JOUR 4470 - Ethics

When I signed up for 4470, I thought “oh boy, here we go, another boring ethics class” (I had previously taken ethics in science, and man was it bland). Not only did I expect to not be all that stimulated by the course, I didn’t realize how much I would value the content within. 

The course did start off with the “typical” foundational subjects. The theories of Kantianism, utilitarianism, etc. The application of these theories could be useful, but when working in this field, does the public really look at and analyze issues this way? Not really. People have a way of knowing what they believe is right and wrong, and will rarely consciously apply philosophical theories to issues they encounter in their everyday life. I found the precedents and other case study stuff to be a lot more relevant and interesting. 

Although our 4470 course was informative and insightful, I noticed that our professor steered clear of really guiding us with what was truly right and wrong, although it was pretty obvious most of the time. I appreciate that. We were able to have various ethical dilemmas explained, but ultimately we still were allowed to decide for ourselves what was right and wrong. My ethics in science class was not really like that. The teacher made his opinion known, which is fine, but I kept getting the feeling like I was actually “wrong” when I dissented from the popular opinion. One example (from the science ethics course) was the difference between universal and relative morals. I, along with one other student, am a relativist, while everyone else including the professor were universalists. I didn’t feel stifled or oppressed, but I couldn’t help but doubt my own opinion. Frankly, that’s fine. Maybe I’m wrong. But I appreciated the very neutral tone our 4470 course took. Good job Bufkins! 

But ethical issues weren’t the only topics the course looked at. It seems like I spent just as much time learning about legal precedents as I did ethical dilemmas. This was the most interesting part of the class for me. As the philosopher George Santayana said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” That statement is so true, and captures the essence of what this class was all about. Learning about these landmark court cases is very important for students, and the best way of avoiding legal traps down the road. It’s one thing for a journalist or PR rep to do something unethical, that could cost them their job; but doing something downright illegal can result in hefty lawsuits and maybe even land them in prison. 

The fields of journalism and strategic communications can be chocked full of ethical issues and dilemmas (I supposed most fields can, really). I have come to realize how important it is that students learn about these ethical and legal problems. Something I’ve been wondering about throughout taking this course was do most (non-journalism) college students take similar ethics courses in their own curriculums? Have colleges historically required ethics courses, or is this a new thing? Either way, I’m glad we have this ethics course as a capstone in the Mayborn school. It shows the school’s dedication to ethical standards. This is a very good way to finish up a degree and send graduates out into the industry. 

Maybe PR professionals should take a step back from social media

I overheard some peers in class recently discussing their “social media internships.” I was somewhat surprised to hear how frustrated they were with their work, saying that they were struggling with engagement and that for the companies they were working for, social media simply wasn’t doing much for them. One person told me they are doing Twitter and Facebook work for a construction company, and claimed her engagement on these platforms has been rather low. I said “well duh.”

I think what’s important to consider, when talking about social media, is what industry you work in. Nowadays, PR professionals are taught extensively about social media in college, I should know. In school, professors preach “social media!” to everyone, and it’s become a major part of our curriculum. These students graduate and go off to work in PR thinking they need to be using Facebook and Twitter no matter what, and for certain industries (entertainment and media is a great example) those platforms will be integral. But not every company and organization needs to have a “social media intern.” Social media has become a fad, one that is useful and effective for some, but overused by many who don’t really need it. 

It’s important to not let social media take over PR education. Additionally, most people my age have social media pretty figured out. Facebook and Twitter have made it incredibly easy to organize content and track metrics. I have my own Facebook page for my music with nearly 5,000 followers (which I had managed to keep very active up until late last year when I went on a musical hiatus). But the point is I was able to generate enough quality content and keep track of my metrics incredibly easily without any help or training. One luxury I have with my Facebook page is it’s revolving around music, something a lot of people are more willing to follow online. But to be perfectly honest, most PR students will not go into the sort of industry that gets a lot of social media activity. And let’s be honest, nobody wants to follow your construction or pool cleaning company on Facebook. And with Facebook organic reach numbers slumping in recent months, it makes sense to consider putting social media on the back burner for your organization.

I’m not trying to say we should abandon social media as a PR tool, it’s still an important resource for marketers and PR pros. I just don’t think we should be trying to make social media work for every type of company and organization and forcing it down people’s throats. Maybe I’m just jaded…

http://www.facebook.com/iamaaronwayne

http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-admits-organic-reach-brand-posts-dipping/245530/

Brendan Eich Should Not Have Been Forced To Resign

On April 3rd 2014, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned only two weeks after accepting the job. Why? Because Eich is opposed to gay marriage, and in 2008, he made a $1,000 donation in support of Proposition 8, the infamous California ballot measure that repealed gay marriage in the state. Unfortunately for Eich, his stance on the issue is incredibly unpopular in the highly liberalized Silicon Valley, where socially liberal ideologies are practically a universal law. Now Eich may have been new to the position of CEO, but he was not new within the Mozilla community. Eich was one of the original founders of Mozilla, and is a smart and well-respected software developer in Silicon Valley. 

So how does a founding member of Mozilla get kicked out of his own company for an opinion he’s held for years? The discovery of Eich’s political donation was made in 2012 which led to a minor stir of criticism which seemed to die down pretty quickly. But when Eich was promoted two weeks ago, the story managed to stir up far more controversy than before. Why? Probably because “Mozilla CEO donated to Prop 8” sounds a lot juicier than “Mozilla programmer…” When the story surrounding Eich’s background broke shortly after his promotion, Eich faced opposition from fellow board members, Mozilla employees and community members, as well as a large number of individuals around the world. Popular dating site OKCupid, a company who is not affiliated with Mozilla, initiated a campaign to convince users to boycott the company’s products, namely Firefox. This made the entire story even more newsworthy, causing the story to spread faster and stir up further controversy. By now, even the Mozilla board members who weren’t in opposition of Eich were feeling the heat. They knew they had a public image problem on their hands, and Eich was now a toxic executive.

Say what you will about gay rights, but is it ethical to publicly harangue someone over one of their own personal opinions in an effort to get them to quit their job? I say no, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including Brendan Eich. I completely support gay marriage, and disagree with Eich’s position, but Eich has managed to keep his political views and his work at Mozilla separate, maintaining that his position does not necessarily reflect that of the company. Eich has even said that he does not believe Mozilla is a place to play politics. 

“We’ve kept [politics] out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going. I don’t believe they’re relevant,” Eich said in a statement he made to The Gaurdian. 

It’s important to note the type of corporate culture Mozilla has, as it is not quite like most other tech companies. Mozilla is a non-profit organization with a vast network of software developers from all backgrounds serving as it’s main workforce. Before his resignation, Eich made the argument that a company as diverse as Mozilla should remain open-minded and accepting of all opinions and points of view.

An official statement made by Mozilla said, “This is why Mozilla supports equality for all…” but I ‘m not sure this statement is totally accurate. Even though Eich officially “voluntarily” resigned, there was undoubtedly internal pressure for him to leave, and I believe that is unfair. Eich has stated that he left Mozilla because he felt the entire controversy is bad for the company, something that he says is “bigger than him.” Once again, I completely disagree with Eich’s position, but I also think this man truly wanted the best for the company and whether he was pushed out or left on his own, his actions are honorable. I think the actions conducted by the people responsible for the pressure against Eich are unethical. While we are all entitled to our own opinions, we should be open minded of others’ ideas and not react so viciously. Eich was not in any way trying to tie his views into his work at Mozilla, and I don’t really see a reason why he had to leave the company he helped found. 

Ball, James. "Mozilla CEO Insists He Won't Resign over 'private' Support for Gay Marriage Ban." Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 02 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit

SUROWIECKI, James. "How Mozilla Lost Its C.E.O." The New Yorker, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/how-mozilla-lost-its-ceo-brendan-eich.html

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/

News Agencies Following the Trends of Our Always-Changing Language

Major news publications like The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times have recently made changes to their style rules regarding obscenities and vulgar statements. But this should come as no surprise. “Common” language is tied into culture, and evolves with the times accordingly. News agencies have to adjust to these language trends as they happen, changing their own rules for what words journalists can and cannot use. Although they do react and adjust to the changes in language outside of their publications, it can also be considered that journalism might accelerate the evolution of common language. It’s kind of a chicken-and-the-egg situation. 

It must be understood that many of the words we use today have not always been common expression. The word “idiot” was first used by medical professionals in the late 19th century to describe a person with a very severe mental disability, it was not a word a common person would use, like we would today. As the word became more and more widely used amongst the general public, doctors switched to the word “imbecile” and then eventually “moron” and then “retard.” Today even the word retard has lost it’s original connotation, and is now used widely as a pejorative term. Many doctors today won’t even use this word to describe a patient, opting for something along the lines of “mentally disabled.” My point here is that words and their meanings shift as they are spread throughout society. 

The recent changes made by the NY Times are rather mild, allowing for the usage of certain vulgarities in their entirety if they are “essential to the reader’s understanding of a newsworthy event,“ but probably couldn’t be more needed at the current time. The internet has enabled people to be more connected than ever, fads, trends, and content of all types gets around much faster than in the past, and this includes evolutionary changes to language. 

The claim that society has seen a drop in manners and language usage in the past century is very short sighted. The truth is that today, more people have better manners and are more literate than ever before. These changes in language we use is a natural occurrence, and we must see these changes reflected in our literature and news publications as well. 

Sources

Robert L. Schalock, Ruth A. Luckasson, and Karrie A. Shogren (2007) The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: April 2007, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 116-124.

http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/04/how-to-get-curse-words-into-americas-greatest-newspapers/359923/

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16411.aspx