The Harmful Effects of 'Name Dropping' in Journalism

13-year-old Megan Meier from St. Louis committed suicide due to a series of cyber bullying messages that she received on her MySpace page. This story ignited an uproar within the city not just because of how tragic it was, but because the attackers remained nameless in the first published news article.

Suburban Journal writer Steve Pokin wrote a heart-wrenching story about Megan’s death, detailing the pain and suffering that she felt as well as the turmoil and grief that her parents, Ron and Tina Meier experienced.

Readers wrote various anger-infused messages on The Journal’s website, going as far as calling Pokin a “coward” and accusing him of not being a “real journalist” simply because he did not reveal names in the story or on the website.

In Pokin’s defense, I would say that he was ethically justified in his decision to maintain the neighbor’s privacy because of one word: respect. Chapter 6 in Controversies of Media Ethics talks about how crucial it is for a journalist to respect others regardless of the medium, the message, or the messengers. “The “harm” that those in mass communications are most likely to cause generally is not physical. Rather it involves a disruption of the psychological space that people need to live their lives,” (Pg. 220). As shameful and hateful as those neighbor’s messages were, they still had a right to their privacy and were entitled to the respect from any journalist who covered the story.

If Pokin ignored the “minimize harm” rule and chose to identify the attackers, then he would be putting the three women in serious danger. Chapter 6 also points out the value in a journalist deciding whether or not making someone look bad is actually a necessity for the content of a story (Pg. 221). Did the readers of The Journal really need to know who the culprits were in order to fully comprehend and absorb the emotion from the story? The answer is no.

While The Journal chose not to indicate who the neighbors were, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did not hesitate in disclosing the identity of the neighbors. The Post’s decision can be ethically justified through the principle of honesty. “Indeed, truth telling is basic to all forms of human communication; without it, others cannot trust the information they receive and therefore cannot confidently base their own ideas or actions on that information” (Pg. 218). 

A journalist’s first rule in their code of ethics is to “seek the truth and report it,” not just half or most of it…but all of it. Although the neighbors were not charged with anything in relation to the suicide case, the truth still remains that they did in fact send extremely hurtful messages to Megan Meier through cyberspace. 

The writers at the Post believed that piece of information to be not only truthful, but also significant to their story as well. By the Post including the names, the readers can fully trust the source and make an informed decision on cyber bullying and the serious impact it can have on children and adolescents.

Both of the newspapers made tough decisions on whether or not to include the names of the neighbors and while I do think both consisted of some sort of ethical value, I do find The Journal’s ethical justification more compelling. Pokin made the tougher decision out of the two and had to endure some harsh consequences from the audience. But guess what? He was able to tell a true story whole heartedly without sacrificing his subject’s privacy. He presented the public with what they deserved to know, but still showed respect to the subjects he was writing about.

Another alternative for this case would be to use Mill’s Utility principle (consequence of the action) and to not identify any specific names. But instead, use other identifying factors like: gender, the number of people, and the ages. Identifying those things at least helps to paint a more vivid picture for the reader while ensuring the safety of the neighbors. Mill’s Utility principle would ask which consequence is worse? Pokin getting called names over the Internet or the neighbors getting physically attacked and possibly killed by an outraged reader? 

I personally think the latter is much, much worse.

Keep Calm: Target Knows More About You Than You Think (Thanks to Data Mining)

The article, “How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl was Pregnant Before her Father Did,” talks about how retail companies like Target, study their customer’s shopping patterns so that they can send them personalized coupons based on their interests.

After analyzing data on its female consumers, Target Statistician Andrew Pole was able to identify which women were possibly pregnant based on how much scent-free lotion, soap, and vitamins the woman was buying. So what did Target do once they found out one of their female customers was most likely carrying a “bun in their oven?” They sent out coupons on diapers, maternity clothes, and strollers of course.

Imagine trying to keep your pregnancy a secret from your husband or boyfriend because you are waiting for the “right time” to tell him. Before you can get your speech together, in comes the bright and bold “Congrats, You’re Pregnant!” coupon booklet in the mail. Umm can you say…awkward??

In a way, Universalism supports Target’s data mining approach because collecting data from customers has become a sort of culture within the retail industry. Target isn’t the only store that collects data. More and more corporations are finding creative ways to incorporate collecting customer’s spending habits and inputting it into their databases. 

When one shops at a store and choose to use a debit/credit card at the register, they are basically giving that company automatic consent to organize your personal information into their data management system.

I don’t think this kind of data mining causes ethical concern because what the stores end up using customer’s information for is something positive. They want to provide their customers with related products that they might be interested in. They want to provide loyal customers with useful coupons and ways to stay connected to the store’s sale events. Customers never want to miss a good sale, right?

While I believe that data mining is harmless, I do believe that targeted marketing can be ethically tricky for different reasons. For example, a customer may feel like a company is imposing on their privacy. Like the target marketing geared towards pregnant woman, yes a woman might appreciate the fact that she can buy diapers at 40 percent off, but she might also feel violated at the same time. 

After all, pregnancy is a sensitive subject. Paranoid thoughts might creep in and she could start to wonder, “Just how much information does this store actually have on me and why?”

Looking through the lens of Aristotle, Target can use the Golden Mean to defend their target marketing practices. Target as the actor chose to collect consumer data and make conclusions from it so that they can help customers save money on products that they will actually use, thus making the customer happy.

Sometimes sending coupons can backfire big time and piss off a customer instead of making them happy. For example, in the Target article, a father becomes outraged and demands to talk to a manager after finding coupons on baby clothes and cribs in the mail that is intended for his teenage daughter. I think the manager fulfilled his ethical obligation perfectly because according to Ross’s Pluralistic Values, he utilized one of the duties – reparation. Even though it wasn’t that manager’s direct fault, he still tried to correct the harmful act by not just apologizing once, but twice.

I don’t think Target’s decision to ad mix their coupon books to avoid “creeping people out” is unethical because they wanted to eliminate the embarrassing feeling that women were experiencing when they opened their coupons and saw nothing but baby items. Like Mill’s Valuation Hedonism says, creating a sense of pleasure is more ethical than creating a sense of pain. At least the coupon book being centered on different items will put the woman more at ease.

These practices fit within the Principles and Practices forAdvertising Ethics because Principle 1 is about serving the public with a common objective truth. Target collects data from their customers to find out what their customers buying interests are so that they can better serve them. Target’s practices fits with every principle except for one.

Principle 6 says “Advertisers should never compromise consumers’ personal privacy in marketing communications, and their choices as to whether to participate in providing their information should be transparent and easily made.” Judging from a women’s reaction on either being “creeped out” or totally surprised on Target knowing about her pregnancy and even what trimester she was in proves that their marketing practice was not transparent enough or quite frankly--transparent at all.

Shhh!! Keeping Secrets on the Job...But for the Right Reasons

Since starting the MACOMM program at Sacred Heart University, I’ve had the chance to intern in both radio and television. In production, it is the person’s job to find interesting content and create stories that can be packaged and presented to an audience. I’ve learned that in production, there are always pieces of information that are to be kept strictly confidential.

For example, on talk shows, you are working with real people in real life that are dealing with real issues. During two different semesters, I interned at three NBCUniversal syndicated talk shows: The Jerry Springer Show, The Maury Show, and The Trisha Show. All of these shows cover topics like love triangles, relationships, parenting issues, DNA testing, and more.

As a Production Intern, I worked a lot with the producers and the guests before, during, and after a taped show. I also spoke directly to dozens of potential guests over the phone about their stories. As you can imagine, I was exposed to a lot of private information about the show guests and how a talk show operates.

 

Let’s say someone is a big fan of the Maury Show and they excitedly ask me to share personal details on a particular episode that they watched. Should I share the juicy details or keep it to myself?

In this situation, I would immediately think of Aristotle’s Golden Mean, which is choosing the middle action between two extremes. If I chose to gossip about all the guests and repeat every single thing that I heard them say backstage, then that would be excessive. If I chose to ignore the person and walk away then that would be deficient.

So instead, I would choose a moderate action like politely letting them know that I couldn’t discuss private information because of confidentiality.  I would then thank them for watching the show and maybe even ask who their show favorite was and why.

Choosing the Golden Mean is a great ethical approach to take because acting too “deficient” and not saying anything can cause a reaction like this: “They chose to broadcast their personal lives to millions of people on national television! So why can’t you talk about it?”

A good way to determine whether something needs to be kept secret or is wrongfully kept secret is to apply the Universalism perspective, which is that a system of ethics applies to everyone. If I think it’s fine and dandy to spread another person’s personal business to others, then I must find it acceptable for others to do the same towards me (which I wouldn’t).

Another factor that would remind to be mindful of what I say and how I say it is the NBCUniversal/Comcast Code of Conduct and Solutions Document that all interns are required to sign before starting our internship.

This document talks about what is expected of us, how we should conduct ourselves in the workplace, and confidentiality requirements. Since the information we may come across is so sensitive, it is extremely important that we never share any of it with anyone outside of the company. Posting private show content via social media is also prohibited.

NBCUniversal’s Code of Conduct wouldn’t be the only reason why I would keep show segments secret. I think for this example, applying Mill’s Utility Principle is key because the consequences of me broadcasting someone else’s information could cause public embarrassment, ridicule, and even danger.

Not only would this cause damage to the person that I’m talking about, but it would also cause irreversible damage to me. If the word gets around to my supervisor that I had not been keeping the stories confidential, then it would impact me professionally and personally. Professionally, I would lose my internship and most likely be banned from any other internships with NBCUniversal. Personally, I would not be considered trustworthy to my peers and it would affect my emotional well being.

As a media professional, I think I can avoid getting entangled in some secrets, but not all. Simply because when you work for a media company, you are extension of their brand, you represent them, you see and hear everything concerning that organization (whether it is your intention or not). Even though one maybecome aware of secrets, I don’t necessarily think that you can’t escape ethical dilemmas. I think it all depends on the secret and what ethical principles you use. I think there is always an ethically justifiable solution. You just have to think as fairly and critically as possible to find it.

Case Study Evaluation on the Pete Rose-Jim Gray Incident

In the case study, “Playing Hardball: The Pete Rose-Jim Gray Controversy,” award-winning NBC news reporter Jim Gray interviewed Pete Rose during the 1999 World Series. Rose, a legendary baseball player, was banned from the Hall of Fame for betting on games while serving as manager for the Cincinnati Reds. During the live television interview, Gray asked the retired athlete if he was willing to offer an apology for denying that he ever gambled. Instead of making that his moment of public redemption, he opted to lie and save face instead.

Jim Gray interviews Cincinnati Reds Manager Pete Rose

In evaluating this case, I’ll be using the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, which operates on four major principles: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. This Code of Ethics is very helpful in evaluating the case because it actually involves a journalist reporter and the choices that were made.

According to the first (and arguably) most important principle, Jim Gray fulfilled his journalistic duty. It was no secret that Pete Rose had been accused and reprimanded by Major League Baseball for betting on games. Gray was bold and brave enough to seek the truth straight from the horse’s mouth on live television.

Many viewers complained about Gray’s interview approach, saying that Rose already paid for what he did and should have been allowed to enjoy his celebratory evening. I feel like there was nothing wrong with Gray asking him one important question because the case study stated that Rose hadn’t made a baseball game appearance in 10 years.

Under minimizing harm, SPJ Code of Ethics says journalists should show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage and use special sensitivity when dealing with inexperienced subjects. 

Pete Rose was an athlete that played in hundreds of games in front of millions of people during his career. There is no way he was affected by news coverage because at one point in time, he was the news. He’s not inexperienced because he is no stranger to the spotlight. He was used to being a star athlete and all the challenges that came with it.

Jim Gray acted independently because even though the case study said he interviewed Pete Rose over 50 times in the past, he didn’t allow their good standing relationship to get in the way of him asking a tough question. He avoided conflicts of interests and remained vigilant about holding Rose accountable for his actions.

The only way the SPJ Code of Ethics wasn’t helpful in this case was when it came to being accountable. During that World Series, the New York Yankees were able to boycott Gray and get him replaced without him even getting a fair chance to explain the reasoning behind his actions.

An ethical perspective that supports the SPJ Code of Ethics is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s principle focuses on consistency and whether the act is something everyone could do. If the act is respectful, then it’s acceptable. 

I believe that any journalist with enough courage and concern could have asked the athlete the same question that Gray did. As a truthful reporter, he didn’t have any bad intentions during his interview. Like he said in a post interview with Sports Illustrated, he was only “trying to give him a window of opportunity to take his case public.”

An ethical perspective that goes against Gray’s actions is Mill’s Principle of Utility, which determines the rightness of an act by its effect on total happiness. 

This principle says that actions should promote happiness with happiness being described as “pleasure and the absence of pain.” Many thought Gray’s questions were “embarrassing” and uncalled for. They didn’t believe that a World Series game was the right time or place for Rose to be put on the spot about something that happened in his past. Mill says that consequences of the action are most important and while Gray had noble intentions, the consequences that followed after the interview did not evoke any happiness for any parties involved.

Out of all the principles, I think the SPJ Code of Ethics was the most helpful because all of their major principles and code of practice really coincided with the gray areas of the Pete Rose/Jim Gray case. The SPJ Code of Ethics justifies the majority of Jim Gray’s action. Although many people disagreed with his question choices and persistent demeanor, he felt that he was upholding his integrity and fulfilling his obligations as a journalist.

"Do the Right Thing": Having an Ethical Backbone in the Field of Radio

As I enter my professional career in radio, I can only imagine how many ethical scenarios I may have to face. At a radio station, I would be part of a group that is considered the voice of the community. 

There's a lot of people that will be listening to me and in some cases, hanging on my every word. So I think it's safe to say that putting my ethics hat on is important if I intend to grow my listener base and keep the station out of trouble.

Employees that work as on-air talents are often responsible for giving away tickets for various types events, whether it’s a music concert, comedy show, or a theme park. Once they decide how and when they will give the tickets away, the station promotes the giveaway on air and on their website in advance.  

Giving out free tickets to a lucky listener...what does ethics have to do with this?

Well for example, the talent can announce on air that they will give a pair of tickets away to the 10^th caller and then decide to give it to another caller because the 10^th caller didn’t “sound excited enough.” Is that being fair and honest to that listener? What if the caller was indeed excited, but just didn’t have a bubbly personality to show for it. Should they get rejected from winning because of their lack of     emotion over the phone?

Another scenario is if a radio station gets booked to make a remote appearance at a retail store and the store or marketing manager is dissatisfied because he/she feels like the prizes that the station gave away to customers were too “cheap.” He/she feels that the company invested enough money into the event that should have warranted prizes and giveaway items of reasonable value.

Should the station have bought more expensive items to please their client? Or did the store expect way more than what they bargained for? Maybe the client did pay a fair amount and the station “slighted” them on the value of the items OR maybe the client negotiated a lower booking rate and the promotions department brought items they felt matched the cost range. After all, there is the blunt yet truthful phrase “you get what you pay for”…

How about if a client pays for a certain amount of commercial spots that are scheduled to air 14 times –once in the morning and once in the evening for one week. For one reason or another, one of the spots doesn’t air in the evening and the talent decides to run the ad twice the next morning to make up for it.

Should the talent make the sales team aware so they can inform the client and offer a refund or is it ok that the talent aired it at a different time?

In an online article “Talk through ‘gray areas,’ giving staff a moral compass,” Patti Dodgen says that ethical problems in public broadcasting aren’t derived from “management mischief”, but come from station managers who make bad decisions because they are under stress. “When the survival of the station is in question, the range of acceptable alternatives can grow at a frightening rate.” She goes on to explain that in order to guide one’s behavior and decision-making in compromising situations, the person should practice OPAL principles, (Openness, Performance with Integrity, Accountability, and Leadership).

A good example that can be looked at from an ethical standpoint is when Hot 97 Radio’s DJ Mister Cee was accused of soliciting sex from a male transsexual multiple times. He once got caught by an undercover cop who posed as a male drag queen and another time he was outed by a popular “internet personality” who posted a video of Mister Cee discussing oral sex in exchange for money. 

This of course was extremely embarrassing and damaged the reputation of the popular Hip Hop station. Mister Cee initially tried to deny all allegations and stand by his claims that he was not gay, but after intense media speculation and coverage, he did eventually confirm that the allegations were true. The ethical questions that should be raised are: Should Mister Cee have gotten fired by the station for engaging in illegal activity? Is it fair to his fans, listeners and station that he blatantly denied an allegation that he knew was true? Although Hot 97 chose to stand by Mister Cee, encouraging him to freely explore his sexual identity, they also sent a message that they condone illegal and unlawful behavior from their staff. 

From the readings, I’ve learned that I need to be prepared for difficult situations that may come my way and also know that I will have to make some tough ethical choices. I will have to find a way to balance honesty, respect and fairness in the way that I deliver news on air, communicate with listeners and work with advertising clients. 

Anytime I make a decision, I have to think “Am I being respectful and genuine to my listeners?” and

“Am I representing the station in the right way?” I think those are really important things to always     keep in mind as I move forward in my radio career.

The tools that I already have access to that could help me in my ethical decision-making are: Ethics Guide for Public Radio Journalism, Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, and Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) Code of Ethics.

In class and group discussions, I would like to pick apart ethical questions like: Is it ever ok to withhold pertinent information about your client from the public? When is it acceptable to take photos of people without getting waiver consent forms signed? Where should the line be drawn when companies endorse potentially offensive ads, memes, commercials, etc. on social media?

"Teamwork Makes the Dreamwork"...Frito Lay Takes a Proactive Approach to Collaborate With Other Groups

In recent years, Frito Lay has recognized their local farmers through a regional and national campaign called “Lay’s Local.” The company showed their appreciation for the local communities by participating in more than 50 local market events throughout the country in 2009 which included 30 second commercial spots, national print advertising and thousands of in-store displays. 

Frito Lay reached specific local farmer investors like Brian Kirschenmann (California), Jack Wallace Sr. and Jack Wallace Jr., (Texas), and Darrell McCrum(Maine) to illustrate what impact these farmers have had on the success of the America’s “favorite potato chip.”

Another investor named Nelson Peltz owns 1% of stock in the company and back in July, he suggested that the company should buy Mondelez (Oreo cookies). That way PepsiCo can become a “global snack leader” and phase out the beverage business at the same time. PepsiCo did respond to his idea, but stated that they wouldn’t be making his idea a reality.

Frito Lay’s most recent investment is in the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) industry. In June they opened a fueling station in Beloit, Wisconsin as a part of their large-scale commitment to alternative fuel. In 2012 Frito Lay submitted a competitive Request-For-Proposal (RFP) to potential partners, promising to purchase a base volume from each vendor’s station once it’s built. 

The State of Wisconsin and the Department of Energy were also present at the opening to support Frito Lay’s RFP. This new investment shows Frito Lay’s continued proactive approach in supporting natural gas and energy as well as their goal to cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions down to 50 percent by 2020.