Cyberbullying - Age old behavior, new age twist

Cyberbullying. It makes sense. Bullies are just insecure individuals who prey on others. So what better way to harass someone while not having to look him or her in the face, than over the Internet?  

It makes me sad to think about all the 10, 12, 15 year olds out there bullying and harassing other young people to the point of self-inflicted violence or mental anguish. (This is not to say that cyberbullying is an issue that only affects teens, but it is this groups inability to appropriately deal with the situation, which is what makes it so unfortunate).  

I think, as with any issue that affects so many people in such a traumatic manner, it is not just one person or one entity’s responsibility to stop it. In contrary to Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message”, I don’t think we can blame social media sites for this issue and expect that it be them alone who fix it.  

It needs to be dealt with on many levels from many different angles. Parents must play a role, as must teachers and other social leaders, government and social media companies – all must be held accountable.  

Some have already started to pitch in. 

The Cyberbullying Research Center "is dedicated to providing up-to-date information about the nature, extent, causes, and consequences of cyberbullying among adolescents." 

Many states (only two have not) have written and placed into affect their own cyberbullying laws. 

Facebook is doing it's part to help resolve the issue by implementing new systems.   

Even television is playing it's part. The ABC Family has launched [Delete] Digital Drama in partnership with Seventeen magazine.  

Bullying is certainly not a new issue; it’s the ways in which new technology is being used to continue this age-old behavior. I believe that the only way it will be resolved is from a multi-faceted approach.

Please close the door; I have the right to a little bit of privacy.

Within the first few lines of the story “Online harassment-A hoax, a suicide — a journalistic dilemma” by Roy Malone, we learned the victims name, how she died and intimate details of what drove her to take her own life. What we didn’t learn was who was responsible for this tragedy. 

My first reaction was to agree with Pokin and the Journal. The neighbors were not charged and therefore why should their names be smeared in the public sphere? Their safety is also of major concern. It was exactly the “vigilante-like outrage” that took place once their names were revealed that the Journal might have been trying to avoid. 

But were these people wrong in expressing outrage? After all, why should the neighbors be protected when they (allegedly) did not care about Megan’s physical and mental safety? This might have been what the Post had in mind when they released the neighbors’ names – justice was being served, if not in the courtroom than in the media. 

Mill’s Utility Principle could, in my understanding, actually be used to argue both sides of this story and the ways in which it was reported. 

In summary, this principle focuses on the outcome, on the consequences of the action. “The consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical. In the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the larger group.” (Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Page 10). Humanities & Social Science. Kindle Edition.) 

Similarly, the Communitarianism theory tells us that, “Community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice.” (Bindig, COM503-Ethics-CheatSheet) 

In this respect, for the Post, it was the community’s need for “justice” that trumped the privacy and safety of the accused. 

However, our text also tells us that “In application, utilitarianism has a way of puncturing entrenched self-interest, but when badly applied, it can actually promote social selfishness.” (Page 12 Kindle Edition.) In a society where you’re innocent until proven guilty, was it selfish of the community to seek out the neighbors name and for the Post (and others) to publish it? 

After thinking this through and applying several ethical principles, I have to side with the Post for publishing the neighbor’s names. It is a journalist’s obligation to provide the facts of the story for their reader. The Journal chose to share some of the facts and withhold others based on their own ethics. I believe that it is the journalist’s duty to present the facts and society’s duty to take those facts and formulate an opinion based on their own ethics, morals, values and loyalty. I think the Journal would have been better off not printing the story altogether, rather than withholding such an important fact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Meier's interview with CNN. Now tell me the sense that it makes to withhold the neighbor's name, but show a video clip of their home? Anyone who lives in the area would identify this immediately. 

More than just a definition

In 2012 the PRSA’s Board of Ethics and Professional Standards will be monitoring the following four areas:

• PR firms representing dictators 
• Ethical use of interns
• The growth of brand journalism
• Maintaining PR’s ethical standards in the digital age 

From a pure review perspective, I would agree that these are four big issues. To take a stance against dictators is in my opinion an important one, however, I also believe that this will be a difficult one to monitor/enforce. There is always someone who is looking for a paycheck. 

The Office on interns

As a student myself, I agree that reinstating the integrity of internships is important. Companies have lost accountability in the nature of these programs. Bottom line, if you’re paying for something, you’re more likely to invest in it in other ways. And the student is bound to benefit from this. 

When I first read the concept of brand journalism, I thought it sounded like a bad idea, and so of course PRSA should be monitoring it. However, the more I thought about it, the more it sounded like a synonym for public relations. I mean, isn’t that what PR already is? A PR professional/firm “publishing” their own side of the story? 

As far as maintaining ethical standards, monitoring this in my opinion goes without saying.

What is not listed here is certification or licensing. Many industries have this in place to give those that adhere to ethical standards further credibility and accountability. 

If the PR industry wants to do something to bring back credibility to the field, some level of standardization and/or monitoring and consequences should be in place. There are far too many cases each year where PR firms or professionals are not just blurring the line, but jumping over it by leaps and bounds.

It is cases such as the one presented by Corbett and discussed at length by Alison Leigh Cowan in her NY Times article about the Orthodox rabbi that are the most problematic and which should be the focus of the PRSA’s efforts in 2012. 

Mr. Torossian is clearly doing harm to his industry and to his clients. He has a history of lying and creating fake content on behalf of his clients, which is in clear violation of the industry’s code of ethics. Now, not only is he himself involved in the situation that he was hired to manage, it appears that he may have had a hand in constructing it in the first place. 

Rather then spending time developing a new definition, perhaps the PRSA should be focusing on how to standardize the industry to bring faith back to the practice. 

A new word for a new world

The current definition of “Public Relations” offered by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” 

Not only is this definition “vague”, as Stuart Elliott (no relation) wrote in his NY Times article, Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media, it is confusing and limited. Therefore, it is no wonder the PRSA is seeking a new definition fit for the modern age.  

In November 2011 the PRSA launched prdefinition.prsa.org as a platform by which visitors could submit suggestions for a new definition. The template asked visitors to answer the following questions: “Public relations (does what) with or for (whom) to (do what) for (what purpose).”  

Before completing this fill-in-the-blank assignment, I thought it would be helpful to review some existing definitions and descriptions.

• In the early 1900s Edward Louis Bernays defined public relations as “a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interests of an organization. . . followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance."

• The first World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, held in Mexico City, in August 1978, defined PR as "the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interest.”

• The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) offered the following definition in 1988: "Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."

• Finally, Wikipedia tells us that “others define it simply as ‘the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics.’”  

There is a lot to be learned from these and in my opinion they should not be dismissed.  

If I were to have submitted a suggestion to the PRSA, it might have read something like this (an amalgamation of some of the better points offered above):  

“In this digital age, it is the PR professional’s duty to both respond to content as well as influence the content that is created by others. In doing so, Public Relations must gauge public attitudes; analyze trends while predicting their consequences; counsel clients; and implement planned programs of action.”  

I think this definition is much more descriptive and takes into account the two-way nature of PR. However, simultaneously, this can create an ethical dilemma. If PR professionals are helping to develop or influence content where does the truth lie? Do we need to be concerned that they may be creating stories that suit their own needs? A la the “brand journalism” that Gerard Corbett describes in his article, Time for Resolutions: Will You Commit to PR Ethics in 2012? I don’t. As with anything, it is not the rule or the tool, but how the person applies it.  

For this reason, and others, I have chosen not to discuss ethics in the definition. I don’t believe that this is where it belongs; this is what a code of ethics is for, or at least the mission, vision, values of an organization.

Corporate Responsibility: Just Sales or Doing Well by Doing Good?

The American Marketing Association Code of Ethics tells us that “as marketers, we must:

1. Do no harm. This means consciously avoiding harmful actions or omissions by embodying high ethical standards and adhering to all applicable laws and regulations in the choices we make.
2. Foster trust in the marketing system. This means striving for good faith and fair dealing so as to contribute toward the efficacy of the exchange process as well as avoiding deception in product design, pricing, communication, and delivery of distribution.
3. Embrace ethical values. This means building relationships and enhancing consumer confidence in the integrity of marketing by affirming these core values: honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship. 

In addition, the AMA outlines a number of Ethical Values, including:

• Fairness – Represent products in a clear way in selling, advertising and other forms of communication; this includes the avoidance of false, misleading and deceptive promotion.
• Transparency – Explain and take appropriate action regarding significant product or service risks, component substitutions or other foreseeable eventualities that could affect customers or their perception of the purchase decision.
• Citizenship – Strive to protect the ecological environment in the execution of marketing campaigns.

(for a complete list of ethical values, visit the AMA website.)

Overall, based on the AMA’s ethics code and ethical values, I believe that Brita has failed miserably in designing and promoting their filterforgood.com campaign.

Pay close attention to how they are serving the water - really?

I don’t believe that Brita was intentionally, or even unintentionally, attempting to harm their consumers, however; they did consciously omit part of the story. The fact that they are encouraging people to stop using water bottled in plastic, while simultaneously not telling people outright that the Brita cartridges are not recyclable is intentionally leaving out part of the story – some might say they are intentionally misleading the public.

By not making a recyclable cartridge, Brita is also violating the ethical value of citizenship laid out by the AMA. 

It is not unrealistic to think that customers might make a different purchasing decision if they knew prior to buying a Brita that the cartridges are not recyclable. It is also quite possible that many consumers will lose faith in Brita as they begin to learn the full story.

Overall this campaign does little to add to the “integrity of marketing”, specifically in the areas of honesty, responsibility and transparency.

The problem with the AMA code of ethics and list of ethical values is that it’s not always this black and white when evaluating an ethical situation.

To expand on this, I will look at two other ethical theories, Kant’s Categorical Imperative theory and Mill’s Utility Principle theory.  

I chose Kant’s Categorical Imperative theory because the AMA lists ‘Respect’ as one of their Ethical Values, specifically to “Treat everyone, including our competitors, as we would wish to be treated.” (Many readers will recognize the similarity between Kant’s first manifestation of the categorical imperative and the Bible’s golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.(Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Pages 9- 10). Humanities & Social Science. Kindle Edition.))

Despite the fact that Brita is trying to eliminate plastic bottles from landfills, this outcome is not trumped by their withholding of facts regarding the recyclability of their cartridges. Consider if all companies withheld information from their consumers just because they see value in the outcome (cynics hold your tongue here!). Or as Oswald A.J. Mascarenhas wrote in him book, Responsible Marketing: Concepts, Theories, Models, Strategies, and Cases, “Marketers cannot use their customers as means to their own ends.” (page 33) In this case profitability and social image. It seems unfair (dare I say, unethical?) to “dupe” customers into thinking that they are “saving the world”, when really they are just replacing one “evil” one another.

Alternatively, if we look at Mill’s Utility Principle theory, we learn that “the focus is on the outcome - the consequences of the action.” (L. Bindig. COM503 Ethics Cheat Sheet) And that “the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.” (Wikipedia) (For the purposes of this evaluation I will put aside the fact that our text tells us that “utilitarianism…is so difficult to accurately anticipate all the consequences of a particular act.” (Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Pages 12). Humanities & Social Science. Kindle Edition.))

The filterforgood.com website states that 300 water bottles can be replaced by one filter. Additional facts provided by Brita include:

• In 2008, the U.S. (the world’s largest bottled water consumer) used enough plastic water bottles to stretch around the earth more than 190 times.
• It takes 2,000 times more energy to produce a bottle of water than it does to produce tap water.
• 69% of bottled water containers end up in the trash and not in a recycling bin. 

When you add these facts together, does the outcome (as defined by Brita above) out way the fact that the cartridge itself is not recyclable?

As with all ethical questions there is no right answer. While I think that it is irresponsible that Brita is misleading its customers by omitting the fact that the cartridge is not recyclable, Mill’s Utility Principle theory seems to be the most realistic way of looking at an ethical situation to determine how to proceed. 

If it were only that simple

Keeping secrets is much more a part of our daily life than we realize. Just about every day we’re “forced” to make decisions and judgment calls about what to repeat and what to keep to ourselves. Often times those decisions are made so quickly and with such habit that we don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s only when something conflicts with our ethics or morals that we take notice. 

Michael Scott from The Office discusses ethics

Every so often a colleague who is looking to “unload” or “vent” tells me something in confidence. Fortunately, the “he said/she said” stories I hear are not a matter of national security or life and death. 

More often than not, what I hear is of no consequence. However, once in a while I am told something that is a little more serious and I am forced to make a decision about whether to keep that information to myself or share it with my boss. I believe that ultimately I owe my allegiance to my organization and therefore many times I have chosen to disclose the news to my supervisor.  

If it were always that simple.
 
It is very easy to sit here behind my computer and speculate about what I would do if I were presented with a serious ethical dilemma. I don’t think it is that cut and dry. Similarly, it is just as easy to look back on a situation with 20/20 vision and critique how it played out. 

For the purposes of this assignment, I am going to attempt to describe how I would ideally like to address a serious ethical decision at work.

In our text, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, we read about Sissela Bok’s ethical decision-making framework. This model presents a three-step process for analyzing an ethical decision. She says that one should ask the following questions:

1. How do you feel about the actions?
2. Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?
3. How will others respond to the proposed act?  

 
This is certainly a process that I would feel comfortable moving through, however, I would add on as 3b, what will be the consequences of my actions?

Since I don’t intend on being a journalist, I am not going to argue the ethics of reporting the situation or not through the media, as the text did. Rather, it would be more likely that I myself might uncover a similar situation while working at a non-profit and be forced to decide between keeping it to myself and reporting it to my superiors or Human Resources. 

1.  How do you feel about the actions? Because nonprofits operate entirely on other people’s money, I believe that there should be separate guidelines for how that money is spent. I often feel very uncomfortable when I hear how freely non-profit funds are spent on what I deem to be luxuries (first class airfare, 5 star hotels, glamorous restaurants, etc.) In this example I would deem the incident as morally and ethically wrong and would feel compelled to say something about it.

2.  Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise an ethical issue? There is usually more than one way to address a situation and I think, in many cases, going to the media should be a last resort. In this example, since no one was harmed by the incident and keeping it a secret would harm no one, I believe the situation would be best managed in-house either through immediate termination or probation. Therefore, if I found out that my CEO or one of my colleagues were falsifying records for their own personal gain, I would either take it to my immediate supervisor or to Human Resources. As a last resort I may contact my Board Chair if I felt that it was not being addressed at a staff level.

3.  How will others respond to the proposed act? What will be the consequences of my actions? I think if this situation were reported in the media, people would be outraged, and rightly so. How could someone in such a position abuse public funds so poorly? Then it would likely raise other questions, such as, what else is happening that we don’t know about? In this situation, donors and the public are likely to lose faith in the organization and funds would see a decline. This would ultimately have an impact on the constituents who receive support from the non-profit. (Which is why, referring back to #2, I would advocate for keeping the incident in-house.) 

Regardless of laws in place to protect whistle blowers, it is usually the person trying to do the “right” thing that feels the impact. The first fallout that comes to mind would be finding another job. If it were revealed that I was the one that blew the whistle on the executive, regardless of whether it was the right thing to do, it is likely that future employers will question my ability to keep information secret. 

Ultimately, most people are looking out for themselves, and it is these consequences (and not a 3-step process) that many consider before taking any action. 

If I wanted to balance a wire, I would have joined the circus

Just over 10 years ago I found myself in an internal ethical debate.

I was working for an international corporation as an outside sales rep. To say I hated it would be an understatement and to say I was not good at it would be putting it mildly.

I needed a new career.

I decided to go back to school to become a fundraiser – a profession that I saw as a middle ground between extreme do-gooder and extreme “used car salesman”. Yes, I am aware that fundraising is really sales of another name, but I see a huge distinction – I was “selling” something I believed in.

Back then I naively thought that working for a non-profit would be easy. I would believe in what I was doing, and everyone else would too. Therefore we would always be putting someone else’s needs above our own and do “the right thing”.

Oh to go back to a simpler time.

Working with children in Vietnam

During this time I have worked for four remarkable non-profits, all child-focused, and I have met and worked with some amazing – and some not so amazing - people. With this track record it’s not a far stretch to imagine a similar future filled with children.

And when it comes to children, there is an endless list of ethical issues.   

·       Is the child accompanied by a guardian?

·       Have they signed a release to be photographed?

·       Do we tell their specific story or do we present a composite story of multiple children?

·       Do we name the child in the story or do we give them an alias?

In my current role, I work with children who have a serious illness. With this comes a whole new set of ethical (and legal) issues, making it an almost daily balancing act between promoting the cause (necessary to raise awareness and ultimately funds for the work we do) and respecting the child and their family in the process.

One of our core philosophies is that children are not an illness, they are a child first and their medical condition is only one component of who they are. In reality, we are a non-profit that raises money specifically for programs that support children with a medical illness. Not children who are homeless or who have a special athletic or musical talent; children who are sick. Therefore, in the eyes of some, it is imperative that the illness be placed first – an action that is in direct competition from our core philosophy.

So when a situation arises, such as a gala or a direct mail campaign, the ethical question becomes “how do we promote the cause while simultaneously respecting the child and their family?”

The first question I always ask myself is, “what will this child/parent think when they see/read this?” Will they be pleased to be the face of the campaign? Or will they be embarrassed / mortified / disappointed? I never want a child or parent to feel ashamed of their condition as a result of something we did.

According to Patterson & Wilkins (Media Ethics Issues& Cases), as a member of the program staff, I would come to a different conclusion than our development staff, as I have a different duty and a different constituent to whom I owe those duties – and that would be “OK”.

However, this only brings us so far – two opposing sides with no solution.

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative tells us that we should not be overlooking the child’s rights as a “means to an end”.

In direct competition to this is Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s philosophy that the end is more important than the means, and therefore, the rights of this one child is less important because in the end we’ll be raising money for a larger group of children who would benefit immensely. More similarly, Communitarian ethics tells us that “community interest trump individual interests but does not trample them” (Patterson & Wilkins, page 14). Of course the solution is somewhere in between.

Which is why I think the Pluralistic Theory of Value is much more realistic in the real world as it allows for variables, and let’s face it, life is made up of shades of grey.

It’s a tricky thing ethics.

Moving forward, having the tools to wade through the “grey” in life and at work, most importantly with superiors who often have the last say regardless of your ethics, will be very helpful.