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.