I have obtained a lot of very applicable knowledge from this course, of which will definitely be helpful in my future endeavors. The solid base of philosophies and tools provides a great way to better understand a situation and handle it in the correct manner.
In a lot of the case studies, poor decisions were most frequently made under deadlines or because of competition. I think that is very important to remember. When facing an issue, it is necessary to fully think it through. I'd say I still feel like when it comes to issues that serve the public good, I agree with the tactics. Frankly, I still feel public relations has the upper hand on journalism, and when an uneven power relationship exists, it is okay to invade privacy or push the limits according to Bok. I think journalism needs to be bold at this point, and make sure it is doing its job, but also consider ethics throughout the process. The one thing that I can't tolerate are things done for the good of the journalist instead - like manipulating a photo, or publishing something irrelevant for shock value. This class has made me realize I weigh heavy on justice, and the intentions for which an act is taken (serving the public, or serving self).
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Demise of Journalism
Recently, the Houston Press published a piece called "The 10 Hottest Women on the Sex Offender List". Keep in mind the Houston Press is a real newspaper, serving in a democratic society that relies heavily on journalism to keep citizens in formed on such issues as the rising budget, turmoil in the Middle East, our war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many other local concerns. But, instead of talking about that, let's just run a story that ranks the attractiveness of registered sex offenders.
Our handout that discussed the concerns of entertainment in newspapers instead of actual journalism is very applicable. It mentioned the harms running such pieces can do to the process of journalism serving democracy. For starters, stories like this take away from space that could be given to real issues. Also, you are either leaving your reading base uninformed or helping them become adapted to journalism that holds no newsworthiness.
This is a concern journalism is facing. Whatever you call it, it's pretty serious. Look at the way journalism was fixated on Charlie Sheen during upheaval in the Middle East or was fixated on the royal wedding when a series of deadly tornadoes occured. That is not journalism. It's also probably not the demise of journalism either, but it is a concern, and one that makes me pretty pissed off when I turn on the news to hear about an event and end up hearing about a celebrities most recent DUI.
Top 10 Hottest Sex Offenders
Our handout that discussed the concerns of entertainment in newspapers instead of actual journalism is very applicable. It mentioned the harms running such pieces can do to the process of journalism serving democracy. For starters, stories like this take away from space that could be given to real issues. Also, you are either leaving your reading base uninformed or helping them become adapted to journalism that holds no newsworthiness.
This is a concern journalism is facing. Whatever you call it, it's pretty serious. Look at the way journalism was fixated on Charlie Sheen during upheaval in the Middle East or was fixated on the royal wedding when a series of deadly tornadoes occured. That is not journalism. It's also probably not the demise of journalism either, but it is a concern, and one that makes me pretty pissed off when I turn on the news to hear about an event and end up hearing about a celebrities most recent DUI.
Top 10 Hottest Sex Offenders
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Jon Kyl Gives Honest Abe Run For His Money
We all know that politicians are very moral, honest beings who would never tell a lie for personal/political gain.......
Sen. Jon Kyl - abortions are 90% of what Planned Parenthood does
Wait, nevermind.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there are more and more idiots in Congress like Jon Kyl, who stated that 90% of Planned Parenthood's cases are for abortions. (Only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, Kyl just rounded up to the nearest 90...common math) This is in large part what makes the media so important - to crucify people like this. I dont entirely know how good of a congressmen Kyl is, but his comment (which has to be leading the pack in the dumbest statement of the year award) alone makes me want this guy to possess zero power to make any forms of decision in government.
The media has a great responsibility to ensure democracy, and this is done by keeping the public informed enough to make educated decisions revolving things like voting and such. Journalists can never take what polticians or any sources say for that matter without verification. Without that, we may be left believing 90% of Planned Parenthood's cases are abortions. This is another humerous example of the importance of verification.
In a marvelous work of PR, Kyl's staff sent out a release afterwards stating that what Kyl said was not intended to be a factual statement. Well played. In the words of Steven Colbert, Jon Kyl punts innocent puppies (not intended to be a factual statement).
Stephen Colbert - #notintendedtobeafactualstatement
Sen. Jon Kyl - abortions are 90% of what Planned Parenthood does
Wait, nevermind.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there are more and more idiots in Congress like Jon Kyl, who stated that 90% of Planned Parenthood's cases are for abortions. (Only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, Kyl just rounded up to the nearest 90...common math) This is in large part what makes the media so important - to crucify people like this. I dont entirely know how good of a congressmen Kyl is, but his comment (which has to be leading the pack in the dumbest statement of the year award) alone makes me want this guy to possess zero power to make any forms of decision in government.
The media has a great responsibility to ensure democracy, and this is done by keeping the public informed enough to make educated decisions revolving things like voting and such. Journalists can never take what polticians or any sources say for that matter without verification. Without that, we may be left believing 90% of Planned Parenthood's cases are abortions. This is another humerous example of the importance of verification.
In a marvelous work of PR, Kyl's staff sent out a release afterwards stating that what Kyl said was not intended to be a factual statement. Well played. In the words of Steven Colbert, Jon Kyl punts innocent puppies (not intended to be a factual statement).
Stephen Colbert - #notintendedtobeafactualstatement
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Public Relations Out-Gunning Journalism
Currently, there is a three-to-one ratio of public relations emplyees to journalists. These numbers are fairly concerning, considering that not only does the field of public relations heavily out-number the number of journalists, they are better finance, and better equipped.
A story from ProPublica.com revealed that in 1980, there were about .45 PR workers per 100,000 population compared with .36 journalists. In 2008, there were .90 PR people per 100,000 compared to .25 journalists. This is a staggering, and concerning trend.
John Sullivan wrote in the article, "As PR becomes ascendant, private and government interests become more able to generate, filter, distort, and dominate the public debate, and to do so without the public knowing it."
This is very concerning to the public, who are more and more frequently being fed PR rather than independent, unbiased news from journalists. In our handout on strategic communications, we red on the differences between PR and journalists. PR has a primary loyalty to serve its companies. If citizens are more freuqently obtaining information from PR stories, they are not getting information intended to the needs of the citizens.
This shows how important it is for journalists to filter through PR and provide accurate, unbiased information that serves the public good. Also, this means that when news of public concern breaks, journalist need to provide converage to avoid citizens being forced to rely on PR for news.
Concern of increase of PR related to decrease of journalists
A story from ProPublica.com revealed that in 1980, there were about .45 PR workers per 100,000 population compared with .36 journalists. In 2008, there were .90 PR people per 100,000 compared to .25 journalists. This is a staggering, and concerning trend.
John Sullivan wrote in the article, "As PR becomes ascendant, private and government interests become more able to generate, filter, distort, and dominate the public debate, and to do so without the public knowing it."
This is very concerning to the public, who are more and more frequently being fed PR rather than independent, unbiased news from journalists. In our handout on strategic communications, we red on the differences between PR and journalists. PR has a primary loyalty to serve its companies. If citizens are more freuqently obtaining information from PR stories, they are not getting information intended to the needs of the citizens.
This shows how important it is for journalists to filter through PR and provide accurate, unbiased information that serves the public good. Also, this means that when news of public concern breaks, journalist need to provide converage to avoid citizens being forced to rely on PR for news.
Concern of increase of PR related to decrease of journalists
Advertising Forces Paper to Avoid Reporting Scandal
There is an inherent conflict of interest in journalism. Newspapers are a coorpertation of which journalists make up a small part of. Profit from newspapers comes from advertising, and there is a great deal of commercial interest regarding the advertising component of journalism. The role of the journalists may come in conflict with the commercial interests of the newspaper, and this specific incident occured in my hometown of Fort Dodge, Iowa.
The Messenger is Fort Dodge's lone major newspaper. I have worked as a sports journalists for the paper for two years now, and can recall an incident that is very relateble to the points in one of the handouts we received discussing business issues in journalism.
In this case, a conflict of interest occured when Iowa Central Community College's president at the time was involved in a scandal. An image surfaced of the president pouring a beer into a young women's mouth on a boat. The scandal erupted, and turned into national news and appeared on many promintent news sites at the national level. Later, the president resigned.
Yet, The Messenger had their hands tied in this situation. The newspapers primary source of advertising revenue overwhelmingly came from Iowa Central. If the community college stopped advertising at The Messenger, it would be a significant blow to the newspapers revenue. It would be such a large blow that the paper didn't report on the controversy despite it being reported on at the national level. To the paper's credit, they did run a letter to the editor which voiced displeasure with the paper for failing to report to the citizens. The paper also later reported on the search for a new president.
This showed a great example of the issues that arise when conflicts of interest occur within newspaper's advertising department and news department. In this case, the paper failed to serve the public due to such a large conflict of interest.
Story from Fox News on scandal
The Messenger is Fort Dodge's lone major newspaper. I have worked as a sports journalists for the paper for two years now, and can recall an incident that is very relateble to the points in one of the handouts we received discussing business issues in journalism.
In this case, a conflict of interest occured when Iowa Central Community College's president at the time was involved in a scandal. An image surfaced of the president pouring a beer into a young women's mouth on a boat. The scandal erupted, and turned into national news and appeared on many promintent news sites at the national level. Later, the president resigned.
Yet, The Messenger had their hands tied in this situation. The newspapers primary source of advertising revenue overwhelmingly came from Iowa Central. If the community college stopped advertising at The Messenger, it would be a significant blow to the newspapers revenue. It would be such a large blow that the paper didn't report on the controversy despite it being reported on at the national level. To the paper's credit, they did run a letter to the editor which voiced displeasure with the paper for failing to report to the citizens. The paper also later reported on the search for a new president.
This showed a great example of the issues that arise when conflicts of interest occur within newspaper's advertising department and news department. In this case, the paper failed to serve the public due to such a large conflict of interest.
Story from Fox News on scandal
Eyewash Much?
In our Patterson/Wilkin's book, the ethical concerns of "eyewash" was dicussed in the visuals chapter. Eyewash involves using a stock or file photo to accompany a recent story. It can be particularly deceptive to the audience, and is best to avoid. It also can make you look really, really stupid.
FOX News was criticized for using eyewash on a story about the protests in Wisconsin that took place not too long ago. While a reporter commented on the Wisconsin situation, B-roll video was playing of previous protests in California, of which included palm trees. Last time I checked, there aren't any palm trees in Wisconsin.
A FOX News executive producer defending the segment by stating that it was not misleading becuase it never claimed the image to be protests from Wisconsin. This is wrong, and made FOX News only look more stupid than they already did. There is no transperency when using eyewash visuals, and it is deceiving to the audience because it is going along with another story that has no relationship to the eyewash piece.
This is similar to the OJ Simpson cover shot in which the image was manipulated to appear much darker. There was no mention of it being a photo illustration on the front page. Just becuase they aren't claiming the image to be the actual truth, doesn't give journalists an ethical pass to use eyewash or maniuplate images in anyway. That is acting without transparency, and of course, is unacceptable.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news-did-not-lie-with-wisconsin-palm-tree-violent-protest-video/
FOX News was criticized for using eyewash on a story about the protests in Wisconsin that took place not too long ago. While a reporter commented on the Wisconsin situation, B-roll video was playing of previous protests in California, of which included palm trees. Last time I checked, there aren't any palm trees in Wisconsin.
A FOX News executive producer defending the segment by stating that it was not misleading becuase it never claimed the image to be protests from Wisconsin. This is wrong, and made FOX News only look more stupid than they already did. There is no transperency when using eyewash visuals, and it is deceiving to the audience because it is going along with another story that has no relationship to the eyewash piece.
This is similar to the OJ Simpson cover shot in which the image was manipulated to appear much darker. There was no mention of it being a photo illustration on the front page. Just becuase they aren't claiming the image to be the actual truth, doesn't give journalists an ethical pass to use eyewash or maniuplate images in anyway. That is acting without transparency, and of course, is unacceptable.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news-did-not-lie-with-wisconsin-palm-tree-violent-protest-video/
Handling Sources in Sports Journalism
Not too long ago, we discussed issues facing sports journalists in class. Those issues included handling freebies, boosterism, moonlighting, and working with sources. Most of which had an easy answer. Ethically, obviosuly it's not acceptable to take freebies or be baised in this position. But, we failed to come up with a solution to one hypothetical situation.
The situation was asking what would you do if a source denied you access after you were critical of the team/coach/player/and so forth? In sports, official sources are not only the primary gate to coverage, but they may be the only. This makes a very challenging situation for the journalist, because any criticism could negatively affect the relationship with the source.
As it turns out, this specific incident has occured, and it resulted in a very clever solution. The New York Islanders revoked the credentials of a reporter for his stories which were critical of the team during their losing streak in the regular season. This essentially made the reporter ineffective at doing his job, just because he was doing his job fairly and accurately.
For this year's NHL postseason media awards, the hockey beat reporters declined to participate. Collectively, these reporters were effective in getting their message across. Although journalists certainly rely on sources, so do sources rely on journalists by providing coverage and access that is benefial to whatever the source does, be it a coach or team owner. This is a potential solution to such a hypothetical situation. Eventually, the source will always rely on journalists to provide access and coverage to the fans. Either way, sports journalists should continue reporting accurately and fairly, and hope that the source can understand the nature of sports journalists' job.
http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/rangerrants/not_voting_this_year/
The situation was asking what would you do if a source denied you access after you were critical of the team/coach/player/and so forth? In sports, official sources are not only the primary gate to coverage, but they may be the only. This makes a very challenging situation for the journalist, because any criticism could negatively affect the relationship with the source.
As it turns out, this specific incident has occured, and it resulted in a very clever solution. The New York Islanders revoked the credentials of a reporter for his stories which were critical of the team during their losing streak in the regular season. This essentially made the reporter ineffective at doing his job, just because he was doing his job fairly and accurately.
For this year's NHL postseason media awards, the hockey beat reporters declined to participate. Collectively, these reporters were effective in getting their message across. Although journalists certainly rely on sources, so do sources rely on journalists by providing coverage and access that is benefial to whatever the source does, be it a coach or team owner. This is a potential solution to such a hypothetical situation. Eventually, the source will always rely on journalists to provide access and coverage to the fans. Either way, sports journalists should continue reporting accurately and fairly, and hope that the source can understand the nature of sports journalists' job.
http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/rangerrants/not_voting_this_year/
Indepent Reporting After bin Laden's Death
When top officials make statements in public announcements, the mass madia has traditionally questioned the turthfulness of the statements made. Until there is verification, journalists refer to the information as being alleged. Following Osama bin Laden's death, most of the media accepted President Obama's version of the events.
Yet, a few papers were cautious in stating than bin Laden was in fact dead. The New York Times' headline attributed the news to Obama, and stated that bin Laden was "reported dead". Many other papers didn't report the death as news from themselves, but as being reported by a third party (Obama). From an ethical standpoint, this was a smart move for the papers that chose to do so.
Attaining truth, verification, and independent reporting are key statues in the Code of Ethics. In this situation, the media was unable to obtain the truth for themselves. Therefore, reporting the claim from another source and attributing the statement to Obama was a saavy decision.
This does, however, present certain issues in the future. With bin Laden's body being buried at sea and images of his death currently being withheld by the govornment, how do jouralists abide by the verification tenant in the Code of Ethics? Journalists are going to be hard-pressed to verify this on their own, but it is important to act independebtly and not rely solely on official sources, even if such sources are telling the truth, which is almost certainly the case with the news of bin Laden's death.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/130645/journalists-suspend-skepticism-about-sourcing-with-news-of-bin-ladens-death/
Yet, a few papers were cautious in stating than bin Laden was in fact dead. The New York Times' headline attributed the news to Obama, and stated that bin Laden was "reported dead". Many other papers didn't report the death as news from themselves, but as being reported by a third party (Obama). From an ethical standpoint, this was a smart move for the papers that chose to do so.
Attaining truth, verification, and independent reporting are key statues in the Code of Ethics. In this situation, the media was unable to obtain the truth for themselves. Therefore, reporting the claim from another source and attributing the statement to Obama was a saavy decision.
This does, however, present certain issues in the future. With bin Laden's body being buried at sea and images of his death currently being withheld by the govornment, how do jouralists abide by the verification tenant in the Code of Ethics? Journalists are going to be hard-pressed to verify this on their own, but it is important to act independebtly and not rely solely on official sources, even if such sources are telling the truth, which is almost certainly the case with the news of bin Laden's death.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/130645/journalists-suspend-skepticism-about-sourcing-with-news-of-bin-ladens-death/
Ethical Concerns With Release of bin Laden Photo
Edit: Jon Stewart recently gave some great reasons to why these photos should be released, and he changed my opinion. Yet, I still think working through ethical tools may possibly still lead you in the direction of not running the photos.
His most compelling arguement is that we can only make educated decision on war if we see what it actually is. Therefore, the bin Laden images as well as images of injuries and death on both sides should be shown. This arguement could be compelling enough to pass ethical tools we've used in class.
Reasons to release the photo I find invalid: 1.) Because of a public want to know out of morbid curiosity or to say 'Ha! Got ya f***er!'. 2.) To settle conspiracy theories....because conspiracy nuts are, well, conspiracy nuts.
Reasons to release the photo I find valid: 1.) As Stewart stated, we need to see war to make educated decisions on it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find invalid: 1.) It's too gruesome. That's total B.S. Look at what we watch on TV every day. Crime dramas show gore and gruesome images daily. Our culture has become adapted to seeing gruesome images - we can handle it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find valid: 1.) Does releasing the photo honestly serve a greater good, or is it, again, just morbid curiosity; 2.) It could put lives at risk.
Jon Stewart's stance
Original post: It is very possible many editors across the world will soon face issues that we have discussed in class when they ponder whether to print the three photos the United States government possesses of Osama bin Laden’s death (if they are released that is). The main ethical issues relate to running a gruesome image, or releasing something that may be of national concern.
According to CNN, a US official acknowledged three photos. The first photo is the most recognizable with a clear view of Osama’s face and wounds. The second is of his burial at see before the body was concealed. There are also photos of the raid itself.
For starters, if the government decides to release the images, there likely wouldn’t be any national concern at stake. This means the image wouldn’t provoke a retaliation of any kind from terrorists. So, the main ethical debate would be whether or not the images are appropriate for print.
Photojournalists should not shy away from telling important truths, but they must also consider when an image is too distasteful to be printed. In this case, the first image appears to be unfit for publication. It is apparently excessively gruesome. Considering there is no evil being prevented by running these images, it isn’t entirely necessary to run a gruesome image. This is more of a public want-to-know basis, not a public need-to-know.
The other two images seem less gruesome, and possibly acceptable for publication. If I were an editor, I’d consider running those images on the basis of there being such a public demand to see them, and that they wouldn‘t be offensive to the majority. Aristotle’s golden mean would be applicable here. Editors can either run all of the images (even the most gruesome ones), not run any of them, or choose the ones in the middle ground that are not so offensive. I believe the middle choice would be the best option here.
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/even-more-on-the-photos/?hpt=T1
His most compelling arguement is that we can only make educated decision on war if we see what it actually is. Therefore, the bin Laden images as well as images of injuries and death on both sides should be shown. This arguement could be compelling enough to pass ethical tools we've used in class.
Reasons to release the photo I find invalid: 1.) Because of a public want to know out of morbid curiosity or to say 'Ha! Got ya f***er!'. 2.) To settle conspiracy theories....because conspiracy nuts are, well, conspiracy nuts.
Reasons to release the photo I find valid: 1.) As Stewart stated, we need to see war to make educated decisions on it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find invalid: 1.) It's too gruesome. That's total B.S. Look at what we watch on TV every day. Crime dramas show gore and gruesome images daily. Our culture has become adapted to seeing gruesome images - we can handle it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find valid: 1.) Does releasing the photo honestly serve a greater good, or is it, again, just morbid curiosity; 2.) It could put lives at risk.
Jon Stewart's stance
Original post: It is very possible many editors across the world will soon face issues that we have discussed in class when they ponder whether to print the three photos the United States government possesses of Osama bin Laden’s death (if they are released that is). The main ethical issues relate to running a gruesome image, or releasing something that may be of national concern.
According to CNN, a US official acknowledged three photos. The first photo is the most recognizable with a clear view of Osama’s face and wounds. The second is of his burial at see before the body was concealed. There are also photos of the raid itself.
For starters, if the government decides to release the images, there likely wouldn’t be any national concern at stake. This means the image wouldn’t provoke a retaliation of any kind from terrorists. So, the main ethical debate would be whether or not the images are appropriate for print.
Photojournalists should not shy away from telling important truths, but they must also consider when an image is too distasteful to be printed. In this case, the first image appears to be unfit for publication. It is apparently excessively gruesome. Considering there is no evil being prevented by running these images, it isn’t entirely necessary to run a gruesome image. This is more of a public want-to-know basis, not a public need-to-know.
The other two images seem less gruesome, and possibly acceptable for publication. If I were an editor, I’d consider running those images on the basis of there being such a public demand to see them, and that they wouldn‘t be offensive to the majority. Aristotle’s golden mean would be applicable here. Editors can either run all of the images (even the most gruesome ones), not run any of them, or choose the ones in the middle ground that are not so offensive. I believe the middle choice would be the best option here.
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/even-more-on-the-photos/?hpt=T1
Monday, May 2, 2011
Advertising Controversy Here at Iowa
This specific advertisement is very applicable to the application of ethics for public relations and advertising we discussed recently. It revolves around a new advertising plan by the Iowa athletic department that was not so entirely ethical.
The University of Iowa debuted a new marketing scheme in 2008 to promote ticket sales for the Iowa men’s basketball team. There were two ads in these specific promotions, one was a “Slam Dunk” ad and the other was a “Steal” ad. As an example from the slam dunk ad, the main text read “I can save $100 bucks on a season of Iowa basketball? That’s a slam dunk!” The problems came into play when the ads described plays that never happened to apply to the slam dunk them.
The main image in the ad shows Jarryd Cole executing a slam dunk. In the left column text, the ad had a definition of slam dunk, and an example of slam dunk. To be frank, the example never occurred, and was a bold faced lie. The example read “Jarryd Cole’s thunderous dunk brought the Buckeyes to their knees and the sellout crowd in Carver Hawkeye Arena to their feet.” Iowa did defeat Ohio State in the game they were referring to, but that exact play never actually occurred, and the Buckeyes were never “brought to their feet.” Professors at Iowa slammed the ads for lying.
Although advertisers have a different set of ethical guidelines to follow compared to journalists, they still abide by ethical rules, of which includes telling the truth and avoiding such deception. That ad not only was lying and deceiving, but it involved mentioning a specific school within the ad when describing a play that never took place to have occurred against Ohio State.
This is a very Machiavellian standpoint from the creators of this ad. It was intended to promote their sole interests with disregard to the interests of others, such as the audience when they told a lie or Ohio State when they used defamation. Applying the TARES test to the ad, it failed in every single criteria to provide an ethically acceptable ad. This is a great example of advertising that did not follow any ethical guidelines.
http://lookinginatiowa.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/see-controversial-full-page-university-of-iowa-basketball-ads-gazette-sports-columnist-jim-ecker-is-writing-about/
The University of Iowa debuted a new marketing scheme in 2008 to promote ticket sales for the Iowa men’s basketball team. There were two ads in these specific promotions, one was a “Slam Dunk” ad and the other was a “Steal” ad. As an example from the slam dunk ad, the main text read “I can save $100 bucks on a season of Iowa basketball? That’s a slam dunk!” The problems came into play when the ads described plays that never happened to apply to the slam dunk them.
The main image in the ad shows Jarryd Cole executing a slam dunk. In the left column text, the ad had a definition of slam dunk, and an example of slam dunk. To be frank, the example never occurred, and was a bold faced lie. The example read “Jarryd Cole’s thunderous dunk brought the Buckeyes to their knees and the sellout crowd in Carver Hawkeye Arena to their feet.” Iowa did defeat Ohio State in the game they were referring to, but that exact play never actually occurred, and the Buckeyes were never “brought to their feet.” Professors at Iowa slammed the ads for lying.
Although advertisers have a different set of ethical guidelines to follow compared to journalists, they still abide by ethical rules, of which includes telling the truth and avoiding such deception. That ad not only was lying and deceiving, but it involved mentioning a specific school within the ad when describing a play that never took place to have occurred against Ohio State.
This is a very Machiavellian standpoint from the creators of this ad. It was intended to promote their sole interests with disregard to the interests of others, such as the audience when they told a lie or Ohio State when they used defamation. Applying the TARES test to the ad, it failed in every single criteria to provide an ethically acceptable ad. This is a great example of advertising that did not follow any ethical guidelines.
http://lookinginatiowa.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/see-controversial-full-page-university-of-iowa-basketball-ads-gazette-sports-columnist-jim-ecker-is-writing-about/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)