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. 

time for a change

This week we will be focusing on the ethical issues related directly to the Public Relations field.  More specifically, a definition that correctly portrays the change public relations has seen and grown into over the years.  In a recent New York times article written by Stuart Elliott, public relations is defined as “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”  For years this definition worked, even though “vague” as Elliott describes it, it still was relevant to our society.  But now it is a new age and with the birth of the Internet and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook taking over, it is time to change to an outdated definition.  Before making a change, there must be reasoning to do so, being outdated is one reason for sure, but I feel the main issue here is that the old definition does not fit the mold of the public relations industry anymore. 

Public relations should be defined as managing the stream of ever changing information between the public and it’s organizations, while maintaining relevance to the society in an ethical manner.  I feel that this definition works better than all previous ones because it stills stands behind the initial goal of public relation firms, while instilling confidence that we are up to date with all that is going on in our society.  The ethical implications of my definition are that as society changes and the public begins to view issues differently, we still will be up to date with where the public currently is and where is it is going.  Any new definition must be sure to incorporate ethics into it because it is what gives PR credibility and room to grow within society. 

Gerry Corbett wrote a very interesting article this year describing the PR industry; both where is it headed ethically and what has happened in the past year to discredit the industry.  One issue that stands out to me the most is the lack of privacy the Internet and social networking sites have given our society.  I feel this issue is most problematic because it can touch the most people.  And not only is what we are currently doing on the internet not protective enough, whatever we have done is the past is forever there for someone to find if they really took the time to find it.  Privacy on social networking sites has been an issue for a little while now and still nothing drastic has been done to help protect individual’s privacy and I believe until then privacy should be considered the main ethical issue at hand.

Corbett mentions that the “PRSA and the FTC are monitoring various public relations practices”, which is great I guess, but what exactly does monitoring mean?  If they mess up then they will do something?  How about taking an initiative and try to prevent mess-ups from happening in the future.  Granted these measures will for sure help out the ethical issues we keep facing in the PR industry but I don’t believe they will be doing as much as they can be doing.  I think that instead of playing the wait and correct method it could be more effective if a strict guideline was made for all PR organizations to follow with punishments and fines used more regularly.  Because when it all comes down to it, it is all about money and if you start taking away money, I think the message will be felt.

codes codes and more codes

In our society everything we do or don’t do has some sort of code behind it, but so does every society but the here in the U.S. things are done a little different.  This week’s post will deal with product placement and the code of ethics that goes along with it.  Granted I really do not see myself doing any graphic design or dealing with product placement in my future, BUT in saying that I have always had an eye for product placement because ultimately I find it interesting what products I see placed in tv shows and movies.

Phillip Patterson of Oklahoma Christian University wrote the case study I have chosen.  The case study shows us a bunch of different statistics from different companies and how they use product placement effectively.  These companies do not own any of the shows or movies they simply sponsor them.  Sponsorship from companies gives them the ability to place products effectively, which in turn gives them product recognition, whichhhh leads to more products being bought whichhhhh leads to more money.

Ethically, they are many aspects that go into product placement, for instance contracts must be made to ensure the rights to these products.  If a company does not have the rights to use specific company products like a blackberry or an iphone they can’t use it.  In saying that, we cannot possibly believe that all companies listen to that.  That’s just ignorant!  The code helps with this case because it lays out a foundation for what companies are supposed to follow.

Two ethical perspectives that can be related from class to the case are emotion vs rationality and tares.  Emotion vs rationality can be helpful in product placement because the companies must decide where to place products so they are seen and if they are sending off the correct message.  Tares deal more directly with advertising but its all the same when you really think about it.  The Patterson and Wilkins readings tell us that tares deal with Truth, Authenticity, Respect, Equity and Social responsibility.  Product placement relies are tares to make sure what they are placing and how they are placing their product is ethically correct.

The most important aspect of this case I believe was finding the codes that go along with product placement and how thought out every detail is.  Every inch to every set is thought out and made a specific way for a reason.

Snitches Get Stitches

If there is anything that can be considered guaranteed in life, being faced with decisions of whether to speak up when you feel something could be damaging to someone or just keep your mouth closed is about as guaranteed as it gets.  The answer we all are searching for when faced with this situation is not as obvious and clear as it may seem to be or lets face it the world would be perfect wouldn’t it? Or would it? 

Every situation has a right and wrong way to handle it.  From personal experience I can say that being a two-year captain of the Sacred Heart Men’s Lacrosse team has caused many agonizing decisions that had to be made for the betterment of the team.  On almost a weekly basis I sit down with my coach and we talk about the team, which ultimately always turns into conversations about individuals on the team.  In on instance I was faced with the decision to either tell coach about underclassman getting written up in the dorms, which would likely cause suspension and/or other punishment.  But this was mid season and our conference schedule is about to start, so I decide to keep my mouth closed have the back of my teammates so no one would get in trouble.  That sounds ok right?  Even though I would probably do the same thing today, I know that every time I go down that road instead of telling the truth, the team loses a little bit of discipline and that ultimately falls on the captain.

The need for something to be kept secret falls on the amount of people it will affect and/or how it will negatively and/or positively affect that individual or group of individuals.  I feel if it comes down to a few people being overly selfish and the secret is being kept not only so others cant join in but to hide what they are actually doing, than that is where the line is.

The fallout of using the media or such social networks as Twitter and Facebook can be devastating to both the whistleblower and whomever he/she is bringing to light.  In today’s society once the media gets a hold of something (that includes Twitter, Facebook, etc…) it is there forever, true or not true it will always be available for speculation.  Personally, now that I am getting older I am a lot more cautious of what I put on the Internet and what I make available to the public.   Quick example, I recently changed my blog name to just Billy to try and prevent it from coming up when googling my name, because you never know who is looking or what they will think of you.

Upon completion of this class, I will be moving into the professional world and I know for a fact I will be faced with ethical decisions on whether or not to keep things secret.  I think it is inevitable and ultimately needed in society.  If everyone knew everything there was to know, where would that put us? What excitement would we looking for or questions in need of answers?  And think of the chaos it would cause if 7 billion people all had an opinion on something they had nothing to do with and no way of answering constructively.

Blog Post 1

Coming from a business background with aspirations of becoming more creative to assist in future endeavors including real-estate and sales, id have to say that I will be faced with many ethical hardships in my future.  Specifically in sales I know that on a daily basis I will be forced to make decisions that will benefit my company more than the seller, but that’s the business I tell myself.  Does that make it ok though?  I truly don’t know the answer to that because it seems as if it is the only way things are done now a days anyway, so why even play a side. 

Now back to the assignment, as the NFL season has just ended, the first pick of the 2012 draft has be awarded to the Indianapolis Colts.  They will be faced with the tough decision of to keep Peyton Manning and pay him the 28 million he will be owed in March, knowing they will be drafting QB Andrew Luck (best overall nfl prospect in last 20 years) or releasing the 4 time MVP who has been the face of the team for over a decade and arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  Ethically, they can’t let him go, after all he has done for the franchise and the city, bringing them to two Superbowls and bringing one title home.  But, it’s a business; he is turning 36 and sat out this whole season due to three neck surgeries.  So from a business aspect it seems like a no brainer, from an ethical standpoint it seems impossible to do such a thing, but I think that’s where we are headed.

Personally, I like to think of myself as a thinker, always “trying” to be both sides and how each benefits as the result of an ethical decision being made.  Have to give a shout out to mom on that one because I definitely got that from her (awwww right).  I believe I have the ability to evaluate and decide what is right and wrong, not saying I follow the right way every time but when I am wrong or doing something questionable I usually have a sense of it.

Throughout my experience thus far, I have learned that I need to clarify myself better in order to communicate my ideas and opinions more effectively.  I believe I am doing a better job and will only continue to grow as I continue here.

Being a big sports fan, I would like to see more talk regarding sports in class.  There is a ton of ethical topics that can be covered and related to other working situations.  Contracts, college athletes being paid, Jerry Sandusky, the list goes on and I say we tap in to that a little bit more.