Jour 4470 Blog 3: Lies Aren't Funny

If you work in a public relations position whose ethical code do you follow in an unpredictable situation, your own or the company’s you work for?  In an ideal situation your ethical beliefs should mirror or closely identify with those of your employer’s.

However, that organization does have an obligation to Corporate Transparency. Basically, the company should be open with the public about its decisions and why they were made. A company that didn’t believe that corporate transparency was a good idea was Virgin America in 2011. The company attempted to try a new system to book flights. This new system was horrendous for the company. Passengers were given the wrong boarding passes, customers couldn’t access the website, flight crews were told the wrong times to come to work and the phone system couldn’t manage all the incoming calls from disgruntled customers. According to an article by Margaret Heffernan, “one customer said he was on hold for four hours - and then was hung up on. When he complained on VA's Facebook page, he was promptly kicked off. One poor woman was charged nine times for the same flight.”

How did Virgin America deal with these mass complications? Claiming that their customers and staff were happy with the changes and were only experiencing a few problems with the “smooth transition,” according to Heffernan’s article.

Virgin America made many mistakes in this case. The biggest one was lying to the public about the issue. I’m sure if the company was truthful about the issues from the start the public would have been more sympathetic to the problems that were occurring. Yes, there most likely would have been some tensions between Virgin America and the public, but at least the company could be called honest. Another mistake, was that the company didn’t act proactively in correcting the mistakes that were occurring, such as, trying to make the customers who were told the wrong gate or got charged multiple times for a ticket happy.  

Trust is one of the hardest things to build in any relationship. Virgin America damaged that relationship severely with some and lost it completely with others.

Another aspect that must be thought about is do the means justify the ends. The theory of Deontology states that some principles are right or wrong regardless of the consequences. The new Turkish commercial for Biomen shampoo uses an old film clip of Adolf Hitler at a rally is simply wrong no matter what comes out of it. The premise is that men shouldn’t use women’s shampoo. I guess Hitler is supposed to be the ultimate manly man.

Turkey’s Jewish community is speaking out against this commercial, and with every right to do so. It’s too soon to be poking fun at an event or a person who is responsible for killing millions of people. An article on cbsnews.com says, “‘The use of images of the violently anti-Semitic dictator who was responsible for the mass murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust to sell shampoo is a disgusting and deplorable marketing ploy,’ said Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director and a Holocaust survivor, in a statement.”

How does the company who aired the commercial feel? “Jewish community leader Silvyo Ovadya told Reuters that Biota Laboratories, which makes Biomen, said they will not get rid of the commercial because the idea is humorous,” according to an article on cbsnews.com. I can’t speak for anyone else, but using the image of a dictator that thought it was ok to kill millions of people on the belief that they were inferior to sell shampoo is not humorous. It’s disturbing and disgusting. That’s just my opinion, though.

In the case of the Biomen commercial I believe that those who produced the commercial didn’t take into account how the Jewish and other communities would feel about the commercial use of Hitler. Common sense, to me, should say that it probably isn’t the best idea to use one of the most hated men to sell something as trivial as shampoo.

In the cases previously discussed it seems that the company doesn’t take into account their audiences feelings or point of view. When the public is your source of  income you can’t afford not listening to their problems or concerns with what your company is doing.

In the PRSA code of ethics it states under “Independence,” “We are accountable for our actions.” People, especially professionals in public relations, shouldn’t have to be reminded that they are accountable. It should have been learned while growing up. Whether the outcome is good or bad it is always better to stand up and take responsibility. Some things shouldn’t be questioned, though. Such as, your company’s operations are being completely thrown off because of new software just come out and say that. When looking for a way to sell a product don’t use a vicious tyrant. Some things are in a grey area, others are clearly right or wrong. The way the two previous cases went about business is clearly wrong.

Jour 4460: Blog 10 How To Correct A Right

Amandla Stenberg in "The Hunger Games"

The Hunger Games movie was released March 23, 2012. On my personal timeline it received as much buzz as Twilight first did upon its release. I was expecting to read nothing but good reviews about the film, to hear boasts about how much the box offices made opening day. Instead, I came across articles with tweets like, “Why does rue have to be black not gonna lie kinda ruined the movie,” and “Sense when has Rue been a n-----,” as seen on screen shots published on jezebel.com. Rue is a character in the book played by 13-year-old Amandla Stenberg. She is the District 11 tribute and is an ally of the main character, Katniss. I have not altered the spelling in these quotes.

Dodai Stewart cites a passage from the actual Hunger Games book in her article stating, “But on page 45 of Suzanne Collins’s book, Katniss sees Rue for the first time…’And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that's she's very like Prim in size and demeanor…’” So what do you do when you’ve done nothing wrong?

Stenberg responded well beyond her years to the insulting comments stating in Justin Ravitz’s article, "It was an amazing experience; I am proud of the film and my performance. I want to thank all of my fans and the entire Hunger Games community for their support and loyalty."

I have yet to come across an article with other cast members or production crew members speaking out against these disturbing comments.

In class I always hear about what organizations or companies should have done when they made a mistake. I hardly ever hear about what to do when what you did was right, but a portion of the public revolts against it in an extremely public manner. Is it best to keep a low profile and stay quiet, or is it best to stand up and show overwhelming support to those targeted by hateful words?

My hope is that support for all the African American actors and actresses in the film becomes just as prominent as the insults. Other actors in the film have received negative comments about them as well, but Stenberg received the brunt of them.

It’s sad then in a time were the Trayvon Martin case is building people still are so thoughtless as to attack a little girl on the Internet. I also think that audiences forgot that movies are stories and that the characters in them are actual people who have feelings.

Harry M. Benshoff, a University of North Texas associate professor for the Radio, Television and Film department, believes a larger issue is stemming from this situation. He is quoted in Stephanie Goldberg’s article on cnn.com, “Hollywood has never been on the forefront of the civil rights movement," said Benshoff, who hasn't read or watched ‘The Hunger Games.’"

A Tumblr page has been created where these tweets about the film and the characters are discussed, and to “expose the Hunger Games fans on Twitter who dare to call themselves fans yet don't know a damn thing about the books.”

Jour 4460 Blog 9: Since When is House Arrest Fun?

The story behind Charlie Sheen’s sanity evaporating should be at least somewhat known by anyone with a television and/or Twitter account. Sheen’s excessive drug use and irradical behavior led to the CBS studio putting “the top-rated CBS show on hiatus so that [Sheen] could undergo rehab,” according to an article on the NYDailyNews.com that was posted in February of 2011.

Sheen’s behavior never improved. In an article published in May 2011 on USAToday.com, the news that Ashton Kutcher would replace Sheen on the Two and A Half Men show was released.

Sheen then went through a series of media antics with the trending topic “#tigerblood” after he told “the Today show's Jeff Rossen that he's got "tiger blood" and that it makes him impervious to the dangers of addiction,” according to an article by Paul Schrodt from esquire.com. He also attempted a comedy tour, but that business venture wasn’t as lucrative or successful as Sheen had hoped. 

Sheen’s deterioration was recorded through both traditional and social media. In my opinion, the characteristics this man publicly displayed is nothing to celebrate. What can you do though in a world when Lindsey Lohan’s latest police citation is bigger news than whose ahead in the presidential election?

Fiat, however, decided to play into the celebration of a known drug abuser by airing a commercial that features Sheen hosting an elaborate house party, complete with alcohol, party girls and a new 500 Abarth by fiat. Sheen closes the commercial with his only line, “I love being under house arrest. What am I getting for good behavior?” The second sentence in the quote is directed toward a woman who cuddles up next to Sheen

If I’m not mistaken, house arrest is a form of punishment, not a reward. I’m not sure if Fiat is sending the right message. Then again, I first saw the commercial on VH1 which is known for it’s not so serious programming.

Sheen has also been off the media scene for some time now and for his return to replicate his previous behavior with no remorse at all, it really makes me questions the values of the Fiat brand.

The end of the commercial states “not all bad boys are created equal.” The conclusion I draw from this is that Sheen is considered to be on an elevated level of being a bad boy. That statement also leads me to believe that Fiat is celebrating Sheen’s status.

The Fiat brand initially felt hesitant airing this commercial. They decided to post in on YouTube first to test the response from the public. In an article by Brent Snavley on USAToday.com, the head of the Fiat brand in North America, Timothy Kuniskis, is quoted saying, "We thought we'd be killed for showing it," Kuniskis said. "We've gotten no heat on this ad. None…. When we have something we are not positive of, this is a good way to reconfirm what we are thinking."

In my opinon if you weren’t sure of something that cost a pretty penny to produce your best bet would be to scrap the idea. The conclusion could be drawn that the commercial worked in Fiat’s favor in the view of the public. It failed in mine. The media mess that is Charlie Sheen should not be celebrated or endorsed, it should be taken to get help.

Jour 4460 Blog 8: "Make Kony Famous"

The past few days the Make Kony Famous movement has taken over social media. The Invisible Children organization initiated this movement with a very well done video that went viral.

 For those who don’t know about Joseph Kony or Invisible Children here’s some background. Joseph Kony is a rebel leader in Uganda. His army is made up of children that were kidnapped from their homes by others already forced in the army. These children are forced to fight or they are killed. If they try to run away, they are killed. They are forced to kill their own parents. Not all the children fight. The girls who are kidnapped are turned into sex slaves. Kony doesn’t lead this army for a cause.

Kony has been number one on “the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder, sexual slavery and abusing children,” according to a post on the Wall Street Journal website. Kony’s campaign has gone on for “26 years,” says Hilary Whitman on cnn.com. The viral video describes the reason for this long reign is because no one can find Kony in the bush.

Three filmmakers created Invisible Children. After they went on a trip to Uganda, found out about the war and interviewed some former child soldiers who escaped the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA.) The goal of Invisible Children is to have Kony arrested and brought to justice on his crimes.

I’ve heard about the Invisible Children organization and their campaigns, like “Light the Night,” before, but none had an impact like this new campaign. This campaign has turned into a movement.

The video was posted March 5, 2012 has been retweeted and shared on Facebook countless times. As of 3:13 p.m. on March 9, it had 57,733,541 views on YouTube. My Twitter timeline on March 5 was flooded with the “#StopKony” trending topic.

The video does an excellent job of describing the background of Kony’s war, how and why Invisible Children was formed and how this new campaign for Kony’s arrest will work. It tells whose already getting involved and how you can get involved. It also has a social media feel within the video using the new Facebook profile style to maneuver through topics.

The incredibly short time that it took the video to spread across the Internet is proof of how powerful a social media campaign can be. While I’m sure it took a nice chunk of change to make the video, distributing it was virtually free.

This campaign was amazing to watch on my Twitter and Facebook timelines. I hop the passion that’s fueling it continues, but I wonder how the organization is going to keep it going since our attention spans are about as long as a grain of rice. Also, I want to know how many people actually got involved and bought the Action Kit or donated some money, and how many just reposted the video. Maybe we’ll see Invisible Children in the news again in April. April 20^th is when Invisible Children volunteers are supposed to cover their cities with “Kony 2012” posters.

Blog 7 Jour 4460: How Far Does Freedom Of Speech Go?

Picture by Alex Dobson
From the WKUHerald.com

In my opinion, Twitter is an open social networking site where people can voice their thoughts and share them with a large audience.

Western Kentucky University has been “aggressively” trying to shut down parody accounts on Twitter and is attempting to silence any negatives comments about school officials and policies.

What is the limit for freedom of speech? If I’m not harassing school officials, what legal rights does the school have when it comes to sharing my opinion on an open networking site?

Instead of scolding students online, officials should take the comments that are posted to heart, if it’s a valid complaint. Then take the necessary steps to correct the subject of the complaint.

This isn’t some random fishing expedition by the school. If WKU is actively searching for parody accounts on social media sites and comments that show the school in anything else but a good light it’s because more than a few students have issues with the university.

Stacy Biggs, WKU’S chief marketing officer, remarked that the school isn’t trying to censor students, but that the school “has to offer some amount of protection to its students.” Protect them from what though? The comments made and parody accounts that are being sought after are targeted toward the school’s policies and officials, not the students that attend. Another reason stated by Biggs is that “such efforts are aimed at protecting the school’s reputation and brand.” If this is the case there is no basis for the search because scolding students who don’t agree with certain policies into silence online to protect your brand is unethical.

Autum Calloway, a WKU junior and psychology major, said “ ‘I don’t ever criticize the school on Twitter because I don’t want an ordeal made,’ ...noting friends have been scolded by officials for postings deemed poor representations of the school.”

“Western Kentucky University's president has used Facebook to lecture students about social networking etiquette, and officials persuaded Twitter to briefly shut down a parody account dripping with sarcasm and criticism with posts marked "(hash)wku," according to an article by the Associated Press.

This is not okay. If this ever went to court and WKU won, which I find a very doubtful outcome, then it could set a precedent for another organization to pressure anyone who doesn’t agree with what the organization is doing with a lawsuit if he/she doesn’t keep their comments to themselves. Then the First Amendment goes out the window.

The current policy in the student handbook at WKU dealing with online communication states “accessible communications deemed inappropriate may lead to disciplinary action.” However, “because WKU is a public university, it can’t make policies on what is and is not appropriate speech,” said Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate with the Student Press Law Center at WKU.

In an article posted on WKUHearld.com, Goldstein said, “As long as the word ‘inappropriate is there, that just means we’re going to punish whatever we don’t like, as the government you positively cannot do that ever.”

WKU officials needs to get out of their dream world and understand that there is no utopia when it comes to being in the public eye. There is no feasible way to make everyone happy. I think that if the school had left the accounts alone, as long as no harassment was involved, the comments would have stopped, eventually. WKU really drew more attention to itself because it addressed the problem in a loud manner.

Blog # 2 Jour 4470: Advertising Ethically

Do advertisers have a duty to the public to present the actual truth to the audience or does their loyalty lie with the client who is paying them to come up with and execute a concept?

The video in this blog discusses advertisements by Apple, a wrinkle cream and Doritos. Some of the ethical aspects of advertisements I agree with, some I don’t. The Apple commercial, for instance, does make it appear that the download speed of the phone takes only a few seconds. The actual download rate is shown and the person who shot the film shows the final result after video is spliced and cut. In this case, yes Apple is acting a tad unethical giving the impression that the phone is faster than it actually is.

 

However, within Egoism it is acting ethically toward the company. Since the ad gives Apple the connotation that it’s the fastest and best technology on the current market it promotes the company’s own long-term self-interest through the use of sales. Although, its state of corporate transparency is in question.

I don’t agree with is the video’s view on the Doritos commercial. The commercial isn’t meant to inform the audience of the cheesiness that is Doritos. The commercial was meant to entertain, and it completed its objective when I saw it.

Advertisements do have an obligation to be truthful, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be fun as well.

An example of advertisement being exposed for lying is the Dove commercial where an average woman has professionals do her makeup and hair, completes a photo shoot and even after has her picture photoshopped for the final product. This commercial revealed the edits the beauty industry makes all the time. It’s good that Dove did this because there are young women and girls who takes what’s in the magazines for face value, not knowing that the majority, if not all, of the photos in it have been altered somehow. An example of over dramatization is the case where Ralph Lauren edited the body of Filippa Hamilton to the point where her head was bigger than her pelvis, and actually her body.

The Ralph Lauren incident is a clear violation of ethical practices. The purpose of the ad was not to entertain. The model’s body was altered because it was perceived that it would be more beautiful that way. It ended up looking like nothing in this world, and not in a good way.

It’s important that young girls learn not to take everything in as they see it. They should know that the picture was altered. Even though it might take away the artistic value of a photo if there’s a disclaimer on the bottom stating, “Models in the picture are bigger than they appear.”

In accordance with Utilitarianism, the greater good would be to use models as they are or put a disclaimer on the advertisements so that a false ad is not taken for reality. And in this case the end doesn’t justify the means. The end being that the company makes a little bit of money, the means being a person is altered. Ads like this have a very heavy affect on young minds, and can leave an impression that if you don’t turn invisible when you turn sideways you’re not pretty.

It actually goes against cultural relativism as well. In some cultures being “thick” is what is considered beautiful. Take a look at hip-hop music videos. You won’t find too many walking toothpicks in them.

Another debate of ethical practices of advertisements is one that was discussed in class. Actually, this is the second class that this subject was brought up in. That is the way that advertisers appeal to children.

Cereal commercials are basically 30 second Looney Tunes commercials, and the box is the souvenir that kids ache for when they see the box at the grocery store.

In the grocery store cereal boxes directed toward children are placed on the lower shelves of the aisle. Why? Well, there aren’t that many 6-year-olds who are 5’ 6’’.

Is it ethical to exploit children with talking rabbits, leprechauns and pretty colors to make a profit?

Looking back, I don’t agree with how advertisers lured me into the sugary sweetness that is Lucky Charms. However, my mother was there to tell me no when I wanted to eat certain things. If I wanted something sweet I was offered a piece of fruit. My communitarianism view is that advertisers should alter how they sell kids’ cereals, but I also think that parents should step up and spend time with their kids instead of just letting Dora the Explorer and the Backyardigans baby-sit them. Everyone has to alter their behavior in order to make a lasting change.