ISSUES OF PRIVACY & ETHICS IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET

Perhaps I’m dating myself here, but back in my day (I feel old when I write or say that), there was no such thing as cyber-bullying.  Sure, there was bullying, and it could be intense and traumatic for the victim, but it usually involved face-to-face confrontations, harassing, and knowing who the assailants were.

In an era of cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment, there is that extra added layer of anonymity that can make things all the more frightening for the victim, but they can also protect the bullies themselves to a certain extent.  Such is the case with Megan Meier, the thirteen year-old who tragically committed suicide after being harassed by online bullies using an alias as referenced in Malone’s article.

This scandal (and many others like it) set off a firestorm of controversial debates regarding cyber-bullying, the internet, and who can be protected.  After wrestling over what to do, Steven Pokin, a journalist for the Suburban Journals decided to write an article about Megan Meier’s tragic suicide, the circumstances that lead to it and her parent’s grief.  Pokin also made the controversial decision to not name the names of the supposed cyber-bullies.  This sparked outrage amongst many within the community (and outside the community) who found Pokin’s decision to be ridiculous.  

It would be another publication, The Post, who would eventually name names and quench the public’s thirst for “whodunit”. In the end, however, the bullies were not charged for their heinous crime on account of the fact that there was a lack of evidence.

Pokin- by using Sissela Bok’s model- consulted his conscience about what the right decision to make was, as opposed to simply making a knee-jerk reaction and pointing fingers and naming names.  It worked in the sense that Pokin maintained some degree of journalistic integrity (though some would argue against this).  While he could have gone the route of being the one to break an exciting story (the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach) and earn himself praise and drive sales of the Suburban Journals, he instead chose to take a different approach.  Yes, he still wrote the story, but he refrained from crossing the line and pointing fingers.

Some would argue that the Post made the better decision by ultimately naming names.   Using what I feel is reminiscent of Utilitarianism, the argument could be made that the Post exposed cyber-bullies as a way of not only shedding light on a horrific crime that was committed, but also as a way of trying to “protect” society and discouraging this sort of thing from happening again.

While the supposed actions of Megan Meier’s anonymous neighbors were deplorable on many levels, I find Pokin’s ethical justification and his decision not to name names in the story, more compelling.  The American justice system (as bizarre and contrived as it is) allows people the right to a fair trial and states that one is innocent until proven guilty.  To reveal the identities of the cyber-bullies (who had not been charged of any crime) would, in my opinion, condemn them in the court of public opinion before they would have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.  

I do not feel that social networks- Facebook, Myspace, etc.- have an ethical obligation to intervene in these types of situations.  Individuals need to be held accountable for their own actions.  Parents need to do a better job of restricting where their children go on the internet and what they see while they are online.  And while I’m not a parent, I strongly feel that thirteen year-olds should be nowhere near Facebook, Myspace, or online chatrooms.  That said, social networks should consider placing a disclaimer that is easily visible and accessible on their website, explaining that one enters at their own risk and that the social network itself has little or no liability for the actions committed by those who decide to join.

REDIFINING PUBLIC RELATIONS & GIVING IT A FACELIFT

When reading Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article from last November, the first issue that immediately comes to mind in regards to the current definition of public relations is that it is too vague, too simplistic.  As I’ve learned over the last several months in the MACOMM program, the industry of public relations, its practices and ethics (and sometimes lack thereof) are anything but simple and black and white. 

Having a definition that says “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” simply doesn’t work for a number of reasons.   For starters, I do not feel that public relations is simply a matter of aiding and abetting in the mutual adaptation of publics and organizations.  There should be at the very least a mention of public relations promoting the message and/or mission of an organization.  I also feel that public relations attempts to help organizations, but (as we have learned) it does not always succeed, and sometimes quite the opposite occurs.

Accordingly, I think that a fresher, more appropriate and modern definition of public relations would read something like this: “Public relations attempts to aid an organization and its publics by providing support and communicating the message of an organization in a manner and fashion that is both appropriate and in keeping with the PRSA’s (Public Relations Society of America) Code of Ethics”.  

Some would argue that this definition is perhaps a little wordy, but I do feel it is important to at the very least make mention of the PRSA Code of Ethics.  Perhaps having the code of ethics referenced in the definition would help hold those within the industry to a higher standard. Would it cause some discomfort for those within the industry not used to adhering to the code of ethics? It very well might; but it's an important step.

Of the ethical violations made by PR professionals referenced in Gerard Corbett’s article, the one that I think was right to raise many eyebrows was the one involving ConAgra Foods, and having unsuspecting food bloggers served frozen meals disguised as freshly prepared ones at New York eateries.  And while it’s true that hidden camera commercials were a staple of the 1980s, one would like to think that things have changed and that companies should not have to continue to resort to these practices.  

This is especially troubling considering the current craze and obsession many have with healthy eating, and maintaining a diet filled with organic and "real" food.  It’s no secret that most frozen food items are anything but healthy and natural.  

This situation couldn’t help but bring to mind a hilarious and rather fitting sketch from Saturday Night Live back in the 1990s featuring the late, great Chris Farley...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/696639/

And while Farley's reaction is far more volatile than those of the bloggers when they found out they had been "duped", this should at least give some indication of their level of frustration and anger.

Having both the PRSA and the FTC monitoring the practices of public relations agencies and professionals is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.  In an era of social networking and social media, blogging and microblogging, it’s become almost too easy for various PR issues and major gaffes to occur.  And while some insiders might consider this monitoring of practices as micromanaging, or an Orwellian “Big Brother” tactic, it seems to be the only logical solution for a business that is these days often guilty of various unethical practices.  

 

Perhaps the PRSA and/or the FTC would consider setting up a task force of sorts consisting of well-seasoned and respected PR professionals and insiders (if they have not already done so), who would continue to explore and promote more ethical practices within the industry.  It would be essential to have a standard set so that others in the industry (whether they be brand new to the business, or veterans) may abide by and (hopefully) adhere to. 

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Reading the case study on British supermodel Naomi Campbell and her suit against London’s Daily Mirror got me thinking about one particular afternoon I spent last summer.  And with snow coming down outside as I type this, memories of warmer weather are a welcomed diversion this afternoon.

I mentioned in a previous blog entry that I work in education and how I sometimes have to wear a few different hats.  One such hat is that of an academic adviser for newly enrolled part-time students.  What exactly does that mean? Well, it means that I am their initial point of contact, and help them in choosing their first courses at the university as well as their major. 

On that lovely afternoon last August, I was in a room on campus with only a few windows, listening to an important presentation on FERPA (the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act).  And while I would have rather been outside enjoying the weather than listening to these high-priced lawyers ramble on and on, it did prove to be an informative and enlightening afternoon.

FERPA is a code of conduct of sorts for those who work in higher education.  It involves the handling of sensitive and often time’s private information regarding students.  This information can involve anything from grades and transcripts, to safety issues a student may have on campus.  FERPA is designed to protect the rights and the privacy of the students.  Grades, transcripts and any other materials that are addressed to the student are to be shared with only the student, and no one else.  This becomes a tricky situation in that parents (many of whom are spending top dollar on their son or daughter’s education) often times feel that they have the “right” to access any of this information, or to even call an instructor or advisor to discuss their child’s academic performance. 

  

Refer to this link to read the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act Regulations:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf

Privacy is a major issue these days, and in regards to Naomi Campbell’s situation, paparazzi meddling in the personal lives’ of celebrities is nothing new (just think of Princess Diana’s violent death, or even the onslaught of websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton).  And while I don’t necessarily condone Campbell’s erratic behavior or her prima donna demeanor, kudos to her for trying taking the necessary steps to deal with a personal crisis and subsequently striking back at the press.  I’m confident that drug rehabilitation centers abide by their own code of ethics to protect their patients privacy (especially famous ones), but the bigger issue comes when the celebrity sets foot off the property and are accosted by photographers.

Within the confines of an educational institution, FERPA protects college student’s privacy by giving them exclusive rights to their transcripts and records and other confidential information.  Sadly, many parents bully their children into signing over their FERPA rights before the first semester of their freshman year even begins.  From that point on, parents are privy to any and all information regarding their child on campus. 

In that I deal primarily with part-time adult students, I (fortunately) have very little interaction with meddlesome parents.   That said, there have been a handful of tricky situations in which I have found myself.  There was one meddlesome mother that immediately comes to mind.   Her child had attended other educational institutions previously, and had not fared well at all.  So now the child was trying their luck with us, and mother was calling the shots from the get-go.  I’d receive regular phonecalls from the mother checking on the child’s progress, and I’d even receive emails from the child’s email account which were sent from the mother (talk about a tremendous violation of privacy). 

This was well before the FERPA training I had attended, but like the Sisela Bok model, I decided to consult my conscience and quickly realized that something just wasn’t right.  I informed the meddlesome mother that I could not provide her with any information regarding her child’s progress (or lack thereof) at our university, and that my only correspondence on these matters heretofore would be with the student.

An individual’s right to privacy- whether it is a celebrity in the throes of a personal crisis or a fledgling college student trying to pass an English composition course- is something that is non-negotiable in my opinion.  And as much as I would have rather of been outside on that balmy, dry and cloudless August afternoon, the FERPA training ultimately made me well-equipped to deal with meddlesome parents (in the unlikely event I come across any others).