Blog Post 6: Final Assignment

#1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Avery Johnson's Jan. 18 blog post, "The Internet Is In Trouble!," makes a mistake common in our society by assuming the right of free speech is guaranteed in every situation. His opinion also reflect a dangerous belief, particularly among younger Americans, that no corporation or organization "owns" anything and the idea of "intellectual property" is as outdated as the 8-Track cassette.

While the "Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)" was a poorly written and dangerous piece of legislation, its existence points out the rampant appropriation of copyrighted content on the Internet. One needs only look at the rise and fall of Napster to understand what can happen when theft of intellectual property threatens the very foundation of an industry.  Johnson erroneously assumes that rights the government cannot impede are also sacrosanct in the free market -  "(I)f you feature a film clip in a blog entry or on a website without consent by the respective studio, they can have your entire site shutdown for that simple infringement. Naturally of course, this threatens the freedom of opinion AND creativity on the internet."

Well, of course it does, and that's the whole idea!  As I see it, the "creativity" threatened is that of the original creator, whether it be a movie studio or a recording artist. These entities have poured money and energy into their product (and let's be honest, a movie or a song is a "product" to be bought and sold) and no one has a right to "borrow" all or part of it to express his/her own creativity.

Many times such "creations" are posted to sites that are in the business to make money. This makes a YouTube or Tumblr posting that uses protected property without permission "commercial speech" and thus subject to fewer Constitutional safeguards.

The flaw in SOPA is that it wasn't needed and was too far-reaching, involving the government in the business of policing copyright violators. Movie and recording studios are already afforded legal protections for their intellectual property and should step up efforts to safeguard it. Having the government overseeing the work private businesses should be doing is both unnecessary and alarming.

#2

I enjoyed reading Billy Skelos' Jan. 23 post "codes codes and more codes," not just for its E.E. Cummings-like style but because he explores the topic of product placement thoughtfully and gives examples that underline his views.

Personally, I've always found it odd that generic products had to be created for television shows or movies. I still remember my first experience with product placement when I noticed the Brady family drove a Plymouth station wagon (Plymouth was credited at the end of each episode).

In writing "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," Skelos explains why a scene might include a BlackBerry rather than an iPhone if it has to contain a mobile phone/device at all.

He also discuss how the values of "Truth, Authenticity, Respect, Equity and Social responsibility" play a role in product placement, which I found helpful in further understanding the issue.

And even though Skelos concentrates on ethical exploration, he also tips his hat to the bottom line - "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."

#3

Tammy Thompson's "Categorically Speaking" blog is one of the most thoughtful and personal ones I've read since starting the MACOMM program.  

Her Jan. 14 post, "Tattletale," discusses an ethical dilemma faced by a colleague but Thompson places herself in the situation and examines it from a personal perspective.

"While on a business trip I witnessed a senior level executive violate one of the core marketing guidelines by which my company stakes its reputation. As we produce, market and import products for use by those 21 years of age or older, all employees agree to take all possible actions to ensure that no one under this age is given access to our products. However, on this business trip an executive not only broke the law by providing access for her underage daughter to a corporate-sponsored event at a venue that requires all guests be over 21, but she also allowed the minor to have access to our products."

In analyzing her possible action, she weighs the competing loyalties (preserving her own job vs. upholding company standards/rules) and explains how she eventually reached a decions on what to do. She clearly convey the conflict but, in the end, sees the scales tipping toward one course of action.

"However, when debating the situation, I believed that asking my company to hold an executive to the standards it asked the entire business to adhere to would in the end produce more trust and respect for the leadership among the workforce than ignoring my boss’s misconduct, or attempting to protect my own job."

Thompson lays out the reasoning behind "her" decision, explaining how she used the "universal truth"as the basis for it. This shows an ability to apply ethics to a real-world situation, which should be the goal of studying ethics.

Sadly, the decision to do, what in my opinion was the "right" thing, had consequences, both for the offending supervisor and for the whistleblower. It's important that Thompson discussed the eventual outcome because it shows the complex set of events her decision to report her supervisor set in motion and the competing values/loyalties/ethics one must balance.

"Following the reporting of the misconduct, my boss unexpectedly resigned her position and although procedures are in place within our company to protect those who report misconduct, the fact that I did so did not remain a secret. I was transferred to our London office and later let go during a round of layoffs a few years later."

#4

I can empathize with Melissa Valerio's Jan. 27 blog "Ethics in a Digital Age" because my American-born family, like her foreign-born parents, has no idea what I do or what "public relations" means.

Whenever my either of my grandmothers would ask, I'd always tell them I was a newspaper reporter, though that was a career ago, because it was the only job I've ever had they could understand.

Valerio explains why her parents struggle with the career she's chosen to pursue and it's an important point to note, since a free exchange of ideas is something most Americans take for granted.

"(A)fter I tried to define what public relations meant and what a career in public relations would offer me I was greeted with blank stares from both of my parents. I can understand where they are coming from because in their country, the government controls most of the media, they don’t have a 'middle man' to serve as a liaison between the media and the public."

Valerio finds the current definition of public relations as "stale" and her suggestion is an interesting one - "Public Relations is the service of researching, analyzing and distributing information to the media from organizations in a way that it can reach and engage the public."  She also discusses the need to view public relations in the digital age, where cyberspace provides perpetuity to things written or reported.

"With the increase in technology and social media it is imperative that we maintain our standards because everything is digital nowadays and any article or publication that we put out there can harm us is (sic) the future."

She also applauds professional organizations, including PRSA, for examining the ethics of unpaid interns. 

"A 2011 update to the PRSA Code of Ethics made clear our belief that it is unethical not to provide some type of compensation to students who perform work for an employer."

This is a topic I've personally faced in public relations, having supervised the internship program for a mid-sized PR agency's Connecticut office for five years. Since many of the participants were seeking full-time internships, the agency believed it was improper to demand 30-40 hours each week simply for academic credit and we paid each intern $10 per hour.

Oddly, there were applicants who would claim their college or university forbade receiving payment. To those students, I would say "Don't tell them you get paid. If you want to work for free, this program is clearly not for you."

#5

Since Terrance White has added his unique perspective and personality to our discussion group, I couldn't resist commenting on one of his blog posts.

In "You can't handle the truth!!!" (Jan. 21), White addressing a crucial element in any discussion of ethics - "Guidelines can't cover everything. Use common sense and good judgement in adopting local codes."

White uses the Duke University rape case as an example of a situation in which journalists covering the "truth" (rape allegations against white college athletes by an African-American female) resulted in a perception that lingers to this day. Despite being exonerated, the athletes still face the inevitable outcome of such media coverage, as White shows:

"I can go to any search engine today and type in 'Duke rapist' and find pictures of those young men. Had reporters operated under a guideline that forced them to investigate the facts before reporting them, those 3 men might not be connected to this lewd story for the rest of their lives."

White also emphasizes the need for ethical guidelines because of the responsibility journalists have to their readers and the tremendous influence their reporting may have on public perception.

"Citizens accept news from the media because they believe they are not beholden to any of the parties they are reporting on. If people are allowed to manipulate the media into creating the headlines that they want, it greatly damages the credibility of that news source."