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.