Privacy & Cyberbullying

The article "A hoax, a suicide - a journalism dilemma" by Malone about privacy and cyberbullying brings up an important red flag to the society: when could a journalist cross the privacy line to publish a story, even when this story could help people in the future?

The Chapter 14 "Violence and Sex" of the book "Controversies in Media Ethics" by Gordon, Kittross, Merrill, Babcock, Dorsher, discuss about violence and sex on TV, and about the influence of these topics on the audience. I do not believe that all the violence in the world happens because people watched first on TV, but I do believe that the TV series and movies give the audience different lessons of how to be violent or mean to others, and make people forget about the importance of the consequences of these actions, and how little actions can cause big consequences.

Connecting Malone's article to the reading of Chapter 14, I believe that people get so used to see so much violence on TV and end up losing the sense of right or wrong. The article shows a clear example of how simple actions can affect someone's life. Because of cyberbullying someone committed suicide, and I’m sure this was not the first time this happened, but maybe it was the first time a story was published about it. 

Source: http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-cyber-bullying#

Now going back to Pokin's case, he had a sad story on his hand, but at the same time the same story could save others people's lives that could be suffering of cyberbullying the same way Megan Meier did. By this decision I believe he was wise to publish the story to help people around the world to deal with Cyberbullying, he applied Mill's Utility principle, concerned about the outcome. He published a story that brings the best outcome when you read that people in different countries use this story as case study to avoid cyberbullying. 

Pokin in his story decided to maintain the neighbor's privacy, once again I agree with his decision. The point of his story was not to reveal the identity of the responsible for the cyberbullying, his decision was based on a story that could help others, the importance of discuss about the risks of cyberbullying. His decision could be justified by Bok's Ethical decision-making principle, thinking about how people would react, what would be the response if people knew the neighbor's identity, and other important points to make a decision. 

On the other hand "The Post" identified the neighbor causing a prosecution of this family related to the case. This shows "The Post" were only concerned about the action, reminding me of Kant's Categorical Imperative theory, showing no concern about the author. 

I would always go with the theory that offers less harm, so I believe Bok's Ethical decision-making principle is the wisest to apply in such a case like this, because seems to be fairer, causing less pain. Another perspective that I could apply to this case would be the Gilligan's ethics of care principle, because also seeks to minimize pain but in a more personal way then Mill's principle.

Source: http://info.uknowkids.com/blog/bid/159164/Global-Perspective-on-Cyberbullying

Data Storage: problem or solution?

Data mining became a very popular topic in ethical conferences, and as any other polemic, does not have right or wrong answers, it will always depends on the angle you are analyzing the case.
Based on the ethical analysis of the articles "How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl was Pregnant Before her Father did" by Kashmir Hill at Forbes, and "Inside the mind of the Anonymous Online Poster" by Neil Swidey at Boston.com, we notice that everyday the number of ethical controversies involving data mining increases.  People have different opinion about the data collected by technologies companies during our "surfing" time at the Internet. Some feel vulnerable because of its data being exposed without boundaries, and others believe that technology is just helping out personalizing our profiles.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/22/dont-want-to-be-targeted-by-target-theres-an-opt-out/

The article How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl was Pregnant Before her Father did" talks more about the targeted marketing exposing Target's customers sending them coupons related to their last searches or buys online. As always I would consider the Aristotle's Theory defending the middle ground, in this case depends on the client, some feel uncomfortable being tracked by a store, but others think this marketing strategy helps them in the future search saving some time. This topic will always be very polemic from the ethical perspective.

In this case, Target manager's ethical obligation to the angry customer was to respect his client, which I believe he did a great job apologizing to the customer and being concerned about the company's reputation. The manager should always be respectful to the company's customer, avoiding ruining the company's reputation, reminding me of Kant's Imperative Theory were the respect should be in first place with no restrictions.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/22/dont-want-to-be-targeted-by-target-theres-an-opt-out/

Analyzing the Target's ad mixing of coupon books, I believe they are not trying to "creep people out" but to improve their sales, when people prefer to apply for benefits like coupons, discounts, store's credit cards; they are aware that for this benefits they have to offer more personal information and they take the risk to make use of benefits anyway, so if they are willing to provide more information does not make the sales strategy of Target unethical. Business market has always been an exchange, you provide what the company wants and we provide your desire. It has been like this for years, now it's just more risky because of the technologies but the strategy is still the same: the exchange. I dare to say that most companies apply Mill's Utility Principle concerned about the best outcome. For example sending an ad mixing coupon book could cause some controversy and some issues like the father angry going to the store, but by the end their outcome is always increasing.

According to the book "Ethics in Media" by Plaisance, Chapter 2, the code of Ethics adopted by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) defends that the professional of public relations should serve the public good always paying attention at the ethical controversies. This professional has to be loyal to the company but also be loyal to the public, this professional also has to honest, fair, independent, have expertise and always advocate serving the public interest responsibly. In the same chapter of this book also provides A code of ethics for advertisers from the American Association of Advertising Agencies Standards of Practice that reinforce the importance of the truthfulness in this professional.  Considering both codes of ethics, Target's practices fit within the code of ethics fro advertisers and PR practitioners. As mentioned before, companies tend to apply Mill's Utility Principle seeking the best outcome, and I would say the Aristotle's Golden Mean perspective also fits this case where the middle ground is defended seeking the human good, where everybody wins, the customers are satisfied with discounts, coupons and the companies are satisfied with good sales.

Freedom of Speech

In the quote reported in the New York Times, Daniel Ellsberg, the man responsible for the release of the Pentagon Papers, has said, "It's not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It's that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret." 

Daniel Ellsberg (Source:http://tully.syr.edu/?page_id=338)

A lot of journalists around the world have to face a dilemma like this in their career. They learn about some secret information and have to decide either to publish it or not. In this case, Ellsberg just decided to take the risk and defended himself explaining that what the government was doing was something terrible and had to be released to the public. I believe that he did something good to the spied countries, helping somehow the community revealing this secret information, looking for social justice, just like the Communitarianism theory. Edward Snowden is known for revealing details of classified US government surveillance programs, but for some countries like Brazil, Australia, and others countries that were under espionage, this revealed information was really helpful to prevent the US government to obtain private information from these countries.

Another example is the case of the former F.B.I. agent Mr. Sachtleben, of Carmel, Indiana. He leaked the information to the press about a foiled bomb plot in Yemen in 2012. The full article you can read in this link. The reporters in this case also released a secret information, and releasing a secret information to the public involves the freedom of speech controversy as mentioned on the Chapter 1 of the book Controversies in Media Ethics by Gordon, Kittross, Merrill, Babcock and Dorsher. In this chapter, Gordon defends the Kant’s Categorical Imperative theory, where he thinks that the media needs freedom of speech without any restrictions, as in both study cases mentioned in this post. No matter the reactions of their actions, according to Gordon’s arguments, the journalists/reporters had to release the secret information to make the community aware of what’s happening. Newton on the other side, would apply the Aristotle’s Golden Mean theory. She thinks that the freedom of speech should follow some restrictions to avoid irresponsibility, and analyzing the Snowden case she would probably say that this could be prevented applying some restrictions to the freedom of speech rules. She would probably have kept this private information as a secret.

In situations where leaking an information would help the community to be aware of what is happening, I would agree with Gordon and defend Kant’s Categorical Imperative theory and also release a secret information like this. Snowden’s information did not benefit the US government but it did benefit the countries under espionage to help them to protect themselves from this unauthorized espionage. Based on this, I do agree with Ellsberg in this case, it benefits more people in the outcome when we analyze this case from the Mill’s Utility Principle perspective. I would only share secret information if it benefits more people and cause less harm, like Mill’s perspective, always based on my moral and beliefs.

As a media professional I believe we can avoid getting entangled in secrets and ethical dilemma. But also believe that some professionals in this area really like to get into ethical dilemmas just by the pleasure of being in a controversy discussion. I’m definitely not one of them. Truth and responsibility are always my flags, even defending the imperative theory in this case, middle ground perspective it fits me better.

Truth is Truth.

The post this week is based on the Chapter 8, Picture this: The Ethics of Photo and Video Journalism" of the book "Media Ethics: Issues & Cases" by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins. The case study picked for discussion is "Case IX-C: Faking Photos: Is It Ever Justified?".
According to the case mentioned above, the journalist received an assignment about homeless people that lived in Washington Ave in Washington, when was getting closer to his deadline and he hadn't take any good picture that captured the emotions of the readers about the assignment's subject, he decided to fake a picture of a homeless in the doorsteps of a church, but the homeless was actually his friend, a student which is not a homeless nor even a poor, and sent to his editor to be published without mentioning that the picture was staged. I believe this case happens a lot among journalists. They have a short period of time to meet their deadlines and find perfection in their crafts. When the pressure comes into one's life, people tend to react in different ways. Some make wise decisions, some don't. This is when the ethics step up into the game.

Picture Faked (Source:http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073511943/843051/patt7e_ch8cs_fakingphotos.pdf)

To evaluate the case mentioned above I will be using the SPJ Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. The SPJ Code of Ethics is helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case study when it mentions clearly that every journalist professional MUST tell the truth in all times, as a universal rule. As I mentioned in my last blog post, truth is truth and period. That's our mission as journalists, to tell a fact not to stage one, as happened in this case study. This code also is clear about our duty to minimize harm respecting our subjects, colleagues, audience, etc. Once again the journalist of this case study wasn't respectful to his employer, to his audience and to the homeless people that deserves respect. The journalist beside breaking the first two codes of this code of ethics, he also wasn't accountable to his employer or audience when he didn't tell the truth, instead of admitting his mistakes, he kept lying until his picture was published. The SPJ Code of Ethics was really helpful to evaluate this ethical controversy, but I still think this code it's too wide, could be more precise providing more specific details about journalists faking images or videos.
Based on the SPJ Code of Ethics it was easy to conclude that the journalist didn't proceed in an ethical manner. When we evaluate this case study from the class lectures we can supplement the journalism ethical code with some ethical theories providing some alternate points of view for understanding the ethical considerations of this case. I think this study case fits Kant's Categorical Imperative theory, the opposite of Aristotle's Golden Mean theory, this theory is not based on the author but on the action. And the action of faking a photo is not a right decision to make, staging or faking should never be applied in journalism. It's a universalism rule. Even when we decide to apply the Bok's Ethical Decision-Making theory, after the six stages, the final result is that the journalist mentioned on this study case should not have used a fake picture to meet his deadline and complete his assignment. It should be better for him to have canceled and even haven't sent any picture than staging one. The audience deserves the truth. In this case I don't think it was too hard to get to the conclusion that a picture should never be faked, in this case Kant's Categorical Imperative theory was well applied.

From the beginning

Ethics are not the most popular content to discuss in a pressroom, but always requires a good solution to minimize the harm caused by the controversy. This blog throughout the semester will discuss some interesting cases of ethics in the communications business and explore some good solutions based on reading materials to provide stronger arguments to bring the best solution in a communication environment.

As a typical Brazilian my passion for soccer is not a secret, nor a surprise to anyone that knows me. Beside my passion for soccer, in the last few years I found out a new passion, the journalism, then I decided to connect both passions and make one happy and satisfying career: sports journalism. As any other career in the planet, sports journalism, also face some ethics issues throughout the history of the communications world. Some examples of the controversies found in this profession we can name some criticism, bribes, prejudice, sexual controversies, and so many others examples that we see every week on the news.

Since I'm a big soccer fan, as I already mentioned before, and the 2014 FIFA World Cup is coming up next June, I would like to use a soccer example from the past to discuss about an ethic controversy. One of the biggest sports network company known as ESPN also had to face in its history some ethics controversies. In 2006 The Walt Disney Company, owner of ESPN and ABC, decided that Dave O'Brien had to be part of the primary broadcast team for 2006 FIFA World Cup replacing JP Dellacamera.

Dave O'Brien (Source:http://frontrow.espn.go.com/tag/dave-obrien)

O'Brien is a really admired broadcaster, but he had no experience working with soccer when he was required by the company to take the role. This action resulted in a big criticism from English-speakers soccer fans that decided to watch the broadcast in others networks, because the announcer required by The Walt Disney Company was not ready for the role assigned to him, causing the broadcaster to make a lot of mistakes about soccer terminologies, incorrect addressing of names, etc.



In cases like this, the company should make sure that the announcer has enough knowledge about the sport that he would broadcast for 30 days in a role before require the broadcaster. Employers normally cannot make some decisions, getting exposed when they shouldn't, and being open to mistakes, humiliation, and others situations that put them in a not comfortable spot. The price of ESPN/The Walt Disney Company's choice was getting a reduced audience's numbers way under expectations and certainly causing a big loss of money with the company's sponsors. As the old saying says: "You don't change a winning team".

Unfortunately I couldn't find a video of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcast, but you can read some of the references talking about this episode below:

Source: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2009/12/decade-in-review-10-worst-personnel/

Source: http://onthepitch.org/2006/06/27/espn-please-show-dave-obrien-a-red-card/

Returning to the ethics insights, I have some tools that help me in ethical decision-making: the good use of good sense, and always be transparent. This should always help anyone in any important decision, but when these tools are not enough to solve a case I would make use of some good tools found at the readings suggested based in some readings. According to Plaisance, Chapter 2, any journalist need to show credibility no matter the situation, credibility is a key value to the journalism professional.  The code of ethics created by the Society of Professionals Journalists in 1996 provides a guide of how a journalist should work. Seeking the credibility the journalist should always tell the truth, working as communicators our job is to communicate the facts, and not to change them. Truth is truth and period. Another key value is respect. The journalists should always respect their sources, colleagues, authorities, audience, etc. Being respectful helps to minimize harms and helps to make a good decision. The reading also mentions to act independent and be accountable as key values to be a good professional. As journalists we create a connection to our viewers/audience. They expect our stories to tell a fact with truth, respect, honesty, being as engaging as possible.

Ethics involves a lot more than the case I mentioned earlier, I know that there are so many different cases in this area that could be good examples to learn about ethical decisions, and I really look forward to learn more about ethical controversies in sports journalism and broadcast during this semester. I'm sure this class will be a great way to quick off the year!