Chapter 3: Strategic Communication: Does Client Advocate Mean Consumer Adversary?

The relationship between clients and consumers has always been a bit of a give and take. It’s kind of like a “Help me help you” situation in which clients promise a better outcome for the consumer if the consumer invests in their product or service. The amount of dependence on this relationship from both sides is unbelievable. This chapter really reminded me of how we live in such a society of instant gratification – we are always searching, pushing, and fighting for the next best thing – something or someone that will improve us in some way, shape, or form.  But what accompanies this kind of society is a world of ethical dilemmas in which areas get grayer and questions become harder to answer.

I want to focus on the concept of the TARES test, which in essence is a list of questions that makers of persuasive messages should ask themselves to determine the ethical nature of the message. I found it rather interesting that the ethics of a particular message can be determined by a simple test with so much room for opinion and bias. For example, one person might think that the ad treats the receiver with respect while another does not – and that is just on the client side. On the other hand, a consumer could feel respected by the ad while another feels disrespected by it. There are so many ethical factors that go into ethical decision-making beyond those included in the TARES test: truthfulness, authenticity, respect, equity, and social responsibility. There are a couple values that I think are crucial to add to this list: community and diversity. Although profitability is often times the major goal, I think it’s important for media outlets and corporations to remember that they are more than just a business – they have a responsibility to acknowledge and promote the social good as well as the ideals that our country prides itself on – this is done primarily through the ideals of communities. Diversity is also very important. For example, the chapter mentioned that many African-Americans don’t often see themselves in advertisements. This is a big problem considering that more than 45 million Americans are black. The same goes for other races and ethnicities; if businesses and corporations want to market to Americans, then they must target ALL Americans in an equally diverse and strategic manner. Like the chapter said, “The ethical goal of advertising should be the empowerment of multiple stakeholders”.  I enjoyed this chapter and I feel like every student in schools of communication should read a chapter such as this one: it really emphasizes important issues in today’s society concerning all fields of communications.

Chapter 10: "The Ethical Dimensions of Art and Entertainment"

In modern day society, the dimensions of art and entertainment are endless. Some consider that, in essence, everything is a piece of art. Others look at art in a more conventional method, restricting it to certain entities such as painting or photography. However, one of the ways it is looked at in this chapter, is through Tolstoy's argument that good art communicates the intentional feelings of the artist to mass audiences. I think Tolstoy has some good points here, but I don't agree that good art is just communicated to mass audiences. Good art can often be appreciated by a small group of people or even just an individual too. Sometimes it is not recognized if public, sometimes it is a private piece of art, and/or sometimes it's something that only a select few seem to understand. For example, as an artist myself, I've created many works of art - through painting, drawing, sculpting, dancing, writing, and other methods. But to say that my art isn't good solely because it does not communicate to mass audiences would be false. I think other artists would agree with me. Besides, who is to say that there is only one definition that constitutes "good art"? What is good? I believe that what is considered "good" should be determined by individuals based on their own experiences, views, and opinions on certain topics. However, the ethical dimensions and implications that accompany art and entertainment are often the ones that attract responses from mass audiences. Take, for example, Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List, discussed in Case 10-D; it elicited a huge response when it came out - deemed by some as one of the best and most raw movies of all times. Perhaps its success could be measured based on the innate presence of ethical values such as: tenacity, dignity, sufficiency, equity, and community. Or perhaps it is measured based solely on the history and precocity of story being told. Spielberg presented the movie in a way that touched the mass audiences in a holistic way...however: how do you compare art such as Schindler's List to art such as Andy Warhol's? Each affects audiences in different ways; there's no way to determine a concrete solution as to what makes something tick versus the other.
However, some communications scholars argue that it doesn't matter how art does something, it's the way in which they do it, which they often believe is a method to "reinforce the status quo". But as the chapter discusses, some argue that one needs to have an "aesthetic" attitude to fully comprehend and appreciate art - that is: an attitude that values close and complete concentration of all the senses and summons both emotion and logic to its ends. Is part of this aesthetic attitude acknowledging philosophical guidelines for their artistic decisions? I feel that artists utilize such philosophical guidelines unintentionally; the golden mean, categorical imperative, and utility principle all play a role in art. They serve as the actor, action, and outcome - three components that are crucial in the equation of art. I think it's important to keep those in mind when analyzing such an area. Furthermore, with such diverse views swimming around, how do we decide what is art, entertainment, and/or news? With areas such as Cop TV, reality TV, documentaries, and the movies, there are so many ways for the dimensions of art and entertainment to be discussed. As our society puts focus on and emphasizes the media more and more, the line continues to become grayer and fuzzier for what is what. The answer to the above question is not black and white, and most likely never will be. My only hopes is that art will never be underestimated, its innate power is something to be proud of and something that I believe can be used in a wholly fulfilling way if we let it. 

Chapter 9: "New Media: Continuing Questions and New Roles"

April 3rd, 2014
The topic of this chapter comes at the forefront of the technological age that we are in; it demonstrates that in a constantly evolving era, there are many new or unanswered, undeveloped questions and roles.  However, this doesn't just occur with new media: In my opinion, continuing questions and new roles have been around for centuries as society continues to develop, grow, and transform. And I firmly believe that this will always be the case. In essence, this time of questioning and new roles never ends. I like how the chapter discussed how journalists often times step out of their institutional roles through the Internet, and how there is now such a thing as "citizen journalists". That new concept has proven to be incredibly dynamic, for in instances such as the 2011 Arab Spring, Internet "gives individuals the power to organize as never before." In this case, utilitarianism has proven to be the principle that guides such acts of congregation and demonstration. Utilitarianism is often used as justification in the fight for human rights (i.e. Arab Spring) and although many may not realize it, they are influenced by such a principle when they use the internet. With the internet, everything is so focused on the outcome. "What will be the response?"; "How many people will 'like' this photo or video?"; "Will this change my life?"; "Will this change the lives of others?" It is not so focused on the actor (Aristotle) or the action (Kant) it is the ending that matters (Mill) And in a fast-paced society, the ending is key. One of the "new roles" discussed in this chapter is that of the journalist. No longer is the journalist responsible for simply presenting the news to the people through the newspaper, but they are in a constant race to continually verify their information and ethically place it in context that makes others look at things in an entirely new light. Furthermore, they must balance this in the environment of the Internet where speed is crucial and the press of a button can be a game-changer. They also must debate whether to "burn sources" or remain quiet and compromise information. And there's the whole ballgame of originality. The boundaries are gray, but news organizations must continue to define what is ethically okay and what is not. The world of journalism is changing at lightning fast speeds and this chapter does an excellent job of explaining the complexity of such a situation. I enjoyed the chapter, although I felt it was hard to follow at times, but I think it is a good indicator of the benefits and issues of the Internet, the changing roles of news organizations and journalists, and the roles and responsibilities of citizens who are participating in the media world more and more.

Chapter 8: "Picture This: The Ethics of Photo and Video Journalism"

"Our unwillingness to allow visual journalists the same conventions as print journalists says something fundamental about the role of visuals in the news." - page 196, Chapter 8: "Picture This: The Ethics of Photo and Video Journalism"
 - In one of our very first classes at the beginning of the year, we looked an image presented in Case Study 1-A where two girls, a two year old and her 19 year old godmother, were falling from a fifth-floor fire escape. In looking at this image, we discussed the ethical dilemmas presented by the Boston Herald photographer deciding to shop and shoot the pictures, and whether or not it was ethical for the newspaper to run the picture of such a traumatic scene. The class was relatively divided, with some saying they would publish the picture and some saying they would not. If you take this story and convert it be told solely through print journalism - that is - written up as a story, then does an ethical dilemma still exist? Many would argue no, because the newspaper is reporting on a story that occurred within the city, largely due to faulty fire escapes. It's a sad story regardless, but when you show a picture that rawly depicts the heat of the moment, it's hard not to feel a deeper disturbance when you're eye-witnessing two girls potentially falling to their death, with one actually dying, than it is to just read about it in the newspaper. It is a dilemma such as this that explains why a quote such as the one in this chapter makes so much sense. Visuals are simply worlds different than words - they tell stories that often stay with us long after we've stopped looking. Journalism holds immense power, but it also holds different types of power - kinds that dare us, alarm us, stop us in our tracks, and make us feel emotions that we might not have thought possible. It is all in the perception of what we see - that is the key word: "see"; we are born seeing before we speak and read, it is our nature to respond more deeply to visual cues than it is to verbal or printed cues. I think that realization offers innate importance when understanding the ethics of photo and video journalism. I could go on to debate the ethics of the certain case studies presented in this chapter - all of which present grappling situations, but I felt it was more appropriate to entertain a reflection of this quote and give a bit of insight into how visuals can truly transform the news we absorb.

Chapter 7: "Media Economics: The Deadline Meets the Bottom Line

To think that the media has now joined the ranks of the "power elite" is astounding. No longer are they necessarily below the political officials they interview, but they are on the same level. In essence, the media has a very similar caliber of power to these political officials; among other things, both the media and political officials can portray a representation of constituent groups in society and influence the goals and values of society greatly - two powers that hold innate value. To say that the mass media has become "a ruling class within a democratic society" (162), is not an understatement. They control what news we hear, how we hear it, and how we respond to it. News creates dialogue, dialogue gives way to opinions, and opinions shape our beliefs and sometimes, or eventually, our values. When it comes down to it, is it safe to say that the media shapes our personal values?? This would be a great question to discuss in class. Furthermore, not only has the media joined the high ranks, but it has entered into a state of what the authors call "hyper-competition". (Sounds like what our entire society as come to: fast-paced, dog eats dog, and never simple!) In economic terms, hyper-competition is when supply substantially exceeds demand so that producers operate at a financial loss. In terms of communication, the media has created much of this effect by the availability of information through the Web. It was crazy for me to read how when competition among sources reaches hyper-competition, many media organizations lose almost all of their profits, if not entirely. Who knew such an essential, sought-after, buzzing industry could go bankrupt just to stay afloat and keep feeding its' absorbers (us) the information. When so many people depend on the media, you'd think it wouldn't be struggling. What represents an even more slippery slope is that with such hyper-competition, ethics starts to be called into question. If this is what the economics of media look like now, what will be its fate? Will there be reforms, policies, reorganizations? One of my biggest concerns is, if print publications become completely taboo, then will the information on the Web be harder to obtain (aka, not free, must have a subscription, etc)? The quote that opened up the beginning of the chapter says it all, "I think the biggest challenge my generation is going to face is to convince people my own age that news is worth paying for. We've never done it." Definitely a lot of food for thought as always...

Chapter 6: "Mass Media In a Democratic Society: Keeping a Promise"

March 12th, 2014
To think how far the media has progressed over the past century, decade, years, and even months is mind-blowing. The cliche phrase, "instantaneous information at the touch of our fingertips" is often overused, but for good and obvious reason; it accurately defines the current level for which modern technology has reached. Perhaps even crazier, is how much of an effect this type of technology and media has on our country's political sector. Even MORE, is how much journalists have an effect on what we hear and how we hear it. I've never thought of it like this before, but the American society truly places full responsibility in the hands of the journalists and reporters who give us our information. As the chapter emphasizes in its' discussion of the radical, monitorial, facilitative, and collaborative roles, the media has multiple roles for ways of behaving! So we don't just trust them with one thing, but with many - granted that they are utilizing such normative roles. It's somewhat alarming in a sense, because we are so quick to accept what we are told. And why wouldn't we be? It's news, we say, how can someone screw up the facts? But what many people don't realize, is that a journalist's job is not all that easy - it comes with liabilities, tough ethical and situational decisions, uncomfortable situations, taking into account the people they use to report and the people reading or listening at home, and the responsibility to give people their news. The fact that it's not an easy job is something I've come to realize the further I get into reading this book. One of my favorite quotes from the chapter that best emphasizes this fact comes from page 147, "Journalists covering a national election have almost as much at stake as the candidates they cover." Frankly, that is just incredible to me. I guess I never truly thought about how much a reporter or journalist has at stake when covering events that are deemed crucial to society. What I really liked about this chapter (maybe because I'm a political junkie), was how deeply it explored the various sectors of what goes into (and comes out of) politics and the role the media plays in it. This chapter really and truly got me thinking about not only the collaboration of media and politics, but the fundamental qualities that form the basis of democracy and its role in society.

Chapter 5 "Privacy: Looking for Solitude in the Global Village

There was a certain line in this chapter that grabbed my attention immediately when I saw it. I feel like it holds solid ground for discussion and potentially debate, so I thought I would give some input into my reaction. It lies at the top of page 113 when the authors were talking about the interconnection between privacy and community: "Responsibility for keeping things private is shared: individuals have to learn when to share or withhold information, while the community has to learn when to avert its eyes." I bolded the clause that grabbed my attention because I feel that in this day and age, communities don't truly ever avert their eyes. In an extremely fast-paced, interconnected technological society, "averting eyes" doesn't hold the same standard that it might have back in earlier times. My question (in accordance with the current time period) is: How can one person, let alone a community, avert their eyes when information is constantly surrounding them in so many different mediums? There's TV, cell phones, internet and social media, and perhaps most crucial: word of mouth. We live in a time where information holds a central role in our lives so we are constantly talking about things we've seen, heard, read, or watched to others - especially the things that we find shocking, funny, or heartwarming. Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen talks about avoiding the "unwanted gaze" but unfortunately, I don't think we ever can truly avoid it. It's definitely a mind-boggling, if not alarming thought to see the concept of personal privacy waning. As Rosen discusses, it sometimes leads us to lead more restricted lives because we are afraid of the immediate transparency; this is a disheartening thought as well. I'm interested to see where we'll be in 20 years in regards to our level of privacy; will our privacy rights have a higher or lower priority in our future society and how will they be upheld in ethical dilemmas such as the ones discussed? These are my main questions in regards to my thought process about this chapter.

Chapter 4: "Loyalty: Choosing Between Competing Allegiances"

February 10th, 2014

The concept of loyalty is often over-simplified, yet it's hard not to ask, "Well, why can't it be simple?" It seems straightforward and easy to identify, which in some instances it is, but when put into different contexts, it creates a whole world of questions - and a whole world of ethical dilemmas. Before reading this chapter, I thought of loyalty as a sort of "desired responsibility", in which we usually wanted to be responsible to someone or for something because we had emotional ties that connected us to them. Yet what I did not take into account was the fact that loyalty is not always happy-go-lucky, we don't always desire it when making ethical decisions because it comes with innate power, power that can serve as a double-edged sword. This power can take many forms: it can come as betrayal when one betrays (either purposefully or unintentionally) a cause by being loyal to another one; it can come as bias or prejudice by being loyal to something that does not stand for fair values; and it can cloud our vision by having to choose between competing loyalties. A couple of these issues were brought up in Chapter 4 and I was struck by how much I had glossed over these specificities before. I truly realized how sticky loyalty can get in the communications world (and in general, really) when I read the ethical dilemmas presented at the end of the chapter, especially Cases 4-A and 4-G. It's hard to separate and prioritize your loyalties when you're juggling a large amount of them and they can effect your life in various degrees. The chapter gave a concise line of advice that I really appreciated: "When making ethical choices, it is important to consider what your loyalties are and how you arrived at those loyalties." I think this is so important because not many people, including myself, know why they are loyal to something or someone; they just go along without fully understanding why certain loyalties are present in their lives. I think this aspect is a big issue when it comes to making ethical decisions; after all, loyalty plays an enormous role in our personal conclusions and can effect others to a larger degree than we ever could've imagined.

Chapter 2: Information Ethics - A Profession Seeks the Truth

January 27th, 2014

The concept of truth is so much more complex than people give it credit for and I feel that this chapter really touched on this aspect. Specifically, Table 2.1: A Philosophy of Truth Emerges on page 23 did an excellent job (in my opinion) of concisely showing how many definitions of "truth" there have been and continue to be in our society. It goes to show why there are often various misconceptions regarding what is truthful; individuals differ in their perceptions of what is real and what is fabricated. The pragmatists' argument against objectivity was strong, and made me think further about the concept of perception and portrayal in the communication mediums throughout society. Their argument asked several valid questions: "If truth is subjective, can it be reported by an impassive, objective, and detached reporter? Does such a reporter exist? Is truth a construct that relies on context?" (24) This takes me back to my Communications 175 class that I took last semester in which we discussed the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity at great length. Through our discussions, we learned that no person can be truly "objective". To say it simply, no single individual is the same. We are all brought up by different people who raise us in different ways and who are molded by different experiences that reflect the person they've become. As a result, who we are is affected by who we've grown up with: our parents, siblings, friends, and relatives. And as we go through life, we are affected by certain things that may cause us to look at things in a different way than someone else. All of those factors contribute to individual subjectivity which shape the way our opinions go and how we view other people, places, and experiences. With this in mind, does that mean that no true objective perspective, or point of view, can exist? Furthermore, does this mean that ALL of the information we receive is in some way altered, even it's unintentional? What is truth and what is not? This chapter helped further my thoughts and questions on this subject as well as heighten my understanding of the difficulties that communication outlets, as well as their audiences, face when presenting and receiving information. The multiple case studies presented in this chapter just go to show how messy the ethics and the depiction of the "truth" can get in regards to journalism. 

Chapter One "An Introduction to Ethical Decision Making"

January 20th, 2014

Chapter 1 of Media Ethics: Issues & Cases provided a great view into the depths of ethical decision making by investigating five different philosophical principles that help individuals figure out what to do in an ethical dilemma. All of the principles are supremely valid in their guidelines, but the principle that makes the most sense to me is communitarianism. I believe that, often times, individuals don't realize how much their personal decisions affect the "bigger picture". In my own opinion, I feel that the best way to better others, our society, and ourselves is for individuals to realize that the political and social issues of today need to always be debated with the wellbeing of the entire community in mind. In a sense, this can be tied back to the two questions that Patterson and Wilkins say should always be asked in contemporary ethics: "What duties do I have, and to whom do I owe them?" and "What values are reflected by the duties I've assumed?" (3) Essentially, these questions will push individuals to think more about the overreaching effects of the decisions they make.