The Jackson 5

Five food groups, five fingers, five senses and five English vowels are examples of famous sets of five. A little 5 trivia, according to http://richardphillips.org.uk/number/Num5.htm, “five was the lucky number for the superstitious French fashion designer Gabrielle `Coco' Chanel. In 1921 she chose the fifth day of the fifth month to introduce her new brand of perfume, the famed Chanel No. 5". The fab five bloggers I chose to review are Michael Dominquez, Liz Cross, Julian du Plessis, Ryan Arroyo and Miguel Anez.

There are five guidelines for making ethical decisions; Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, Pluralistic Theory of Value and Communitarianism. It is this ethical toolkit that I walk away with from this class. These are the tools of the trade that I will utilize in my chosen profession. In my commentary of following blogs of the five masters of CM503, I will look to see how the author used the ethical tool kit in their proposed questions, insights, and analysis.

The Blog, Product Placement and Us, dated January 21, 2012 by Michael Dominguez is a response to a series of prompts designed to look at a case study with an inquisitive eye. The case study Michael chose was Case 3-D on page 76 of our textbook. The study, authored by Philip Patterson, is about the controversy over ‘product placement” in network television. Michael writes about the "Institute for Advertising Ethics Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics" particularly its reference to transparency. Michael states that when products are put into scenes there is no “transparency” and that these products are being placed as actual advertisements without the knowledge of the viewer. As a consumer, I look at them as props and for me they give me a more realistic scene. I do not see them, at least consciously as advertisements. I agree with Michael when he writes “what is the big deal” about the writers of these programs being up in arms that they are not being compensated for the money made in product placement. Really are not these objects, props? Why would a writer think they have to write it into a scene, it sits on table with no dialog? Maybe it’s the set designer who should share in the wealth having had to walk the can over and put it on the table. Michael digs down in his toolbox and pulls out Bok’s model of ethics which he takes into account one’s personal feelings but his could have expanded more. He just lists possible people who may be effected; the writer, producer and viewer. In my mind, the most responsible person makes the call, it would be their own conscience; but let’s follow Bok’s theory all the way. The producer would ask other producers how they would handle the issue with product placements in their creative work and finally the producer would have a forum of all those involved (writers, set designers, viewers, bean counter, etc.) and then make a decision based on good common analysis of all parties and possibly consensus. (http://miked13819.blogspot.com/)

The blog posted January 14, 2012, Media Ethics-Blog2-Duty to the truth and fidelity to public good by Liz Cross addresses the ethical issues around secrets. Liz, in detail, describes the theories around the downing of TWA flight 800. According to Liz, the FBI held an investigation up the East coast questioning owners of marinas as to what they may have seen or known. She also says that there was public speculation that the plane may have been shot down by friendly fire or terrorists from a boat in the sound. Although Liz does not flat out and say it, I think she is implying that journalists should have worked the story harder. She definitely feels the truth should have been pursued and I would agree. But then again, if there was some funny-business involved maybe knowing would have been more harmful to the masses and someone looking out for the community made the call to stop the story. Liz actually quotes Hodges from Page 66 of our text. As I read the quotes they seem to relate more to a Public relations partnership with their clients and the community; not necessarily the relationship a reporter would have to the community. I really related to the “the victim’s family members would benefit in that they would know the truth. As I write this, I realize that may be questionable. How would they really benefit by opening the wound”. It just how I have been thinking since this course, I go one way in thought and then I see where there is a conflict which I may have not seen before. Everything needs to be viewed from all sides when thinking ethically. (http://somerealthings.blogspot.com/)

The next Blog I read is, Media Ethics-Cyberbullying dated February 3, 2013 authored by Julien du Plessis. Julien pens about the ethical issues around the story published in the December 13, 2007 St Louis Journalism Review called A hoax, a suicide – a journalistic dilemma by Roy Malone. This article is disturbing to anyone with half a heart. Bullying is so hard to comprehend. Julian demonstrates the issues around the media of today by referencing “many people sent angry messages to the Journal calling them cowards for not releases the names”, in this case the actual self- admitted bullies. Media used to be one way; clearly in today’s world of e-mail, Twitter, blogging, etc. the populous has a real voice. Because the lay-person is so involved in how the news is outputted these days, the tool in the tool box, Communitarism, makes even more sense. Julien makes another good point when he comments on the St Louis Post’s releasing of the names where he says "the St. Louis Post may have felt that it’s the right of the community to know the names of the people who would do such a horrible thing.” Julien also refers to Mills Utility Principle and Pokin utilizing the tools we have been given in class. I am troubled however with Julien’s comments regarding the fact he believes the names should have been released regardless of the fact that they had not broken the law. This unsettles me because I think then you have anarchy – with the outpouring to the press for not releasing the names one would assume there was a lynching mob out there and is it anyone’s right to impose the scarlet letter when no laws have been broken. I would argue that all the sweat and blood put into getting these people should be channeled into figuring out how to stop this from every happening again and enacted laws that would avoid these horrid situations in the first place. (http://bostonjulien.blogspot.com/)

The fourth member of the fab five is Ryan Arroyo whose blog, Ethics Blog 2 dated January 17, 2012 is about secrets. Ryan’s blog is about whether or not the pentagon papers should have been released. Ryan brings up a very interesting unique twist to secrets. He basically states that if one decides to have a secret they are then responsible for keeping that secret. Ryan goes on the write that if he came across a big secret he would tell. I would argue run to your tool chest first. Just telling for the sake of telling and being pure and idealistic does not always bring a “good result’. Take the pentagon papers – releasing classified documents could hurt innocent people; could kill innocent people. Ryan’s blog never refers to the tool kit. I would have enjoyed reading about how Ryan would have used these tools. Ryan’s rules to keeping secrets is very practical. But I think it works for little secrets like “that boy is cute” but what about big secrets that can change the world. How about the secret you didn’t ask for, that is the worst one. Ryan speaks to this when he says, "when it comes to secrets, especially secrets at the high level, there are a few steps that one has to take. The first step is to see it anyone would be directly and physically harmed by the secret”. Without referencing, Ryan has brought out the questions of William David Ross. Ryan also touches on the ethical question regarding celebrities and their privacy. One can argue that a celebrity forfeits the right to privacy by nature of their profession or was it outsiders looking for a quick buck who planted that seed? Here is an ethical consideration, just because someone acts for a living does that make their personal lives on stage as well? I would love to hear Ryan expound on his more. (http://forevergreen66.blogspot.com/)

The last member of our five person band is Miguel Anez who on January 7, 2012 wrote the blog called Telling the truth. I saved the best for last. Through Miguel’s broken English, he really provides food for thought in the ethical arena. Miguel shares a real life ethical experience at his internship. Miguel wanted to speak to a person who was allegedly mistreated by a furniture store. When he approached his editor with the idea it was nixed because the editor thought they would get sued if the worker was lying. Later, Miguel found out that the furniture store was a paying advertiser for the news agency he was interning for. Since when do news agencies stop seeking the truth. If every editor said, we will get sued, there would be nothing said. Although Miguel does not refer to his tool kit in his blog or reference any of the great tool makers, he does give us the glimpse of being in the middle of an ethical dilemma. He did not write the story therefore trading a piece of him for the experience of the internship. He clearly weighed out the pros and con which is really what our tools help us do. The best line of all was Miguel’s reference to the first chapter in our textbook, when Miguel says, “I learned that ethics decision is not just about follow a set of rules, it’s more about built skills to analyze any difficult case that we, like communicators, could face down the line throughout our professional career.” Love that, broken English and all. I will leave you with that thought. (http://miguelsalaverria.blogspot.com/)

Gracias Miguel!

The Sun Also Rises

According to Wikipedia, the term “bullying” loosely comes from engaging in interaction with bulls. Bull fighting, as written in The Sun Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway, “it is not just brutal like they have always told us. Its’ a great tragedy.” Bullying is a lot like bull fighting, where bulls are baited and then slaughtered for entertainment and sport.

In the article by Roy Malone, A Hoax, a suicide – a journalistic dilemma, the tragedy that occurs is the suicide of a young teen, possibly a result of cyber bullying. The journalistic dilemma is whether or not to expose the possible contributor to the cyber bullying a.k.a. the neighbors. Since the internet is the Wild, Wild West, or in this case the Plaza de Toros, the alleged bullies have not broken any laws according to the article, “police, prosecutors and the FBI said they could find no law had been broken” even though the neighbors fessed up to the bullying. The journalist, Steve Polkin, a writer from the Suburban Journals of St. Charles County, after much thought and consulting with his editor decided not to name the bullies in his reports. When the story was published readers were outraged over the neighbor’s involvement and went on the attack. They wanted the names of these Tereros. The names did get out via the blogosphere. Ultimately Polkin bore the heat of the lack of privacy laws protecting one on the internet and was the fall guy in the court of public opinion. Why did he not rat out these vial people? What kind of reporter holds on to this information?

Ethics, privacy, secrecy and the discretion are all dilemmas facing today’s journalists. One could argue that Polkin and The Journal were exercising the art of discretion. Let’s look at the facts, the self-proclaimed Picadors had broken no laws so in the eyes of structured society they were not “bad guys” and had the right to be treated as such. Maybe Polkin and his colleagues recognized that raw fact. Bok defines discretion as “the intuitive ability to discern what is and is not intrusive and injurious”. (Page131) I see Polkin justifying from his journalistic objective view and saying these bullies are not lawbreakers so by exposing them would I have implied they were and is that right or my charge? And by doing so I would have been the one throwing them to the wolves and is that not injurious? “Kantian theory would suggest that the journalist treat even the indiscreet source as the journalist herself would wish to be treated, making publication of the indiscretion less likely. (Page 131) Maybe Polkin looked at the dilemma from his own shoes; what if he had not broken the law would he expect to be then protected?

A week after the story was written by Polkin, The St. Louis Post Dispatch ran the story and did name names. By that time, according to the article, “the usual protections about naming names had been trampled”. The Post may have taken a run through Ross’s list of prima facie duties. The names were already out all over the Net, was the promise to protect the innocent broken and therefore the ethic of protection eroded? Sadly, or not, the peto has been removed. Then they debated the “right to know”, let’s face it, the cat was out of the bag and all over the internet, everyone knew. And what was the harm in all of this? For the journalist, Polkin, would his reputation have been jeopardized by revealing the name(s)? Sadly, his reputation was harmed with the public for the fact he did not reveal the name(s). It seemed the public trusted the journalist to tell all. Again, privacy and justice was on the side of the bullies, remember they had broken no laws.

The family of the victim has called for tougher regulations/laws for those who use social media to bully according to Good Morning America. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1). I do think social media should have to intervene if they know something, but by knowing they would be policing the sites and I am not sure how I feel about that. But one thing is sure, there has to be tough laws for bullying at any venue. And what would I do as the journalist? It is hard for me to say which way I would have gone in revealing the names of the bullies. I can argue both sides. But what I do know taunting a bull always results in a death, either the Matador or the bull. Never fails. Ole!