Week 6 Wrap Up

Going back to week one (Jan 8^th), Tammy Thompson wrote her first blog titled, “Stop time: Ethics vs. Emotions.” Her article caught my attention because she has been working in the controversial industry of alcohol for the past nine years, and she has had personal experiences facing these same types of ethical dilemmas that we’ve talked about in class. I lack some of these “real world” PR experiences, and I felt her insight hit spot on describing what PR practitioners experience everyday, especially in industries that can be looked at as being unethical. What stood out to me in her blog was her personal experience regarding her mid-year performance review. What her supervisor said was true about “’stopping time’ – focusing less on getting things done (fast and in a hurry), but instead paying closer attention to how I get them done (with insightful consideration).” I find this true, and something I have fallen victim to myself. Instead of rushing through to get something done, we sometimes make mistakes in judgment. By incorporating this practice, along with an ethics theory like Bok’s Model, we can take things step by step, and analyze the best possible solution.

For week two (Jan.13^th), Kimmee Roleder wrote a blog titled, “It’s Only A Matter of Lies.” She went in great detail and told the story of how she was personally affected by a coaching decision at her alma mater, when she tore her ACL during her final year on a full athletic scholarship. Her top-ranked coach gave her the option to give up her scholarship or transfer, none of which are right in the university athletics system or good for Kimmee. It happens, athletes get hurt, and it’s the risk you take when signing someone, whether it’s college or profession sports.  The question for her was, to tell or not to tell? What her coach did was wrong, but was it in her best interest to blow this whistle? By attacking a person or college, this could “burn bridges” and potentially hurt her reputation as an athlete. Over the weeks we have talked about a variety of ethical dilemmas, especially in relation to the world of college sports, I would like to ask, would you have done things differently? I know if it were me, I would have been outraged by the outcome, and most likely acted differently. Even though the judgment call was on the coach, could you have prevented this same scenario from happening to other athletes at the college in the future knowing these ethical theories we’ve discussed in class?

During week three (Jan. 23^rd), Lauren Tilton and I both wrote about the  “Fan Can.”  In this case found in Chapter three of out text, it tells the story if the 2009 Bud Light promotion based on the color coordination of beer cans based on several universities nationwide. By reading her view, I found a few differences between our analyses.  We both came across the same dilemma, is the promotion of alcohol at universities unethical in itself? Lauren thought not, due to the fact that some students are of age, and have the right to drink responsibly if they chose, which I also agree with. But what I ask is, what would you think if you were the college affected? Her blog only stated the side of working for Anheuser-Busch. In my blog I noted two ethical principles- pluralism and Bok’s Ethical Decision Making Model, would you have used any ethical perspectives for helping determining your ethical decision as Anheuser-Busch? With such a controversial issue, we solely can’t rely on the PRSA’s Code of Ethics, because it really is just a general guideline to adhere by. If communication between Anheuser-Busch and the universities would have been established before the promotion began, do you think the outcome would have been different?

Week four (Jan.28^th), Terrance White wrote his blog entitled, “Do what you love, love what you do,” which focused on his view of the current definition of Public Relations, and how we could change it. We both made similar points in regards to how the current definition, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other,” and how social media has played a huge factor in how we need to restructure this definition due to changing times.  His new definition stated, “a strategy for organizations to communicate ideas to their publics and gauge public sentiment.” You mentioned how this definition improves upon the previous definition due to the fact you have incorporated “interactivity,” but what about building relationships, ethics, and defining what PR practitioners do? I feel that this definition could have been developed further because it lacked certain elements in regards to what PR means, which should be clearly addressed. As times have changed, so has the business of PR. Do you think after the completion of this course, you would reevaluate your definition?

Last week (Feb. 4^th), Avery Owens posted his blog entitled “Ethics Post 5: A New Frontier of Bullying.” Just like I said on my blog about the case of Megan Meier and the cyber bullies, he agrees with many of the same points I had; that both the Journal and the Post were ethically inclined to act how they did. The Journal and Pokin upheld the ethical issue of privacy in regards to not releasing the names of the neighbors, but the Post honored the codes of transparency, accuracy, and the community, by releasing the names of the culprits. The part of the blog I felt really resonated with the story of Megan Meier, was when he explained how cyber bullying happens on a more “watered down” level, not just on social media sites, but forums where things can be rated and posted by others. I thought this was a valid point, because we see this all the time, how people are teased for their opposing views. What I would have liked to see expressed more in the blog, is how these social media sites can prevent cyber bullying from occurring. Is a disclaimer enough? Or should we do more and have the government intervene.

Ethical Issues of Cyber Bulling

Megan Maier of Dardenne Prairie was a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide in 2006, all because of cruel messages on her MySpace profile. The bully, Josh Evans (who she had never even met) seemed to show interest in Megan early on. As time passed, the messages became hurtful and nasty things were said like, “The world would be a better place without you.” Little did Megan know, Josh was fictional, and a creation of a woman, her daughter, and old female employee that lived down the street.

The journalist who broke this story, Steve Pokin, of the Suburban Journals in St. Charles County, faced a huge ethical dilemma about when, and how much to say regarding this case of a child suicide. Wanting to wait until charges were filed, he held off writing the story, but, as he came to find out, the police, prosecutors, and FBI couldn’t find a law that had been broken.

With the guidance of his editor and lawyer, Pokin decided to not name the neighbors involved with Megan’s death in his article because no charges were filed, and the daughter was a juvenile suspect. Cases like this are handled much differently, because little of the evidence found could be proven, due to the fact anyone could have typed the messages on the computer.

Pokin and the Journal made a judgment call, not to reveal the suspects’ identities, causing a multitude of complaints and attention to the story.  They felt they were upholding the rights of the accused, who had not yet, at the time, been charged. Although the neighbor admitted the scheme to police, enough evidence was not uncovered to charge them with a crime. Because of this, an ethical dilemma was presented; do we open a can of worms and put people in danger by telling readers possibly too much information? Even though readers were outraged by the omitted suspect’s names, Pokin analyzed his decision by the use of Mill’s Utilitarianism principle. This principle states, “an act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end.” In this case, Pokin went against telling the whole story, hopefully making an ethical call not to harm the suspects involved. Even though the public may not have agreed with this, more damage could have potentially been done, had the community had too much information. It could have even put their safety in danger because of community outrage.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch took a different approach when reporting this case; they named the neighbors involved. Was this ethically correct? Instead of waiting for the story to eventually unfold, they assumed naming names was the right way to go about reporting this case. Journalists are supposed to uphold nine ethical news’ values, in which accuracy, confirmation, tenacity, and equity are particular rules they chose to honor in this case. Supposedly, an informed ethical decision may be made based on these guidelines, but what about in the instance of a minor? What about the potential harm from vigilantes in the community?  According to the theory of Communitarianism, the Post based their decision on community interest and that it trumped individual interest in order to make the best decision for society as a whole. They felt this community had the right to know all the details that had been discovered in this case, and if I was a parent, I would want to know the whole truth. Protecting other possible children’s deaths could very well be a good enough reason to let the public know the names of these cyber bullies.

This case involved a child’s death, which was tragic, and by telling the story his way, I feel that Pokin and the Journal were trying to bring the issue of cyber bullying to the community’s attention, not put the families and suspects in the eyes of the media and draw a negative outcome from a terrible situation that had already taken the life of a child.

Of the two ethical decisions made, I feel that I would have agreed with Pokin and the Journal. Since evidence was unable to be linked to a certain person, and charges were not filed, the neighbors have rights too that should be protected. Even though, as a reader, I would like to know as much information as possible, as a writer, I would want to do the ethical thing and uphold my morals. As a journalist, people may have disagreed with Pokin, but he was trying to protect both families involved, and write the story in the best way possible to be considerate to the family members mourning the loss of Megan. His story was to show the outcome of cyber bullying, not to create a public outrage against a 3 individuals, who had yet been charged with a crime, which could have resulted in more tragedies. 

Ultimately, I think social networking sites, like MySpace and Facebook, should intervene in circumstances like this, when they can.  When persons, either real or fictional, are allowed to do harm to another person, laws must be made to protect the victims.  Cyber bullying is not only cruel, as this case shows, it can also be very dangerous.  Freedom of speech is a good thing, but doing harm to another is not.  Just as kids at school have been punished for bullying another, cyber bullies should be punished also.  However, in cyber bullying, it is very difficult to prove who the bully is.  So, preventing it is a more realistic option.  When cyber bullying is reported to the networking site, they should do everything in their power to block any future transmissions between these two people.  Closing down harmful MySpace and Facebook posts should be done when their only purpose is to harm another individual and it must be done to protect our children.