through summer into fall in some markets with continued promotional support online.

Again, at face value, this supports compliance to the code of ethics.  But, there are two other points to make which diminish the validity of this position.  The first are the statistics about underage drinking, provided by The Center for Disease Control (CDC), and the second are the markets chosen by Anheuser-Bush to further their campaign.  I have included a segment of the “Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fact Sheet - Underage Drinking” document to quantify what most of us already know.

“Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fact Sheet - Underage Drinking

Alcohol use by persons under age 21 years is a major public health problem.

1 Alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States, more than tobacco and illicit drugs.

2.Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.

3 On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.

4 In 2008, there were approximately 190,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.

Drinking Levels among Youth

The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey5 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

•                42% drank some amount of alcohol.

•                24% binge drank.

•                10% drove after drinking alcohol.

•                28% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

Other national surveys indicate

•                In 2008 the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 28% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol and 19% reported binge drinking.6

•                In 2009, the Monitoring the Future Survey reported that 37% of 8th graders and 72% of 12th graders had tried alcohol, and 15% of 8th graders and 44% of 12th graders drank during the past month.7”

It is interesting to note that the ethical stance promoted by Anheuser-Bush is undermined by the medium and markets used to carry the message. Their primary methods of advertising are through the World Wide Web and social media.  Although the age of users of social media has risen, the type and volume of use varies significantly by age.  According to recent studies, young adults, 18-22 years old, access and respond to social media at a significantly higher rate than their adult counterparts.  One example is shown in this chart, for 2010, reflecting Facebook status updates.  During a day, 31% of 18-22 year olds will update their Facebook status compared to 19% of 23-35 year olds, 10% of 36-49 year olds, and 3% for Facebook users over 50 years of age.  Even more significantly, in a week’s time, over 75% of all 18-22 year old Facebook users will update their status compared to 56% of 23-35 year olds and 38% of 36-49 year olds and 15-19% for users over 50. 

These statistics matter when evaluating the media, marketing, and advertising campaign because Anheuser-Bush’s actions contradict their claims of ethical and defensible marketing aimed at consumers of a legal age. Why do they use these methods of sharing information?  It is always the audience.  In this case, a target audience that is below the legal drinking age.  Even more disturbing, are the statistics not noted in the PEW report, those of social media and alcohol consumers under the age of 18.

So where does this take me in my search for professional standards?  Universal or relative standards remain in agreement on this case study.  The marketing of alcohol to underage consumers is wrong and it is done by an industry, in this case one company, overtly and subtly, while the corporation espouses a position of social responsibility.  On the personal level, it is repugnant, and as a professional, I realize that I wouldn’t be able to work for Anheuser-Bush.  I would not feel comfortable promoting their products using the methods currently employed.

As a final note, the essay indicated that the success of this marketing method is unknown.  Again, actions and statistics reflect the unstated truth.  Beer sales increased and Anheuser-Bush now has an annual $50 million dollar, six-year, contract with the NFL.  What are they going to do? They are going to sell team-specific beer cans in each region.  I would venture to say that the test marketing on college students was a success.  No company would spend $300 million dollars on advertising if they weren’t guaranteed a positive return on their investment.

Ethical Standards

At some point, every media professional is going to have to make an ethical decision about a story.  This will be especially true if the story has not yet been divulged through any other means.  Additionally, because the line between journalism and entertainment has become fuzzy, the instant a “story” is sensed, it is broadcast.  Facts are nothing more than speculative statements that can be retracted later.  Today it seems that it is better to tell the story, even the wrong story, than to miss being the first to report.  As a media specialist I will work for my employer and the public.  I will have to consider those potentially conflicting stakeholders while assessing my own ethical standards.  At what point and/or under what circumstances might I consider crossing that fuzzy line to reveal something for a reason that compromises my ethics?  My goal is to never cross that line.  However, I know that this is a dilemma that I will have to confront.

Just about a year ago it was revealed that the “Terminator,” and Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a philanderer who conceived a child with a member of his household staff.  For over a decade, the mother continued to work in his home as an integral part of the Schwarzenegger staff.  As such, she spent a tremendous amount of time with Arnold, Maria, and their children.  Now, the truth is out.  Arnold has another son.  His children have another brother.  His wife has been betrayed.  Their pain is ours to see.  http://youtu.be/E-rYgv8onqY and http://youtu.be/kFIhdqkCAcM and http://youtu.be/szDuQXlw9J8.

I think about my life, my family and friends.  There are more than a few indiscretions and heartbreaks within our network.  How would we handle it if all those painful truths were revealed?  What would that do to us?  The husband who cheated and left his family but the kids didn’t find out for years.  The wife who had an adolescent pregnancy that she’s never discussed with her husband.  The successful businessman who had his youthful rap sheet sealed.  The woman whose father committed suicide when she was a toddler but she’s always been told he died in an accident.  The list is long.  It is a Pandora’s box of potential stories. 

What criteria would I use to determine whether to report or withhold information that might be considered a secret to some but newsworthy to others?  In my mind I run through all the Ethical Codes I read.  Working backwards, I think about Scotty Reston’s simple "Publish and be damned" philosophy and I move on to consider the other philosophies and their standards and criteria; Dialogic, Narrative Communication, Contextual, and Universal-Humanitarian Ethics, and then I consider lists for the Ethics for Advertising and Marketing, and Ethics for Journalists.  Each has its pros and cons but which would I use to determine whether to share the “story”?   I look over the Multidimensional ethical Reasoning and Inquiry Task Sheet MERITS and begin to evaluate my position. 

There are conflicting needs and values at stake.  My employer and the affiliated advertisers will make money from my sharing the story, the public will be informed about a person and issues that are germane to our time and current events, the information has been validated and sources confirmed, it is accurate, and right now it remains unrevealed.  On the other hand, should I move forward, individuals will be hurt, careers destroyed, and innocent parties will be drawn into the mess revealing the story creates.

Plaisance wrote, on page 49, “Challenges arise when more than one perceived duty emerges in a situation, when rival goods compete for our allegiance. For instance, the impulse to protect a person may conflict with the universal duty to tell the truth.”

What would the bottom line be?  Am I willing to compromise my ethics to meet the demands of my employer and the voracious appetite of the media consumer?  Will I be hurt more by publishing or by remaining true to my ethics?  I could keep or lose my job, I could keep or compromise my credibility, I could remain aloof or become part of the secret, or I could maintain or destroy my own, and other’s personal and professional relationships.  There is no clear and simple answer.  I hope that such a dilemma is far in my future because I am unable to say exactly what I will or will not do. 

Ethical Decision Making?

Parenting is a continuum of decision-making.  Soon after conception I began the long path of caring for my children.  In their early years I was their hero and role model, a role suggested by Aristotle, and my actions became the foundation of my kids’ moral compass and ethical decision-making. Over time the validity of my decisions has become suspect. One at a time, the kids finished elementary school and entered adolescence. With this developmental transition my authority diminished and external influences increased. However, it was just as my influence diminished that my children were faced with their first ethical challenges.

I understand Bok, Aristotle, Meyers, Benthem, Kant, and their varied philosophies. I can see the value of defining ethics, using evidence for decision making, and looking at the individual and common good. But at the end of the day, the idea of me modeling ethical behavior totally frightens me. 

Hundreds, even thousands of times I have made choices related to my life and the lives of my children.  I have weighed the pros and cons (good vs. right), looked at all the facts, thought about the individual and greater consequences, and yet, at times, I still I hear myself tell my child that he or she can or cannot do something “because I said so.”

So, what are the principles guiding my decisions?  How do I convey them and instill them in my children?  How do I make the basis of my behavior visible?  How do I hold my ground when the kids see and hear things in the media, have friends with parents who act based on different rationales, and the dilemmas change as the children age? As I worry about my responsibilities I remind myself that ethical behavior develops over time and as a result of the guidance demonstrated through action. 

Mass media and social media are important influences in my children’s lives.  Rather than battle these influences, I take action.  I use them as situational teaching tools.  I am close by when my daughter watches “Jersey Shore” and other reality shows.  I pose questions about the actions and decisions presented during the program.  I listen to my daughter and then offer my perspective.  Our discussions encourage both of us to reflect honestly on the broader implications and impact of individual behavior.  I am hopeful that these dialogues will stay with her when she is confronted by ethical dilemmas in her daily life.  Cheat?  Spread rumors?  Forward photos meant to be private?  These three scenarios all came up in just one day.  I’m sure that there are others of which I am unaware.

My kids’ lives are constantly changing and so are ours.  Social media, the evolution of technology, the changes in methods of communication, and the choices we make are all connected.  Individuals, organizations, companies, governments, and institutions all need a compass to guide them in ethical decision-making.  How can this be achieved and is it a static goal or one that must constantly evolve? 

For now I think that I will stick to trying to achieve the “ethical decision-making” goal on the personal level.  I think that it is less important to know which philosopher I want to emulate than it is to have developed a compass by which to steer my decision-making.  As a mother I am my children’s ethical and moral North Star and I am doing my best to lead by example.  I hope that by the time I’ve launched the kids I will have achieved my goal and each of them will have their own internal North Star by which to navigate as they travel their life’s journey.