final post

And the final post is finally here, this week I will be taking us on a ride through the last 6 weeks or so through commenting on classmate’s blogs.  So lets get this started, batter up.

First up, Terrence White’s blog from January 7^th, 2012, in this blog Terrence choose to talk about the balance between the public’s right to know and the right of individuals to keep certain aspects of their personal lives private.  More specifically, Terrence used Tiger Woods as an example of how ones private live can be brought to the public by the media.  So a quick background, Tiger Woods before incident was the richest athlete in the world (first to reach a billion dollars), he was on top on the World Golf Rankings for about 10 years, had a smoking hot Swedish model wife and 2 beautiful children.  After the incident, he lost about half his money, numerous endorsements, his wife, and ultimately his reputation of a squeaky clean guy.  The issue that Terrence brings up in his blog is whether or not it is ethically correct, to be able to be so intrusive in ones private life.  He states that more time should be spent exploring the rights of the media and what they should and shouldn’t be allowed to report.  Personally, I agree with Terrence, I understand it is the media and some stories deserve to be told but in some instances they don’t, they don’t involve any of us and therefore we shouldn’t be brought into it as if it does.

My second blog commenting will be on Tammy Thompson’s January 14^th, 2012 blog dealing with the ethical practices of whistle blowing.  Tammy uses a great real life experience (even though it wasn’t actually her) to show her side and give us an example to go by.  Tammy tells us a story through the experience of a fellow colleague, in this ethical dilemma of whistle blowing, an executive of the company violated the companies code of conduct by not only bringing her underage daughter to an event that required everyone to be over the age of 21 but was also seen giving “products” to her, therefore breaking not only the law but the companies code of conduct as well.  The dilemma that this caused was whether or not to “blow the whistle” on the executive for breaking the rules.  Tammy states that if it had been her in this case she would have released the information, but only to the highers of her company, aka not the media too.   This was a conscious decision by Tammy, because she felt that there was no need to get the media involved and possibly damage the executive’s reputation.  After doing so, her boss resigned and although it should have been a secret who told, it wasn’t and Tammy ended up being transferred to London, where she was later let go due to downsizing.  In this situation I agree with Tammy, I truthfully don’t know if I were to be the one to “blow the whistle” but I do agree this is the right thing to do in this situation.

Kimmee Roleder’s blog post from January 27^th, 2012 brings up some great points regarding the United States and the public relations industry.  Kimmee starts by giving us an overall background on what PR is according to a Stuart Elliot.  Here is Elliots definition; “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other”  This definition was good for a while but no has become a little bit outdated.  Kimmee offers her own definition; “Public Relations create and maintain strong relationships between businesses and the public while sustaining a professional and ethical presence within the industry.”  Personally I like her definition, I think it expands upon the old one and gives it a more up to date feel.  In the public relations field there is always much debate over what is considered ethical and what isn’t.  Kimmee makes a point of including ethics in its definition because of the blurry line that currently exists in the field.  Kimmee goes on to use Facebook/Google as an example of how companies violated the ethical standards that were “set” or “not set” (all up for debate).  More specifically how Facebook went after another company with malicious intentions. Moving forward, Kimmee talks about her opinions on ethical standards, stating that she tends to give people the benefit of the doubt because when it comes down to it aren’t we all looking for the same thing in life, "Autonomy, self-esteem, happy family, loving relationships, leisure time, and good friendships all make the quality of life" each of us are searching (Binding, lecture).

Next up is Avery’s post on cyber bullying.  We all read the case dealing with the suicide of thirteen year old Megan Mier, that was caused by unruly comments made through the social networking site myspace.  The debate at hand was whether or not it was ethical to release or keep private the names of the neighbors who caused the suicide.  From an ethical standpoint Avery believes that the journalists keeping the names of neighbors private was the correct thing to.  As much as I would like to disagree, I cant because I do believe it is the right to do and keep the names private.  As sick and immature as the acts were, there was no case brought up against the neighbors and evidence was lacking to try and even do so.  Avery then moves to the other side of the story and states how the journalists were ethical in releasing the names of the neighbors, stating that because of the ethical code of community.  I couldn’t agree more and stated this in my blog that it is the right of the community to know who did this.  I believe it brings up issues over safety, as a parent in that neighborhood I would want to know for the sake of my children.  Avery closes with some final thoughts on how the Internet creates situations like this all the time not just through social networking sites.  He states that no one is to think that because of their comments someone is going to commit to suicide.

My final blog comment will be for Lauren Tilton’s blog on January 14^th, 2012 dealing with the issue over should some things be kept a secret or should everything be public knowledge.  Lauren states that certainly some things need to be kept secret for the betterment of society but on the other hand some things need to be public knowledge, more specifically information about murders.  Lauren brings up many great points dealing with the safety of soldiers over seas and freedom of press.  Personally I feel freedom of the press is obviously necessary but sometimes is taken for granted and not ethically correct.  We both agree that the Globes should not have released the name of the CIA agent because of the ethical code it violates.  Lauren concludes her blog with stating that it all comes down to specific content and that is what should be factored into deciding whether or not to go public or keep it in house.  She continues to state how white lies are needed in some situations to 1. Prevent future damage and 2. It is best for the general public.  I couldn’t agree more here, white lies are still lies of course but when you are taking the best interest of the public into account it really is the best option in many cases.

sickening

Before I move onto the ethical issues I believe this article brings up I must first state how SICK this makes me feel.  Like come on are you serious, what is wrong with you (neighbors).

Moving on, the Journal did do the right thing.  From an ethical privacy standpoint, they could not release their names.  First of all, like it stated in the article numerous times, until charges were filed and a case were to be brought against the neighbors there is no reason to put the names into the article.  If they were to release the names which would bring tons of scrutiny and hate towards the neighbors and nothing were to happen to them lawfully which is the case here, the newspaper could be charged with slandering ones name.  This would cause much more of a headache for the newspaper when they could easily avoid it.

Now from the other side, the Post can be seen as doing the right thing as well.  Ethically, it is the freedom of speech, which allows the press to write the story however they would like it.  If they feel that the story is better told and felt with the names of the neighbors included that is their right to do so.  Personally, I would put the names in because ultimately screw them for what they did and I believe everyone should be aware of who it was.  Furthermore, I believe that this is an issue of future safety as well. Members of the community should know who did this and be aware of their surroundings, to help prevent future issues of cyberbullying.  If I were a parent in the community I would feel the same way as I am sure most parents did, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW!

Privacy and community seem to the most obvious ethical perspectives seen in this case.  On one hand the Journal chose to keep the neighbor’s names private because there had been no case filed against the neighbors and therefore giving the Journal in their eyes no real reason to include the names.  Privacy is very important and should be respected.  Now on the other hand, why would you keep the names hidden when they (neighbors) don’t seem to see the difference between right and wrong.  Now I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, I am saying that for the betterment of the community, it was the right thing to do by releasing the names.  It is the ethical right of the community to know what is going on in their area and who is to blame for the issue to begin with.  This is a tough question because the more and more I think about it I really do not know what the right answer is, but I do feel strongly that because we are literally dealing with life and death, the answer for me is clear.

I find community as being a more compelling argument over ethical issues because it could affect more people if held secret and possibly allow future problems to arise.  We are dealing with a tragedy here and in order to help prevent future tragedies from occurring, people must be dealt with accordingly and releasing the name of those who are to “blame” is a step in the right direction.

Social networks are not to blame in this situation, but there is a lesson for them to learn.  Ethically, websites such as Facebook and Myspace should feel some sort of obligation to help prevent this from happening as much as they can.  Truthfully, there is no real way to stop it from happening because of the amount of people who use these sites, but there are measures that can be taken to prevent and persecute future instances.