TWA FLIGHT 800 REVISITED
Reading Liz Cross’s blog from January 14th, “Duty to the Truth and Fidelity to the Public Good”, (http://somerealthings.blogspot.com/2012/01/media-ethics-blog2-duty-to-truth-and.html), brought back emotional memories of the tragic TWA crash of Flight 800. I can recall as if it were yesterday, being at a beach party on that night in July of 1996.
When the news came on the radio that the crash had occurred, it was a sobering moment as I stared out at Long Island sound in front of me, knowing that the crash had occurred across that body of water, on the other side of Long Island. I remember being struck by the story of a group of high school students, just a year or two younger than I at that time, all of whom were onboard that flight as part of a class trip to Paris. It was tragic indeed, on so many levels.
In the days and weeks that would follow during that long, hot summer of ’96, there was much speculation (as Liz references in her blog) about the cause of the accident. Some stated that it was the work of terrorists, while others claim that Flight 800 was taken down by the US Navy.
Liz touches upon some interesting points regarding what many believe to be a cover-up, and the want for closure from grieving family members of the victims. She also writes of the journalists “daily challenges to not get caught up in secrets”. This is key, as conspiracy theories all throughout history (from the assassination of President Kennedy to speculation of an American-backed plan to take down the Twin Towers on 9/11) have spread like wildfire thanks to the work of unscrupulous journalists who care more about notoriety (albeit, not necessarily in a positive light) as opposed to journalistic integrity.
What caused the crash of TWA Flight 800? We may never know. Still, there will be conspiracy theories for years to come surrounding this tragedy. Just as troubling is the fact that there will be people who will look to these theories as though they are scripture, and ignore the facts (however vague they may be) of this horrific event in history.JEFF'S REDEFINITION of PR
Jeff Crane brings up some very interesting points in his blog entry from January 28th, “Ethics in PR” (http://cranej.blogspot.com/2012/01/ethics-in-pr.html), and I found myself in complete agreement with his statement that Stuart Elliot’s definition of Public Relations in the New York Times is “unnecessarily vague” and “does little to limit or set up a code of ethics for establishing a PR plan”.
Jeff references the BP disaster in the Gulf and how (based on Elliot’s definition of PR) there would be little or no accountability in a controversial disaster situation such as the BP Gulf oil spill. Indeed, BP would spin the disaster as best they could in the weeks and months following the spill. From their TV spots desperately promoting tourism to the Gulf region, to links on the BP homepage chronicling the their clean-up efforts, one can almost forget for a moment that BP caused this mess in the first place. This was precisely BP’s intent, no doubt, as the clever PR people inside the company have done everything in their power to turn BP into martyrs and heroes as opposed to villains in this situation.
A stronger, more binding definition of public relations would hold companies such as BP, to a higher standard, particularly in crisis situations. Jeff’s own definition of public relations, which references “engaging the public honestly with clear communication efforts”, is I believe a step in the right direction, and could make for a far more effective and accurate modern definition. More honesty and transparency would be a refreshing change in modern public relations. How many companies like BP, I wonder, would be willing to adapt and ultimately embrace a public relations code of ethics such as the one Jeff proposes.
A CLOSER LOOK AT ISSUES SURROUNDING CYBER-BULLYING
Julien du Plessis had an interesting take on cyber-bullying, and made some compelling statements in his February 3rd blog (http://bostonjulien.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-considering-story-about-this-poor.html) regarding how social media websites should handle these unfortunate situations.
Whereas I felt that the social networking sites should not be held accountable but should at the very least post some sort of disclaimer, Julien puts forth an interesting idea in that the sites should at least monitor potentially dangerous and harmful posts, and if the need be, block these people from posting such statements.
Julien sees the potential issue that would arise from this “Big Brother” sort of tactic in that there would in fact be a “fine line to dance around” because certain statements which may appear on the surface to be bullying could just be friends joking around with one another. I also see a potential issue here for the simple fact that monitoring of certain posts and status updates could perhaps drive some people away from sites like Facebook, Myspace or Twitter.
Part of the joy people get out of using the aforementioned social networking sites is that people can do with their pages whatever they choose to (with a few minor exceptions). There is, after all, a reason why Tom chose to name the website “Myspace”. If an invisible monitor of sorts suddenly invades one’s social networking space, and watches over them with a close eye, half of the fun is gone. Perhaps there can be certain keywords or certain triggers that would cause one’s posts to come under some sort of scrutiny,
As I mentioned in my blog on cyber-bullying, Julien also expresses (with the help of a well-chosen video featuring Katie Couric) the necessity for parents to take a more active role in schooling their children on the dangers of the internet and social networking sites. I’m in complete agreement with this, as I feel that it is the job of parents to provide their children with this sort of information.
IMAGES FROM 9/11
In his blog from January 21st, Femi Akinpetede raises the question of whether or not it was ethical to display graphic images during coverage of the events of September 11th http://akinpetideo.blogspot.com/ . We all remember that day, and saw images that were shocking and may never be erased from our minds. For those who don’t remember that day, and were perhaps too young to recall watching the coverage and news reports, they will no doubt stumble upon 9/11 images and videos somewhere on the internet.
In particular, Femi wrote about the now famous (and it pains me to use that word when describing it) photograph and video footage of the falling man from September 11th. This was the topic of much discussion and debate in our group during one particular CM503 class. Was it right for the man to be filmed and photographed? More than that, was it appropriate for so many people to see it (and for a documentary to be made about it)?
I continue to have mixed feelings about this, even after more than a decade since the tragedy occurred. On one hand, I can’t help but feel that many of the images were just too graphic, too disturbing, and too readily available for people to see. Living through the events was traumatic on some level for all Americans, I think, and much of that may have been on account of the fact that we were all inundated with the haunting images on television, in magazines and on the web.
And yet, as horrific as the falling man or the clips of the planes flying into the towers may have been, it is on some levels important for people to see these. Eleven years later, it can be too easy to forget just what happened on September 11th, 2001. For this reason, I agree with Femi and his statement “that it was in the public’s best interest to know how horrific the event was and this is why the photographed jumper was used as part of news reports”.
THE PENN STATE SCANDAL: A PR DISASTER FOR HIGHER ED
Lauren Craft wrote an interesting blog about her desire to work in the public relations industry (http://lcsblogcm502.blogspot.com/2012/01/media-ethics.html). In particular, Lauren wrote of certain unethical PR-practices, focusing on the recent scandal at Penn State.
I’ve kept a watchful eye on the Penn State scandal and the supposed cover-up as it involves a major controversy surrounding an institution of higher education, the field in which I work. And while my current position in higher education does not directly involve me dealing with matters regarding public relations, there’s no denying the ripple effect that a scandal of this magnitude has on a school. From public relations, to admissions, to alumni donors and benefactors, the Penn State sex abuse scandal will plague the reputation of the school for years to come.
Lauren’s blog (published on January 8th), was written just a few weeks before Paterno succumbed to cancer. We may never know the extent of Joe Paterno’s involvement in the cover-up, and just how much he did in fact know. I suppose there’s part of me that would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he knew very little and kept his focus on his coaching duties. Ultimately, however, I have to agree with Lauren and her statement that “it is unethical to help protect the reputation of someone who was aware of the sexual abuse of another human being and did not share that information”.
The entire situation is indicative a bigger problem. Too often, NCAA sports seem to drive the bus and call the shots on college campuses. Star college athletes, coaches and others affiliated with successful NCAA football and basketball teams often times have carte blanche and seem to be able to get away with just about anything. Schools turn a blind eye, knowing that the revenue and publicity that a winning team can bring to a university is huge. I’m generalizing, of course, as not all NCAA athletic programs are corrupt; but there’s no denying the scandals that lurk beneath the surface of many college athletic teams.
No comments:
Post a Comment