Carnival Cruises Crisis

"Fun For All. All For Fun." Unfortunately, Carnival doesn't seem to be living up to their slogan lately. First there was the Carnival Triumph. Followed by Carnival Dream, Carnival Elation and Carnival Legend. All ships experienced technical problems this year.

"We are very sorry for this disruption to our guests’ vacation plans and extend our sincere apologies.  We look forward to welcoming them back on another Carnival cruise." Thus was written in Carnival's "Statement Regarding Carnival Dream – 10:45 a.m." OK, what more did you offer your passengers in addition to your "sincere apologies"?

Lowering the prices of Carnival cruises might reel some people in, but right now, Carnival's reputation is shot. People want to know. People want to hear from you. Carnival, you know people will hear from the passengers anyway, so air your side pronto if possible. The longer you hold off on it, the worse it will get for you.

Apologize. Yes, we'd like you to own up to what's been happening. We'd be more understanding if you address it.

Post pictures. Someone will. Might as well be you guys.

Tweet about what's going on.

You've got your news blog, use it.

Use your HOME page. Post a message on what's been happening. Or a link to the updates. Don't make the public search for it. Put it out there. Do not make us search your website to find information.

Put all your fleets' scheduled departures on hold . It might be difficult to do, but do a thorough fleet maintenance check. Why risk more ships to experience mechanical problems? With 23 ships on your fleet, canceling all scheduled voyages might not be the easiest thing to do. So how about starting with the oldest ships?

Create a plan on what to offer passengers who are inconvenienced by such difficulties.

If you won't share information, your passengers will. With unhappy passengers, do you really expect them to rally to your cause and defend you? Maybe...but then again, maybe not.

Read more...

"Ways of Seeing"

“Ways of Seeing” is a book on art criticism that provides readers with tools on how to “read” media as we know it – whether it is an oil painting, an advertisement, a sculpture, among others – as well as unravel the ideological assumptions that inspire and shape media to be the way it is. It highlights what gets said and unsaid on things that are considered art. It raises questions that usually go unspoken and unanswered. Surprisingly, the most fascinating aspect of this book, apart from the ideas it presented, is the very book itself.

On the bottom portion of the book cover, one sees the text “The way we see things is affected by what we”.  (Berger, 1990) An unfinished line, or so it seems, enough to unsettle you as a reader, especially if you are used to reading traditional books. “The way we see things is affected by what we” what? What we see or don’t see, read or don’t read, what’s written or remains unwritten? You see the words, but they do not make sense. Or does it? Thankfully, one understands the meaning upon reading the first essay.

When you reach the “Note to the reader”, it states, “[t]his book has been made by five of us.”  (Berger, 1990) Composed of seven essays – some textual, others pictorial, the authors wrote the book without making the book itself self-conscious about authorship. Each essay does not indicate and is actually silent on who wrote each article, whether it is John Berger, Sven Blomberg, Chris Fox, Michael Dibb or Richard Hollis. All five claim authorship of the book without delving into who wrote which essay in the book.

“The book consists of seven numbered essays. They can be read in any order.”  (Berger, 1990) Once again, this is delineation from the typical chapter-by-chapter reading of a book. They actually suggest that the reader read it in any order! What a challenge to the very language of book publishing! The book ends with “To be continued by the reader…”  (Berger, 1990) A nice touch, really, as if it was their way of acknowledging the heuristic value of their own creation, and admitting that what they’ve written is not set in stone.

The book does not tread lightly in its critical viewing of what is commonly perceived of as art. While it is true that there are people who approach art with the same reverence as they approach their religion (ergo, untouchable, absolute and incontestable), the authors showed art is and should be subject to questioning, interpretation and further research, not to be taken merely at face value. Art does not exist in a vacuum. There are many factors that come into play when deciding what gets considered art. Though the realm of art might seem an open space, free for all, it is actually a controlled socio-cultural arena. Even the locations where people view art (for example, museums and art galleries) are policed areas with its corresponding rules and regulations.

Art in itself reflects the capitalistic ideology of consumption. It becomes a product of commodification once the marketplace sets the value on what is artistic. Purchasing power serves as a necessary component in determining what is art and what is not. For people to assume that an artifact’s artistic value is intrinsic to the artifact itself ignores other issues such as mode of production. Is it overgeneralization to say that art is for the rich? Based on the book, essay #1 presented a table showing “how closely an interest in art is related to privileged education.”  (Berger, 1990, p. 24) Who has the ways and means to acquire a privileged education, but the rich?

The book also examined how women were represented in various media, including the concept of “The Gaze” and how it is exceedingly male. The concept of “The Gaze” was further expounded by Laura Mulvey’s essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, specifically under “Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look”:

“The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness.”  (Mulvey, 1990, p. 33)

Was art used as a marginalizing instrument to further the dominance of the patriarchal discourse? Does it limit the woman in the narrow confines of the naturalized order of system? These questions came to mind while reading the issues on women’s representation.

Overall, the book’s strength lies in its willingness to question assumptions, including matters treated as givens.  There are various ways of seeing – no right or wrong way. To be an effective media practitioner, one has to be cognizant of one’s subjectivities, stay informed and be prepared to challenge long-held beliefs, whether it is yours or others.

Bibliography

Berger, J. (1990). Ways of Seeing. British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.

Mulvey, L. (1990). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. (P. Erens, Ed.) Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.


[Submitted as Sacred Heart University's CM501 class requirement]   

Read more...

“Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man”

Marshall McLuhan’s book “Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man” takes you on a journey of media history, while promoting a sense-based approach. He started his book by defining the term “medium” as “any extension of ourselves” (McLuhan, 1994, p. 7) and more specifically, an “extension of our senses” (McLuhan, 1994, p. 53).

Divided into two parts, Part I highlighted his most famous statement: “The medium is the message.” He also distinguished between “hot” and “cold” media, with “hot” media requiring little or no participation, and “cold” media involving active participation from its audience. He discussed “hybrid energy” (McLuhan, 1994) that comes from “the meeting of two media” (McLuhan, 1994, p. 55).

In Part II of his book, McLuhan identified media that fits his definition including, but not limited to, movies, radios, television, ads, comics, photographs, phonograph, telephone, typewriter, as well as the spoken, written and printed word, numbers, among others. Even clocks were part of this group because its invention resulted in the creation of the sense of time. He explained how these were offshoots from our various senses, and analyzed these elements vis-à-vis his “hot” and “cold” media concepts.

Marshall McLuhan has been alternately praised and criticized for disseminating ideas that were deemed revolutionary for his time. However outlandish his ideas may have seemed at the time, it is useful to point out that, his viewpoints on the electronic age apply to the present time.

He predicted the rise of the “global village” – a phrase he coined to describe what he foresaw as mass media’s future effect on society. Last night’s “Miss Universe 2011” on NBC was proof that we are indeed living in a global village now. With a viewership that spans millions from all over the world, fans watched the show at the same time, and were even “united” by an online voting tool that allows them to interact with the program as they watched it. People all over the world viewed even the recently televised 9/11 memorials. McLuhan had the foresight to imagine a world where different people from different countries in different time zones would experience what media has to offer; in this case, everyone was watching the same program. The electronic age brought down the walls of the informational divide.

McLuhan maintained that our society started off as tribalized, and then was subsequently detribalized. “Phonetic letters and numbers were the first means of fragmenting and detribalizing man.” (McLuhan, 1994, p. 107) Inasmuch as media has the power to unite a group of people, it also has a history of dividing people in various ways. “Literacy jarred people out of collective tribal involvement into ‘civilized’ private detachment. Print made it possible to leave the tribe without being cut off from a flow of information.”  (Griffin, 1994, p. 336) However, it should be pointed out “McLuhan insisted that the electronic media are retribalizing the human race.”  (Griffin, 1994, p. 338)

As for his concept of “hybrid energy” (McLuhan, 1994), we see that this has been happening for the longest time – books are made into movies and audio books; movies are made into books and video games; toys are given storylines and made into movies (for example, Transformers); telephones evolve into cellular phones with music, videos and photos, even a QWERTY keyboard. With every step in a medium’s evolution, new challenges come with it. “All media are active metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms.”  (McLuhan, 1994, p. 57)

In addition, as a result of everything being done electronically, the spoken word gets pushed to the sidelines. Most people seem unable to relate to one another personally nowadays. Both Facebook and Twitter make you feel as if you are connected to so many people, yet most people are so busy updating their statuses to have time for actual human interaction. The personal has taken on a virtual nature – phone calls are no longer answered. Taking its place are text messages, e-mails, tweets and status updates. People no longer remember birthdays because Facebook will remind them. Everything is all about emoticons, smiley faces, and LOLs. This is where the disconnect between thought and feeling occurs, and where detachment kicks in. What McLuhan maintained seems to hold true, “[a]ll media exist to invest our lives with artificial perception and arbitrary values.”  (McLuhan, 1994, p. 199)

“Today, we need also the will to be exceedingly informed and aware.”  (McLuhan, 1994, p. 70)This statement is true then and it is true now, but informed and aware about what? It’s true that we now live in the Age of Information and Communication, yet this age has brought upon us the element of over-sharing as well.

It is interesting to see how else communication will evolve through the years. As for McLuhan’s ideas, these can be used as approaches and tools in studying media’s future, as he already predicted circumstances that proved true. Thus, it is imperative that despite living in the electronic age as predicted by McLuhan, skepticism and critical thinking should be the name of the game.

Bibliography

Griffin, E. (1994). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press.


[Submitted as Sacred Heart University's CM501 class requirement]   

Read more...

Propaganda, Politics, Love and Marriage

Propaganda, Politics, Love and Marriage 

Edward Bernays who is considered the “father of public relations” wrote “Propaganda”. Bernays defined propaganda as “…simply establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 161) Furthermore, he explained that “[m]odern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 52) In this book, he explained propaganda’s role in the various aspects of society – in business, politics, women’s activities, education, social service, art and science. He ended his book with the chapter on “The Mechanics of Propaganda”.

He acknowledged, “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 61) “Propaganda” advocated on behalf of this silent minority to use propaganda as a calculated, systematic and orderly means to influence people’s opinions. At the same time, he recognized that the public would, over time, identify the machinations behind propaganda. Subsequently, more sophisticated ways of appealing to the masses would be necessary. What he was clear on was that “[p]ropaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 168)

Furthermore, is it possible that Bernays played a decisive role in influencing Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld’s work “Personal Influence” where they introduced the two-step-flow theory and the concept of opinion leaders? (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 2006) After all, Bernays explained that:

“Trotter and Le Bon concluded that the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word. In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits and emotions. In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 73) 

Published in 1928, “Propaganda” was probably deemed groundbreaking; perhaps even controversial for its time because it was published when societal institutions such as media, church, and school, among others were thought of as infallible, absolute and above questioning. The book survived the test of time as he presented concepts that still apply today.

On the public spectrum, Bernays highlighted the importance of personality when it comes to propaganda. “Present-day politics places emphasis on personality. An entire party, a platform, an international policy is sold to the public, or is not sold, on the basis of the intangible element of personality.” (Bernays, 2005, pp. 116-117) Even until the present time, this statement is definitely still in action. How many political leaders emerged victorious on the basis of their personalities? For political leaders, it’s no longer enough to merely want to lead. You should be charming and accessible as well. Bernays further noted that a well-oiled political machinery considers that:

“News reaches the public through the printed word – books, magazines, letters, posters, circulars and banners, newspapers; through pictures – photographs and motion pictures; through the ear – lectures, speeches, band music, radio, campaign songs. All these must be employed by the political part if it is to succeed.” (Bernays, 2005, pp. 118-119) 

Interesting enough, his concepts can be further extended from the public into the private sphere. Bernays stated that propaganda “… may be used to over-advertise an institution and to create in the public mind artificial values.” (Bernays, 2005, p. 145) He used the term “institution” to refer to institutions of learning, yet this can also refer to societal institutions. Case in point, the institution of marriage and the concept of weddings. Our society emphasizes the sanctity of marriage as an institution. As a result, the very process of getting married and the corresponding ceremonies gets subjected to propagandization. Nowadays, getting married entails spending an exorbitant amount of money, beginning with the marriage proposal when a man is supposed to give a woman that sparkling diamond to the wedding planning process itself where money is spent on products and services to be used before, during and after the wedding day. How many people benefit from all these? Weddings are unbelievable moneymaking machines with plenty of wedding service providers who profit immensely from it. As for artificial values, there are rampant examples including “it’s your day, the best day of your life, so spend your money, you’re worth it”, even “money’s no object when it comes to your dream wedding”. Yes, the institution of marriage has been propagandized and “over-advertised”, while love has been commodified, with the underlying message being, “If you do not spend a lot of money, then you do not really love each other.”

In conclusion, while Bernays’ ideas might not be extremely comprehensive and, in fact, reflect a certain level of intellectual elitism (especially his encouragement that those who occupy powers of position can, should and must approach the masses with their agenda set already), without him, the field of public relations would not have gotten its early start. It is interesting to note that the field of public relations itself was subjected to propagandizing in order to shed the stigma associated with the word “propaganda”, and transformed itself into public relations as we know it today.  

Works Cited 

Bernays, E. (2005). Propaganda. Brooklyn, NY, USA: Ig Publishing.

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (2006). Personal Influence. Transaction Publishers.


[Submitted as Sacred Heart University's CM501 class requirement]  

Read more...

“I’m Bored…Entertain Me!”

“I’m Bored...Entertain Me!”

Detached and Disaffected in a Media-Saturated World

Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” is a thought-provoking treatise that puts television under tremendous scrutiny.  Part I traced the history of media from the time of the founding fathers - how the U.S. went from a literary culture to an image culture, and how it has a strong history of readership, and an established relationship with the printed word due to and resulting in high literacy rates.  Part II focused on television’s relationship with and impact on religion, politics, education, commerce, and news - how television has repackaged these different spheres as “entertainment”.  Since he wrote a book on how television is and must be entertaining, he seemed to have taken the same stance with his writing.  He wrote informally with dashes of humor, his writing style serving as proof of what the book’s title is all about.

Overall, Postman’s ideas resonate until today.  After reading his ideas, why television is also called “idiot box” made sense.  Television is the idiot box that creates and attracts idiots, who want to be entertained.  Then again, if TV’s main purpose is nothing more than to entertain, whatever television presents to the audience should not be used against it.  Why criticize TV for what it was meant to be in the first place?

Postman was correct in his observation that, “The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue altogether.” (Postman, 2006, p. 87)  People are used to TV that they no longer expect to be merely informed, but to be informed and entertained in the shortest amount of time possible.  Even serious matters are expected to have high entertainment value.

His chapter “Now...This” discusses the fragmentation of reality and experiences.  Television as a medium did not precipitate this, but TV propelled this fragmentation into how things are today.

"...what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment." (Postman, 2006, p. 141) 

What TV presents as relevant, meaningful and connected, ends up the other way - irrelevant, meaningless and disconnected.  By constantly decontextualizing and recontextualizing people, places and events, our culture ends up fragmented with a poor sense of history.

Fast forward to 2011, Postman’s analysis of TV in “The Peek-a-Boo World” (Postman, 2006, p. 79) seems applicable to the Internet, which has been completely integrated into our lives.  No one talks about its content, as everything we see online is now deemed natural.  In addition, the Internet embraces, in fact, subsume all other media under its big umbrella.  Before, we had discrete media - television for programs; radio for music; and newspaper for the news.  Today, the Internet blurs the lines that define each medium by being free-for-all; where people can create their own place online via blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter posts, Facebook profiles, among others.

What lies in store for our literary culture?  Borders’ bankruptcy coupled with Barnes and Noble’s current financial struggles seem indicative of the literary culture’s demise.  Is book readership going down?  Is it possible that people are still reading, but are now using e-readers instead of actual books? Is it also possible that people are choosing to buy online, instead of from brick and mortar stores?

With today’s image-based culture gaining monopoly in our society, its negative effects can be felt in various ways.  First, critical thinking skills are diminishing.  Information is packaged in such a way that there is no room or need for critical thinking.  Second, people have shorter attention span.  Television allows you to change channels at the flick of the remote control, especially when the show does not capture or fails to sustain your attention.  We have a generation who gets bored easily, seeking constant activity and media stimulation.  Young people surf the Internet with the TV playing in the background, while texting their friends.  Third, it creates an apathetic, desensitized, dissociated and poorly socialized generation.  A case in point is when two Rutgers University students broadcasted their gay classmate’s sexual encounter, who subsequently committed suicide.  In addition, even if television attempts to present issues of great importance happening worldwide such as natural disasters and political upheavals, people react (but do not act) today and forget tomorrow.  Lastly, we have the progressive dumbing down of America.  With an over-saturation of modern media via 24-hour cable, the Internet, and worldwide cell phone access, are people nowadays better informed citizens or simply media-inundated individuals?

Postman’s idea that we are amusing ourselves to death accurately describes what goes on in our society, where entertainment value is paramount.  We might laugh all we want, but in the end, we should consider how possible it is that the joke is on all of us.

Work Cited

Postman, N. (2006). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Group.

[Submitted as Sacred Heart University's CM501 class requirement] 

Read more...

A Mixed Bag of Ethical Cases

Thanks to my group mates for sharing their engaging insights, both in their blogs and during discussions. Though we might not all agree on everything, we know well enough to respect one another's opinions and viewpoints. Here's my take on five blog posts written by five classmates - James, Crystal, Anne, Joel and Justine.

* * * * * * * *

"We do not live in a bubble."

"One thing leads to another."

Seemingly insipid statements, but to me, they reflect in simple terms what affects ethical decision-making and its subsequent results.

"Post 1" by James Kearns (January 10, 2012)

In James Kearns's "Post 1" (January 10, 2012), he pointed out how things aren't bad on its own, but when it accumulates over time, that's when it becomes problematic. (Note his paper napkin example, how one simple act of littering segues into another and another.) He didn't say things are either black or white. If anything, what he wrote makes it seem like things are neutral. We decide what's good, what's bad, what's right and what's wrong.

He pointed how such concepts are subjective, "[j]ust because something is bad in my view, does not mean it is universally bad." But there are collectively defined and agreed-upon concepts of what constitutes "bad". If you ask anyone if killing is bad, you're bound to get dirty looks and even an exasperated, "well, YEAH". Yet it can be argued that there's such a thing as killing someone out of self-defense, even killing during war time. Suddenly, the concept isn't so cut and dried. When do you allow bad things to happen because it's the ethical thing to do? If you keep pushing and pushing the line, then eventually you end up going over the edge.

Lastly, James showed what a realist he is, "sometimes there is no choice if you hope to keep your job." This is one factor that makes ethical decision-making sting - when it hits you in your wallet. It made me think of corruption in government. Do you play the whistle-blower role when you have a good job with good benefits? Corruption begins with a small step that might seem not so bad, but when taken, leads to the gradual erosion of values. Government corruption, as we all know, doesn't happen overnight.


"Blog Post 2" by Crystal Maruszcak (January 14, 2012)

Crystal Marusczak's January 14, 2012 "Blog Post 2" on secrecy used Bok's model to analyze the ethical dilemmas (for Fray, lying on one's memoir; and for The Smoking Gun, revealing what they discovered) behind James Fray's "A Million Little Pieces", which was subsequently revealed by The Smoking Gun.

The thing is, people rethink and rewrite their pasts whether consciously or unconsciously. In Fray's situation, he wrote about arrests that can be easily verified. After it was verified that those never happened, then he had to face the backlash of what he DID do - write about experiences that never really happened to him. Had Fray presented his writing as a work of fiction, he would've gotten away with it. But he presented it as his memoir, his autobiography, which proved to be his undoing. People are OK when they know the line between fiction and non-fiction. But when you attempt to blur the lines, then your motives get questioned.

How did Fray feel about what he did? He seemed to be alright with what went on. Did he plan to reveal that his non-fictional work was actually fictional? Did he consult with lawyers? Or did he, like most aspiring writers, merely want to get published? In addition, what led The Smoking Gun to dig into this matter? Who tipped them off? As Crystal pointed out, "Smoking Gun could have given notice to Fray and his publishers before releases this secret news to the world."

"Football anyone?" by Anne Johnston (January 20, 2012)

Anne Johnston's blog post "Football anyone?" (January 20, 2012) analyzed CASE 3-B "Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can" by Erin Schauster using a "Do No Harm" perspective. She included information from the "Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fact Sheet - Underage Drinking" with statistics I found fairly alarming. As it turns out, underage drinking is a bigger problem than most of us realize.

According to Case 3-B, Anheuser-Busch gave away Bud Light "Fan Cans" on college campuses and college towns. It seems clear that they're targeting the 21+ crowd. However, how can those who implemented this strategy not realize that people below 21 years old - clearly below the legal drinking age - are very much a part of that landscape too?

Statistics on underage drinking is available to anyone interested enough to look for them. Did AB's team consider this information when planning and conducting their campaigns? If they did, it seems to me that they basically view the youth as numbers - potential beer consumers who will increase the company's profit margins, thus ensuring their future customer base. Target them while they're young, and we're all set in the years to come.

Then again, would it be better for AB to:
- play innocent and pretend that underage drinking is not happening?
- insist that their products are for adults only, no kids are allowed? OR
- admit that yes, underage drinking happens, we know the statistics, so we'll be the responsible company that we are and tell kids to lay off drinking until they're 21?

Maybe it's time for such companies to step up and promote responsible alcohol consumption for everyone.

"I Know Who I AM: The Function of Definition" by Joel Clark Mason (January 26, 2012)

Joel Clark Mason's blog post title "I Know Who I Am: The Function of Definition" (January 26, 2012) goes against my perception that the industry itself is undergoing a serious identity crisis. Does the PR field know who it is? However, upon further reading of his post, he underscores how the current definition of public relations leaves much to be desired, which is something I very much agree with.

Joel defined Public Relations this way:

"While clearly acknowledging any conflict of interests public relations strives to present honest and accurate information while being heedful of information flowing from organizations and stakeholders."

I find it highly commendable that he included "conflict of interest" in his definition. But who determines what constitutes "honest and accurate information"? How does the "information flowing from organizations and stakeholders" affect the presentation of "honest and accurate information"? He further stated "...PR firms and departments have a focused agenda on putting the best foot forward of the client they are paid to represent." A truthful statement, especially when I consider his discussion of the Gaddaffi-The Monitor Group relationship.

Perhaps this is exactly the reason why the PR field is in its current state - it doesn't know what it is, and what it should be doing. So in the absence of a proper identity, in the absence of guidance on what to do, it goes about its business and does what it can in a haphazard and yes, sometimes in an irresponsible manner.

"Blog Post #5" by Justine Luzzi (February 4, 2012)

Justine Luzzi in her "Blog Post #5" (February 4, 2012) detailed her ethical stance on how the Suburban Journal and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dealt with the Megan Meier case.

"...There's something to say about being outnumbered. Ten is always better then one, and more often than not, people will conform in a group, as opposed to their own individual opinion, despite their ethical conscience."

We live in a society that promotes societal harmony. Most people end up following the crowd, rather than becoming that lone voice in the wilderness who stands up for what they believe is right. Megan was harassed online by three people. After the Journal printed the story, the community wanted names. The Post published the names in response to public outcry. In each instance, we see how the numbers game and the concept of communitarianism played out in ethical decision-making.

Justine also stated "[e]ven if there was no social networking, bullying would still exist. In my own opinion, and I'm not a parent, but I think it comes down to parenting. If we can start there, I think we can avoid most bullying cases." True, bullying exists online and offline. It is easy to pin it down on the parents, but everyone has a role to play.

In the Meier case, one of the suspects was the mother of the girl who had a falling-out with Megan. Did the mother play her role as a protective parent when they decided to play a hoax on Megan? Would it have behooved her well to put herself in Megan's parents' shoes? It would've, but she didn't. The mother performed her parental duties to her daughter, while harming another's child. If the parent has societally questionable values, then it doesn't matter how much parenting that parent will do.

* * * * * * * *

Different blogs, different observations and opinions. Ethical dilemmas are an inescapable fact of life. Do we decide based on what's good for everyone? Should we focus on what's good solely for us? What do we do when the mob mentality comes into play? Should events and situations be judged based on who is guilty or not, what they did or didn't do, or what the results were?

Everyone makes decisions based on what governs their own ethical and moral compasses. But at the end of the day, the question is not so much "what were they thinking?" but in fact, whether or not they were thinking in the first place. If the answer is yes, then that's the best we can hope for.

Read more...

Bullying the Bullies

Roy Malone's article in the St. Louis Journalism Review "Online harassment - A hoax, a suicide - a journalistic dilemma" (December 13, 2007) on cyberbullying and the issue of privacy prompted me to look up teen cyberbullying suicides. Have things changed since the Megan Meier case?

Apparently not.

The article "Mean Girls: Cyberbullying Blamed for Teen Suicides" (January 28, 2010) lists the casualties of cyberbullying, including Megan.

"In 2006, Megan Meier killed herself after the mother of a former friend created a fictitious profile to harass the Missouri 13-year-old. Three years earlier, 13-year-old Ryan Patrick Halligan of Vermont hung himself after he'd been bullied online.

"Just this week in Lewisville, Texas, a 9-year-old boy hung himself in the nurse's bathroom at his elementary school.

"...

"This is apparently the second high-profile suicide bullying case in Massachusetts in the past year. In nearby Springfield, 11-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover hung himself with an extension cord after bullies repeatedly called him gay."

Another article "Cyberbullying Continued After Teen's Death" (March 29, 2010) reported how, even in death, the victim continued to get bullied. So much for resting in peace.

"Soccer star Alexis Pilkington, 17, took her own life March 21 following vicious taunts on social networking sites -- which persisted postmortem on Internet tribute pages, worsening the grief of her family and friends."

The article "Amanda Cummings' Suicide Prompts Cyberbullying Bill In New York" (January 10, 2012) prompted action, although I do wonder how much teeth this bill will actually have.

Years later, the sad situation of cyberbullying and teen suicide continues. Apart from reporting these stories, what can the media do to curb the tide of teen cyberbullying suicides? Let's look at the landmark Megan Meier case back in 2006, a good example of what we learned in class - "information that wants to get out, will get out".

The neighbors had the right to privacy.
Suburban Journal's Steve Pokin and colleagues' decision to withhold the neighbors' identities showed the former's respect for the latter's right to privacy. They relied on the court of law to determine the guilt. The neighbors were neither celebrities nor public figures. Therefore, their right to privacy should be respected and upheld.

The Journal's decision to protect the neighbors' identities reflected pluralism and communitarianism - they promoted the societal institutions in place to decide on the best course of action, and eventually, the institutions joined forces in promoting social justice. Let society's institutions do their work. Was it a way to avoid backlash all around? There was the potential for backlash against the Journal, as well as the possibility of the bullies getting bullied by their neighbors and the community-at-large. It could have been a vicious cycle of vengeance.

The neighbors had no right to privacy.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch took over what the Journal started, but stopped midway. They identified the neighbors. In line with Kant's categorical imperative principle, the Post identified the suspects, probably acting out of a sense of duty stemming from their own ethical and moral compass. They acted from the perspective of parents everywhere - wouldn't you want your story heard if something like this happened to your child? Clearly, they went beyond their journalistic duty of reporting.

"News media has been given wide protection to do their work, including by using names and pictures without getting consent". So why hesitate, given this type of situation? We also see the utilitarianism principle at work - it is all right to expose these people for the good of the community. With the unspoken "after all, they inflicted harm first."

Transparency - Both the Journal and the Post aimed for transparency using different approaches. The Journal attempted to balance transparency and respect for privacy. The Post went for transparency and full disclosure. Both approaches are sound and acceptable, but these won't please everyone.

Harm - Bullying, whether online or offline, causes harm. In this situation, it was a planned and targeted team effort by members of a community to inflict harm on Megan Meier. "...the neighbor admitted the scheme to the police". Does "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" make sense in this scenario? Was it fair to put the neighbors in harm's way by revealing their identities? Wouldn't it ultimately be better to prevent more harm? But a judgment call had to be made.

Justice - Three against one. This was an uneven fight compounded by the participation of adults who should have made good judgment calls, but acted contrary. Keeping the neighbors' identities can be viewed as equal to protecting them. These are the same neighbors who bullied the child online which led her to commit suicide. No one protected Megan from them. Where is the justice in that? I understand why people reacted - the neighbors' actions caused this child's death. They should pay the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, "innocent until proven guilty" did not work in this case. Even if the court of law did not find them guilty, they were tried by the public, a trial by publicity, which led to having their right to privacy violated.

Autonomy - Media has been called the "Fourth Estate" - the public's recourse when society's institutions fail to deliver on its promises and responsibilities. The Journal acted as if it had no backbone, which hit the public’s nerves. Bullying victims are forced into silence. In this case, the victim cannot provide testimony because she's dead. Who can speak on behalf of the victim? In the absence of a spokesperson, people look to the media to be the mouthpiece for those who cannot speak.

Privacy - "Private citizens have the right to be free of intrusion into their own private space." Online, people are braver to say and do unseemly things. Do people behave the same way face-to-face and online? Not necessarily. But cyberspace is by no means "private space". It only gives the illusion that it is private space when it is hardly so. Cyberspace is as public as the billboards on I-95. As such, whatever you do in such a public domain is still governed by societal rules.

Community - The fear that "it can happen to all of us" and people can get away with it struck a chord with the public at the time. When harm comes to a member of a community, everyone rises up in arms. In this situation, the neighbors were a part of Megan's community. Instead of protecting a member of their community, they caused harm to one of their own. They broke the community's unwritten social contract. You turn against a member of the community, and the community will turn against you.

Of the two approaches, I am more inclined to go with the Post. Getting the information out there may improve the situation and make people aware of cyberbullying's dire consequences. Keeping the neighbors' identities under wraps might result in a witch hunt. In a strange way, identifying the neighbors can protect the other members of the community. Everyone will know who were the parties involved. There would be no need to suspect everyone else who can be considered "Megan's neighbors". Identified, they can get police protection if needed. Of course, it's a given that the minor's identity should be withheld.

The Journal shared Megan's parents' story, conveyed "simmering outrage" but did not step up. They did not take a stand. They could've used that outrage as fuel to go the extra mile. If you're going to run an expose, run it like you mean it. Don't do it halfheartedly. Present all sides of the story. If you're presenting the Meiers' side, then present the neighbors' side. Even better, include the perspectives of the police, FBI and the prosecutors.

The neighbors hid under the cloak of anonymity when bullying Megan. Yet their bad behavior was further protected when their identities were kept secret, seemingly another cloak of anonymity. It gave the impression that the Journal was collaborating with the whole unholy situation.

Social networks like Facebook or MySpace have an ethical obligation to step in and take action on reports of cyberbullying. Bullying is bullying, whether in the real or virtual world. As social networking sites, they must be willing to embrace both the positive and negative consequences of being such a site. Thankfully, Facebook allows the reporting of violations and gives information on what to do with bullying situations (see here). They also have a Family Safety Center page.

What do you do with such cases? Take reports of bullying seriously. Ban the people. Block their accounts. Sure, bullies also have rights, but rights can be revoked. Most importantly, parents should discuss with their children about the amount of time they spend on social media. While bullying happens offline too, social media’s 24/7 nature amps up the nasty experience. In today's society, we should all remember that what governs face-to-face interactions should also apply in the online world.

Read more...