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.