A Final Thought

This class has been eye-opening into the ethical dilemmas PR and advertising professionals face each day in dealing with business and the media. In my (hopefully) long career in PR and communications, I’m certain to encounter a situation where the content from this class will come in handy. The ethical systems we learned at the beginning of class established a great base for understanding ethical conflicts that arise. However once we started to present case studies, I began to see ethical situations I had never before thought of.

                By learning all the ethical systems such as utilitarianism, means-based and Kantian theories, I now have all the measures necessary to make ethical decisions in the my career. The theory I agree most with is Kantian theory because in the end, we all have a responsibility to look out for each other and promote general goodwill. While we need to also be accountable for the outcomes and consequences of our actions, the intent behind actions is more important because it reflects character.

                My “oh wow” occurred when my case study group researched and wrote the case study about the Nestlé scandal in Africa. I’m really shocked at how business people are educated today to look only at profit margins. This was the case when we looked at what Nestlé is doing in Africa. They were looking to increase profit margins at the expense of uneducated mothers and their babies. Although they did put up ads advocating breastfeeding, they acted unethically by refusing to acknowledge that most of the mothers were illiterate. For this reason, it’s important that as communicators, especially PR professionals, we maintain the ethical course for the company and organization as a whole. PR is more than writing press releases and doing social media. The bigger role of the PR professional is to establish and maintains a company’s culture with ethical action. If the company doesn’t have great ethical conduct, the job isn’t a good fit no matter how big your salary is.  It might be cliché, but there is much more to life than money; ethical conduct will ensure that you are satisfied with yourself more than money ever could.

Overall, the class was enlightening and I definitely think the information is invaluable for anyone going into the business and media world. Also, I liked the fact that we learned not only ethical systems to use but we also got to see how they were or weren’t applied in certain cases. Most college classes teach you systems and formulas to use but you don’t get the opportunity to use them until you are out in the real world. By doing the case studies, I was able to better understand how to approach certain ethical situations from both a PR and advertising standpoint.

The Wonderful World of Ozzie

Anyone familiar with baseball knows Ozzie Guillen’s mouth has run faster than his head throughout most of his professional playing and managing career. Oswaldo José Guillén Barrios or Ozzie, as the sports world knows him, has experienced success at every level of professional baseball while managing to entertain sports fans with numerous quotes and rants. As a manager, Guillen led the 2005 Chicago White Sox to their first World Series title since World War I. However, all the success in the world couldn’t keep Ozzie out of hot water after his comments regarding Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Guillen was traded to the newly rebranded Miami Marlins during the past offseason not only to help the club win but to keep the Marlins on the front page with his outspoken personality;  and it was this outspoken personality that led to the infamous quote in a TIME article.

"I love Fidel Castro.” Any person could say the same thing and most people couldn’t care less. It was the fact that Guillen is the face of a sports franchise with its stadium in Little Havana. By stating his affection for Fidel Castro, Guillen, perhaps inadvertently, spat on the efforts of Cubans who fled the reign of Castro. Castro is responsible for sending hundreds of Cubans to the firing squad, forced them swim the Gulf of Mexico and continues to keep the Cuban population in constant fear. Some have compared Castro to Hitler, although I personally think the comparison is a stretch.

What this boils down to is how the First Amendment is applied in this case. The First Amendment does protect people from the government in that a person cannot be prosecuted, arrested or jailed for political speech, among other types of speech. However, what tripped up Guillen is that the First Amendment does not protect you in the work place and more importantly in court of public opinion. The outraged Cuban community has threatened to boycott the Marlins games until Guillen is fired. MLB responded not so much out of opposition to the statements Guillen made but the backlash caused by the comments. For his profession of love for Castro, MLB slapped Guillen on the wrist with a 5 game suspension. What’s more disturbing than Guillen’s comments or the backlash it caused is the response by MLB.

Restricting speech is within the right of every company but does MLB really want to be the employer that restricts speech, more importantly political speech? When the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution, they added the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment to protect political speech above all else. In 1924, the Supreme Court confirmed that indeed political speech was the most important form of speech. Although commercial speech gained more protection later, the importance of political speech cannot be dismissed.

 Can you imagine facing a leave of absence for supporting a Democrat or Republican? Or idolizing generals such as Alexander the Great or Napoleon, who both caused thousands of unnecessary deaths through unnecessary wars? While the comparison seems outlandish, it has merit in the fact that political speech, no matter how right or wrong, needs to be respected as long as it doesn’t impose on the rights of another.  Guillen’s statement didn’t impose on the Cuban community’s ability to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therefore his only judgment should have been in the court of public opinion. What I find hypocritical is the fact that Cubans who’ve emigrated from a country where political speech can get you executed now live in a country where free speech is cherished yet they want to restrict the speech of an individual who simply spoke his mind.

Sports, PR and Life

The PRSA defines public relations as, “… a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” Public relations have become nearly irreplaceable making a business, cause or person standout and successful in the increasingly dense media world. Undoubtedly, ethical questions will arise in the course of conducting business, running a campaign or championing a cause. As a result, it’s imperative for public relations specialist to remain the conscience of the entity for which they work for. By understanding ethical theories and applying them to situations which arise in a career, PR specialist can promise themselves a long-term and successful career. By looking a specific case, we can see how ethical theories were (or weren’t) applied. As French author, journalist and philosopher Albert Camus once said, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” In order to protect not only the business or person from public scrutiny, but the profession as a whole, ethics need to be exercised every day.

                Egoism, the first ethical theory we will visit, states that the most ethical act comes from acting in one’s own best interest.  Several problems arise in this ethical situation because the perceived best interest of an organization might not actually be the most ethical approach. There exists no better example than the case of Patrick J. Witt, the former quarterback for Yale University. Witt, a 3.91 GPA student as well as star quarterback for the football team, was set to go before the Rhodes Trust in Atlanta for the Rhodes scholarship. On November 13 of this past year, Witt announced he was withdrawing his application because the game against Harvard happened to conflict with the day he would interview. Around the university and in several major news stations, including ESPN, the record-setting quarterback was hailed as a hero, despite the fact that Yale would be routed by Harvard. It’s a story with a good-feeling ending. Except that it’s not.

                The Rhodes Trust suspended Witt’s application because of an all alleged sexual assault complaint against Witt. Though the girl never filed a complaint with either the university or the police, it was enough to merit Witt’s suspension. To make matter worse, Yale University and Witt knowingly withheld this information from the media and public, instead fabricating a story claiming the reason for withdrawing his application was conflict with Yale-Harvard game. This instance shows the flaws associated with egoism. Witt and Yale both acted ethically according to egoism; they acted in their own best interest in order to protect their images. If Witt and Yale were determined to apply egoism, then they should have at least applied enlightened self-interest. According to Mixed Media, enlightened self-interest acknowledges that businesses do well financially by acting ethically. Therefore acting ethically is in the best interest of the individual and organization. Had Yale and Witt applied this ethical system, Witt would have suffered some minor scrutiny but in America, athletic feats make the American people generally forgiving. Instead, now Yale has its image and integrity questioned, and while its prestige will always boost Yale’s image, the university suffered a black eye of publicity it didn’t have to take.

                Besides applying egoism to this case, we can see how it affected the outcome of the situation. If Yale had media relations specialists on the case, they failed ethically to promote the interests of the public, which includes Yale alumni, sports fans and the American public in general. How different would the situation had been if another ethical situation was applied? As Immanuel Kant would argue, the only ethical act is determined by intent.  Yale and Witt probably knew that by lying they would cover their own butts despite deceiving the public, which is exactly what they did. Instead of acting this way, Yale should have held a press conference for Witt to explain the reason behind removing his application for the Rhodes scholarship.

                Even when one applies utilitarianism, Witt and Yale’s media relations failed ethically. Utilitarianism defines ethical action as when one must do whatever benefits the largest number of people. Witt and Yale were obviously the only benefactors from their acts.

                As shown above, public relations specialists and communicators must act ethically not only for their organization but for public relations professionals as well. In today’s business and political worlds, profit margins and winning seem to hold the highest throne in the minds of Americans. It is imperative that not only as PR professionals but as functioning members of society, we hold ethics in the highest regard. Although an ethical approach might not benefit us, our businesses or our campaigns in the short-term, it’s the long-term that really matters. 

A Thought on Advertising Ethics

            Advertising has never been without controversy since it became common practice in the media. The purpose of advertising is respectable. A company has a newly developed product, and as an advertiser, it is your job to ensure that targeted markets receive information about the product, how it works, how it can improve your daily life and other key factors that go into persuading a customer to purchase your product. However, the way that the message has been conveyed usually produces conflict between advertisers and those that argue advertising causes people to purchase things they don’t necessarily need. The extreme argument against advertising doesn’t hold much weight because no one forces consumers to purchase products, but it does bring up valid points as to when advertising becomes unethical. In specific, I want to look at an area that continues to produce a firestorm of debate between both sides: advertising’s effect on body image.

            No one argues that female bodies in advertising are grossly exaggerated in contrast to the average female today. Thanks to computer programs such as Photoshop and airbrushing, creating the ‘perfect thin woman’ for advertising has become easier, and unfortunately much more prevalent in advertising. In fact, the problem apparently has become so bad that lawmakers in Arizona are looking at the possibility of making advertisers specify when airbrushing has been used on an advertisement. While lawmakers realize that the bill will most likely not pass, they are hoping to bring light to the issue that seems to plague the U.S.   While we realize the exaggeration of advertising, we are just now coming to realize the full effect that body image in advertising has on women and just how much of a negative effect that is. In fact, according to a study released in 1992 by Philip Myers and Frank Biocca suggested that just 30 minutes of exposure to advertising can cause women to alter their view of their bodies.  So how does this play into ethical theories that we have discussed in class so far?

            Well, there are several that could apply to this to judge whether this type of advertising is ethical. First off is utilitarianism, which basically states that in everything you do, acts are only ethical if they benefit the greatest amount of people even for the sake of hurting a few. So if women are the majority and advertisers the minority, according to utilitarianism, advertisers would be acting unethically because they are more concerned with making an advertisement that sells and thus benefits themselves rather than looking at the adverse effect upon women in society. So does this mean that all advertisements regarding body image should be banned due to their unethical nature? The short answer is no, but more importantly, it is necessary that viewers of advertisements and commercials accept personal responsibility and be able to filter through ads. So in this case, utilitarianism does not fit entirely well due to the fact that it does not address the sort of personal responsibility needed to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

            Another ethical theory that I think fits better in this certain case is mean-based ethics. It essentially states that in order to find an ethical answer, you must find a balance between two extremes. A problem with this theory is that it lacks the benchmark to be able to distinguish what is the mean of two extremes. Nonetheless, in this case, I think that it works perfectly and I will address that argument in later paragraphs.

            Removing all advertisements with body image in them would be unrealistic. Imagine the difficulty advertisers would face trying to sell perfume or cologne without showing the natural sexual images that comes along with fragrance and the scent of the opposite sex (or same sex now I guess?). Point-in-case, removing all advertisements would be an extreme while being constantly bombarded by unrealistic body images in every sort of advertisement (think food, baby diapers, etc.) would be extreme as well. Therefore, I believe that using means-based ethics in the area of advertising is the most ethical approach. It leaves neither side lacking because advertisers could still sell using body image, yet by using a more natural and average body image, you reduce the risk that the advertisement would adversely and negatively affect body images of women. Furthermore, in order to find a medium in this case, all one has to do is look at the pull between the perception of body image and how well advertisers feel they are able to complete their job. When one side starts pulling towards an extreme, advertisers should look as that a red flag to retreat from that direction and return to a more medium position.  

            As shown by evidence above, the exaggeration of body images has continued to deepen the divide between advertisers and women would negatively view their body.  It is important to remember that happiness is usually achieved through moderation. The body can’t have too much sodium nor can it have too little; the same holds true for advertising and until advertisers learn to find that happy medium, it will only become more difficult for them to defend their position.

The Need for Ethics in Business and Media

The underlying principles for business and media ethics are numerous, especially in today's world of Twitter, social media and rapid transmission of messages. With the increased speed of communications, it is becoming critical that communication professionals and business leaders act swift but ethically in situations that arise concerning their business. Boiling it down to specifically ethics, it's important that individuals hold ethics in daily functions, because the reality of matter is that we all interact with other individuals on day-to-day occasions. While it sounds ideal that everyone should have ethics, the problem with this idea is that everyone has differing opinions over what is valued, which sometimes makes it difficult to align values and ethics together. Consequently, every business should have values that align with business ethics.

On a business level, it simply comes down to interaction. The word “business” implies that there is a level of relationship between two parties. In fact, one definition according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines business as, “dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature.” Therefore, it is imperative that we handle our business dealings in an exact reflection of how we wish to be treated. In the way that we trade, pay, sell or communicate, it is essential that all businesses conduct themselves in such a way that they uphold what is ethical. It is not only a crucial factor in running a good business with investors and other businesses partners but also with consumers. The basic level of function for a business is to create and sell a product, good or service that is useful to the consumer in hopes of achieving a profit. But if this is not conducted with honesty and transparency, earning a profit becomes a struggle. It’s not a matter of if but when the bottom-line suffers.

I’d like to point out a case that recently occurred in 2010. Johnson & Johnson, a company known worldwide for their innovation in medical supplies and medicine, recently experienced an ethical dilemma.  On March 30, 2010 Johnson  & Johnson issued a voluntary recall on some children’s medicine that they found linked to causing illness. The recall, which affected over 40 countries, resulted from a routine plant inspection. Rather than sweep the matter at hand under the rug, Johnson & Johnson took the steps to issue a massive recall, which cost the company millions of dollars. But rather than waiting for the FDA to issue a recall, J&J took the initiative themselves. Although they later faced more inspections and an eventual recall on hip replacements this past year, J&J was transparent. Companies are made of people and people inherently will make mistakes. Consumers are more willing to accept those mistakes and maintain a relationship with the business if they are open, transparent and honest. Although J&J lost money and will continue to lose money this year, those ethics saved the company from a certain destruction of public image.

On the other hand, there is a way not to do things. In the case of Enron, simply stated, they failed on every level to uphold any sort of ethical standard. For anyone that doesn’t know, Enron was an energy company that committed massive accounting fraud and errors, resulting in millions of dollars that were lost by investors. For more info about exactly happened, you can click here but for our purposes, we will just discuss the ethics behind decisions made at the executive level. Enron collapsed because the accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, was pressed by high-level officials of Enron to ignore monstrous accounting errors. Not only did Enron’s top official act unethically but so did Arthur Andersen officials as well. When billions of dollars are placed in the hands of companies by trusting investors, it’s only fair and necessary that the company reciprocate that trust. Enron represents how the effects of business and media ethics are not contained to the company. The collapse of Enron sent a shock wave throughout the business world, leaving hundreds who had invested their life savings without a cent to their name.

            As shown by the two contrasting examples above, the need for ethics in media and business is of the upmost importance in today’s world of rapid communication. People want to interact and do business with companies that are ethical, such as Johnson & Johnson. When people fail to act in an ethical manner, not only is the public image of the company, but also the public itself is hurt. The first rule of public relations is to inform the public and to prevent harm to the public. As public relations practioners, it’s essential that we validate the profession by conducting ourselves in a manner that shows we are a profession of honest, open and hard-working professionals. Business aside, it’s important that in the public relations profession we act as the conscience of the company or client that we work for. By leading the way in ethical decision-making, public relations practioners can build a reputation as trustworthy people that will steer the company in the ethical direction.

A Final Note

The past few months I have been taking this class have been interesting. With all the points that have been presented, not all which I agree with, some are nonetheless legitimate. Jour 4250 has encouraged me not to accept these ideas but to research and strengthen my ideas, which run along as conservative. Now I want to revisit some of the more interesting points of the class.

I first would like to point out the need to critically analyze the teacher. In a class where media is the target of debate, the teacher of a college class needs to be analyzed exactly like one would a news show, magazine or newspaper. Teacher, like all of us, have a collections of experiences from which they have formed their opinions. No person can completely remove themselves from their experiences and those experiences' impact.

Second, while this class presented many points to think about the media, it boils down to personal responsibility. If you want you daughter to think of herself as more than just an object of beauty, them turn of the TV and take some time to relate to your child those values. No media can force its way into your life. You have to option to choose which media one consume's.

One of the topics I will revisit again was the debate over the Native American mascot. Let it be known that I am for the use of indian mascots because the way they are using the mascot is in a past, historical context. Yes, Native Americans are still around but not in the historical context as we commonly think of.

As someone who has personally visited a Native American reservation in North Dakota, I can say that it is not filled with tepees and huts. It has many houses and businesses which are exactly the same as cities off the reservation. The Native Americans that lived on the plains like the Comanche, Apache, or Cheyenne do not go about life like the used. Just like people from Scandinavia do not act like Vikings. You might say well that's not fair because they were suppressed. The Spartans were eventually suppressed by the Romans. Does that make the Spartans an insensitive mascot? No.  If we decided that every historical mascot was insensitive, then all we would have is animal mascots.

Overall, the class was very controversial. One positive aspect is that if you happen to be in the minority that doesn't agree, you are taught to do your research and know your facts. This is a valuable life lesson for everyone and it's the biggest lesson I've taken away from this class.

When Politics and Sports Collide

In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, and the scandal at Syracuse involving long time assistant coach Bernie Fine, the sports world has been left in shock. Not only are we left to wonder how these programs will recover and where do we go from here, but more importantly, how did we get to this point? How did we get to the point that the prestige of a sports program outweighs the rights of a human, especially a child? Does big money from T.V. contracts, alumni, and bowl championships drive the force under which any one opposing such institutions are crushed?

Unfortunately, this has been a long time coming in a culture such as ours. A place where professionals athletes like Albert Pujols are given millions of dollars to play a game. (He just signed today a 10-year, $250 million dollar contract.) We are a sports-obsessed, winning-obsessed culture in which we live vicariously through our athletes achievements, and scorn them when they take big money to go to another team.

Put yourself in their shoes because I know I would want to secure both my children's and grand-children's financial future with a simple contract. Further more, I do not condemn athletes for taking large contracts. This is America and we live in a capitalist economy. Business is business and in every day life, you have employers willing to cut you from employment at the drop of a dime. So why not take all the money you can get out of the system.

No, I'm not condemning the money behind the business. But I do condemn the business when it simultaneously crushes the rights and freedom of those get caught in the politics of sports. While I am horrified at the events at Penn State, I can't say that I'm entirely surprised. We as a society have emphasized winning at all costs. Winners, not losers, get the parade. They get to go on the Late Show. They get the interviews and the banner-raising ceremonies. We thirst for winning from our sports teams because we feel that in some way, we are winners too.

So it's no surprise that our culture has produced monsters such as Jerry Sandusk whose ability to carry out such crimes is hidden by the fact that he is a winner. Such was the reason that Tiger Woods was able to carry out his extra-marital affairs. The arena of sports is becoming more and more a place where child abuse occurs because of the lure of money. Parents who think that a coach can get them into a school or make them into a professional athlete have made themselves vulnerable to others taking advantage of their children.

Furthermore, like I have stated in previous blogs, we are a country unwilling to accept blame. It's not Penn State alone who should carry the blame, although they are largely responsible. Sports fans as a whole are responsible, myself included. We put so much emphasis of the need to win that we make sports authorities think twice when they are confronted with an issue that might damage their reputation. And it will only get worse.

Someone to Blame

In Miss Representation, we were presented with ideas about how the media can warp the minds of young teenage girls and boys. As a nation, we consume massive amounts of tv, magazines and movies which can change our view of the world.

Many statistics were startling, including the rise in depression and eating disorders. When or if I had a daughter, I would be sure to instill in her a sense of self confidence that does not depend upon her looks.

All that being said, I feel like the movie lacked any sort of personal responsible for individuals. It emphasized that the media presented all these messages, which I agree with. Yet last time I checked, no one is forcing you to watch a show or read a certain book. A U.S. citizen has full reign to choose whatever media the what to receive or not receive.

The fact that was probably most disregarded is how much tv we watch on average. Instead of reading a book or doing something constructive, they choose to look at images, which are stronger than the written word.  We expect to be able to watch tv and have no consequences. Yet, besides the obvious affect on health, there is an affect on our psychological health. And yet we expect nothing to come from that.

It continues a long story of how we are irresponsible and unable to take blame. It's the same reason people want to blame banks for their financial woes. No one forces you to take out a credit card and buy on credit. If you look at the majority of problems in our country, they are because people refuse to accept personal responsibility.

The women in the movie continually blamed the "media" and "the man agenda" for the reason why a large amount of women have problems with their self image. Again, no woman in the U.S. has someone holding a gun to their head telling them to watch MTV, or other sitcoms, shows, etc. They are completely empowered to take control of their lives, they are just ignorant to the fact that they  have options.

The Disney Phobia

It's been long debated whether Disney, the beloved creator of characters which children have grown up with, is providing a hidden message wrapped in its stories. As Naomi Rockler-Gladen argues in Race, Hierarchy, and Hyenaphobia in The Lion King, she states that in just this animated film alone, Disney is promoting the idea of segregation and class hierarchy through how certain animals interact with each other. What Rockler-Gladen fails to realize is the context from which the story was written.

The Lion King is based on Shakespeare's play Hamlet, in which the protagonist, Hamlet, is confronted by the ghost of his father, who tells him he has been murdered by Hamlet's uncle in order to lay claim to the throne of Denmark. Like many plays written by Shakespeare, there is no recognizably surface level of good and evil in many plays. For example, in Caesar, the audience is left to debate whether the assassination of Julius Caesar was for the greater good of Rome, or whether Brutus and the other conspirators should be charged as murderers. Children as such a young age are still grasping the concept of right and wrong, so to present a story such as this would only create confusion on their part.

It was for this reason that the Lion King, in order to be adopted into a children's film, must be presented in more drastic terms. For this reason, the protagonist must be drastically portrayed as right and the antagonist is shown to be wrong. This is the reason that the Lions are the kings of the the Pride Land and the Hyenas are subjected to life in the Elephant Graveyard. Segregation and class hierarchy is not the point of the film and any perception that it is is due strictly to how it's interpreted.

The article further makes two outlandish claims. 

"In addition, "Be Prepared," the musical sequence in which Scar invites the hyenas to support his coup, alludes visually to Hitler's propaganda film Triumph of the Will."

What? Last time I checked, Hitler was in power when he put out such propaganda films, not suppressed, as Rockler-Gladen the hyenas were in the Lion King. It further discredits the article because at this point, it becomes contradicting. But the quote that really gets me is this one.

"At no time in The Lion King do we learn that segregation is not a good thing and that lions ought to learn to overcome their "hyenaphobia" and create a more multicultural society."

If the article did not already destroy its credibility, this statement just put it in the ground. It is a pompous, arrogant statement to make because it is trying to make The Lion King into something it's not, a civil rights message. It's neither a civil rights message nor a message to promote segregation. It is simply exactly what it is, a dramatic display of right and wrong, good and evil necessary for children to be able to grasp the concept. 

The Native American Question

The United States, founded upon the rights and liberties of all men, has a historical backdrop that leaves us in confusion and question of our moral principles. The Native American Holocaust, as few regard it in history, is the ugly side of U.S. colonialism and expansionism that many Americans are quick to sweep under the rug. However, the history is there. Broken treaties, expanding white society and blatant disregard for life are common themes in the sad untold history of the Native American.

It's not wonder, then, why much opposition has been made against sports teams that bare the Indian icon. The Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, to name a few, are all professional teams that use the Indian image as mascots for their teams. Often used to show signs of bravery, strength, and honor, the Indian mascot for many professional, college and high school teams is something they hold with great pride, whether for the honor of Native Americans or just the unity in their community of fans.

Since the 1970s, moves have been made to do away with the Native American mascot. At both the high school and college level, it has actually been quite successful. However, the professional level remains untouched and unwilling to move, with too much already at stake. Many Native American activists argue that the Indian symbol is offensive simply because Native Americans are not getting the fair chance to represent themselves. Many of the "Rain Dances", Tomahawk chops, and logos with the Native American image use no historical context. Not every Native American wore feathers in their hair or rode on horses shooting bow and arrows. In fact, the horse, not native to North America, wasn't even introduced to Native American culture until much later in their existence.

Yet these arguments aren't made from Native Americans themselves. As a 2002 Sports Illustrated poll revealed, 81% of polled Native Americans had no opposition to the use of the Indian image as a mascot. The support was even stronger for professional sports team, with 83% having no opposition. The numbers clearly show a difference in opinion between Native Americans and those fighting for the rights or image of Native Americans. But why?

The disconnect is because activists are telling  Native Americans how the should feel about these images and how they should react to them. The opinions of activists do not align with the actual feelings of the Native Americans and when this does not occur, it is time for the activists to fade into the background and resume some other sort of cause. It is both insulting and dehumanizing to tell someone else how they should feel. One might argue that it's because the self-esteem of the Native American is low, as Suzan Harjo is quoted saying in the article. However, if an individual does not feel an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a "racist" symbol, then the symbol is no longer racist and has simply become just a symbol of a sports team and nothing else.

Music Videos and Common Sense

Music videos have always created a controversy for as long as they have been in existence. From Lil Jon to Lady Gaga to Eminem, there a numerous music videos out there that have caused a stir for one reason or another. If you've never seen Call on Me, it is just another video some have said objectifies women and is semi-pornographic. It leads to the debate on what effect music videos have on people and whether it promotes violence, especially against women. It is important to distinguish between the video and the music or lyrics. If you listen to Call on Me, the only lyrics are exactly that: call on me. If you were to hear this, you would have no idea that women are dancing in tight spandex. Music videos are often used to create a shock factor that is not attained with listening alone. 

So should the music videos be allowed to show acts of violence and discrimination against minority groups? Yes because it is covered by the First Amendment. But in a practical sense, no. These videos might be described as art but are more likely just attempts to create publicity for the artist via controversy. A good amount of judgment is needed in creating a music video, which Hollywood seems to lack. Unfortunately a lack of judgment can lead to a lack of reality for the audience, mostly comprised of children and young teenagers.

What is needed more than good judgment the production of a music video is the need for parents to talk with their children regarding the topics addressed in today's music industry. For examples, rappers such as Jay-Z and Lil Wayne often portraying women as objects to be used and disposed of. If a child grows up and watches how their parents behave toward each other, nothing sends a stronger message. Not only do they see the proper way a relationship should function, but they see it in real life. Nothing is more powerful than a positive life message relayed by adults present and active in the lives of children.

Diversity or anti white?

We have learned thus far in our class how to be aware of certain stereotypes that we as the white majority media  put out there. I will be the first to admit that they are there. I'll also be the first to admit that you can find whatever message you want if you look hard enough at anything, so interpreting media messages is subjective and nowhere near an exact science.
However, I'm surprised (but not really) at the lack of leniency for white people versus the leeway given to minorities in the media. There is not a more perfect example than this story about Torii Hunter, an outfielder for the Los Angeles Angels. The article written in 2008 was about a panel discussion with USA Today in which Hunter was asked about his opinion on why there aren't more African-Americans in professional baseball. (The percentage of black players on opening day was 10.2%, up from 8.2% the year before.) Hunter responded saying that black Latin American players were "impostors" and not "real" black people. (In case you didn't know, Torii, black slaves were brought in to Latin America just like the British Colonies that later became the United States.) He went on insult black Latin American players even more saying, "Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?' ... I'm telling you, it's sad," he said."


 Hunter has no room whether to decide who is black and who is not. The majority of African-Americans haven't stepped foot on African soil nor will they ever. So what room does someone have to decide? Are they culturally different? Yes. But so are white people. You have Russians, English French, Irish, Spanish, and the list goes on. But are they put into different racial groups. NO. They are all labeled as white because their skin is white. Same rule applies here. We are not discussing ethnic groups or cultural differences. Black is black. And the people who do these statistics need to rework how the categorize because it's giving people more reason to whine than they should. Is the NBA representative of the U.S. populations? No. There are 18% of the players that are white versus 77% black percentage of players. Should the NBA really get an "A" in diversity? *&!% no! That's not diverse by any means. If you are looking for what diversity really means according to the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, it's how many white men can we kick out of the work place. So what if there are only 10.2% African-American players in the MLB? It's because they play football and basketball! I'll listen to the argument when people are concerned with the lack of white players in the NBA. 

Misleading women

We went over advertising today in class and how women are constantly subjected the idea of "perfection". One only has to watch TV for a short amount of time to realize how saturated we are with these images of flawless women. It's no wonder why so many young girls, and women in general, suffer from anxiety, eating disorders, and general dislike of their bodies. However, if women took more time to talk to men, rather than rely on media to tell them what is and isn't pretty, it wouldn't be nearly as severe.

I'm pretty sure that men in general are not looking for perfection. Especially with today's generation, which is increasingly sensitive, men are more likely to choose a female partner based on personality, rather than just looks. While physical appearance does have an effect on initial attraction, that is but a minor part of what attracts us to a partner.

For me personally, what I look for in a girl is a best friend, someone I can confide in.
Like any message that is put out there, it is important to analyze the source, whether that source is a magazine, TV, or even a teacher. Unfortunately, the majority of our society is unwilling to put in the time to research these sources, and thus become empowered to diffuse any message that paints an unrealistic reality.

Teaching to shoot down stereotypes?

So far in Race, Gender, and the Media, we have been taught to look at the media from a media literate standpoint. It has been eye-opening to see  the media and how it can influence us as a society to think about minorities, crime rates, etc. I also agree that the media has made tremendous strides to right the wrong, although subtle stereotypes still do occur and much more work is needed.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that in a class that teaches to be media literate, stereotypes are thrown around, often to without the knowledge of the class. Thursday night, September 15, I heard a comment that I found interesting and that if you really looked into it, you would find a clear stereotype that is both unfair and offensive, yet it was brushed aside.

The comment in question was in regards to a discussion about why women aren't allowed to be umpires in the NFL or MLB. The questions evolved into why women couldn't play in the NFL, because of obvious biological differences. Then this quote really caught my attention.

"Well women would probably have to take steroids just like all the other players anyway," said Tracy Everbach.

I find this to be just as stereotypical and unfair as any stereotype out there. And it should really bother a lot of people considering how many people are athletes, whether they are black, white or any other color. I take offense when athletes are labeled as "steroid-users", "meatheads", and "unintelligent", to name a few.

Do athletes from high school to professional levels use steroids? Yes. It is a known fact. Some of our greatest baseball players during the recent decade have tested positive for steroids, including Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, and Manny Ramirez. 2009 Defensive Player of the year, Brian Cushing, a current linebacker for the Houston Texans, tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and was subsequently striped of his award and suspended for the beginning of the 2010 season. The evidence is there that steroids is used in sports. I firmly believe, however, that the MLB and NFL, among others, have taken significant strides to reduce the amount steroid use.

When you look at players, such as Josh Hamilton, you can see that weekly testing shows that he is consistently clean of both drugs and steroids. Many more players in the NFL and MLB don't use steroids. With the upcoming generation of players in the MLB living in the shadow of the Steroids Era, they realize the effects of steroids and are more educated about them than their predecessors.

In the Mitchell Report, it was reported that at least 1 player from each of the 30 MLB teams were using steroids in 2004. Yes, the use was wide spread. But when you consider that if each team has 25 players on the active roster alone, there are 750 players in a given time in the entire MLB combined. Those using steroids are are a significantly smaller percentage than those not using them.

So I find the phrase, "Well women would probably have to take steroids just like all the other players anyway," offensive, especially being a former high school and college athlete. From my personal experience, I weighed 140 lbs coming out of high school and now weigh 190 lbs. I gained 50 lbs. of muscle  in three years by solely working out one hour a day.

Now when you consider the athletic trainers, facilities, and the fact that today's athletes are paid to workout, there should be no surprise that they are able to put on 10 or 20 lbs in during the off season. This is why I feel like it is degrading to stereotype athletes and say they must be taking steroids. Steroids do NOT improve one's athletic ability. Extreme athletic skill is stilled needed to hit a 98-mph fastball. Extremely athletic concentration is needed to haul in a football while dragging your toes to stay in bounds. Steroids do not equate to athletic ability. They do not activate some athletic gene. No, they are just a cheaters way of getting a little stronger.

This is not attended to call anyone out. It is to demonstrate that people who are athletic are not meat heads, steroid users, or dumb. (Look at Sam Bradford, Ram's QB, or Andrew Luck, QB for the University of Stanford.) I simply looking for fair representation of  athletes that is also being asked by minorities, females, and the gay community. I just looking for a sense of fair.

A Hidden Past

I found it interesting after watching the video about the Black Newspapers was interesting. However, it is of no surprise that it is often left out of history classes. Maybe it is deemed "not important enough". This is not just a problem with Texas, but I think throughout the nation in history education.

For instance, people might not be aware that Texas, and Dallas specifically, used to be where the Ku Klux Klan based their operations out of.  Or that during the Texas Revolution, the Tejanos, Texas natives of Mexican descent, supported the Texas Revolution just as much as the white Americans that were moving into Texas. Or that the Mexican-American War was one of the most unjustified wars in American history and that it was completely racial.

Why is it this way? We often deem white history as the more important part of history while minorities often take a back seat. However, a more complete picture of history can be captured through studying accounts of minorities like the Tejanos. For example, the lynching of Jesse Washington in Waco in 1916 was one of the most gruesome lynchings of its time. Yet I never learned about it until taking a class about Texas history in college. It was these events that made NAACP choose Texas as the state to begin systematically attacking racial injustices.

We, in order to understand society as a whole, need to know these stories and events in history. And it is not only Texas that these stories remain hidden. The North was fighting for extinction of slavery in the Civil War but not because the cared about the welfare of blacks. They were concerned that if slavery were to extend North, that factory workers would be out of the job with an influx of unpaid labor.

It's also facts like this that need to be looked at to emphasize a point that the North was not this redeeming savior of blacks, like it is often portrayed. From Boston, Massachusetts to Dallas, Texas, blacks faced, and do currently face, prejudice and while Southern cities exhibited more physical acts of violence,  it should not go without notice that many Northern cities were just as prejudiced. Many Northern cities deal with racial tension, Cincinnati being a prime example.

All this evidence goes to show that both sides need to be looked at and ignoring facts just equates to ignorance.  

A Work in Progress

Racial and gender stereotypes exist in our world whether we like it or not. It is how humans, with a constant need for structure in their lives, quickly categorize and make sense of the information they are receiving about people. Stereotyping can and does often carry over into the media world, which is no surprise to anyone. The media is a human institution, so journalist have their own families, lives and experiences which they sometimes reflect into their work. The best journalist is the one that can consistently be objective in both their writing and which stories they choose to write about. 

While stereotypes do exist, no one can deny the fact that they have been significantly reduced since Civil Rights were enacted in 1965. The progress has happened and people are more aware of stereotypes that exist. However, it is our society, which often seeks instant gratification, that is loudly protesting against ideals much older than their selves or even our own country.

 With the settling of Jamestown, English immigrants brought racial ideas to the colonies that suppressed people of color, often degrading them as sub-human. When you think about how pervasive these ideas were, and consider that founding fathers also owned slaves, it is unrealistic to expect that an idea that has been ingrained in the middle and upper class to immediately disappear. More than 300 years of slavery and oppression cannot be erased in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement. 

So the only answer to this is to continue to encouragement minorities in America to pursue careers, maybe as journalist or maybe as business leaders, in order that they may gain hold of the socioeconomic ladder and begin to work their way up. Media, in the bottom line, is a business, and just like any business you have to cater to those who have money, as sad as that is. It would be ideal for journalist to purely report the news but our world doesn't work like that. Unfortunately, we can't all grow up to be astronauts or the president, nor can we be a child forever. We have to face the real world.

We Gone Find You: The Media's Search For Stereotypes?

Kevin Antoine Dodson, better known for as for his sensational TV interview, on the outside appears to be a comical, laughable character. But when analyzed from a journalistic, academic standpoint, the journalism conducted by WAFF-48 News is sloppy. Reckless? Yes. Intended to promote the stereotype associated with the 'projects'? No.

The story, which is often forgotten amid the humor that surrounded Dodson's antics, is about the attempted rape of his sister, Kelly Dodson. She is interviewed by the reporter for a short amount of time while Antoine is interviewed ranting and raving about the home intruder.

In this, the story is lost that a potential rapist is on the lose. Unless you count Dodson's words as a public service announcement, Channel 48 is careless in its attempts to relay important information to the public. Did it mean to portray Dodson and his sister as uneducated, casing a bad light on the poor? No, but the reporter is responsible for the amount of time she let Dodson speak.

When confronted about the story's lack of sensitivity towards the poor and casting them in a negative light, the TV station responded that it would be doing far worse NOT showing the story. I agree with this statement because it is the job the reporter to find the stories of both the rich and the poor, literate and illiterate. When the media starts to determine who can and cannot speak for themselves is when we will lose stories we need to know.

 However, the presentation of the story was all wrong. Even more, I without a doubt know that Kelly Dodson said was more than what she was quoted saying in the story. So I do find it hypocritical of the news station to limit what Kelly said yet give Antoine nearly a minute worth of air time.

What surprises me most about the story is its complete lack of an authority speaking on the matter. Not a single police officer, city official, or investigator is interviewed in the process.

So is the story meant to be racist? Or promote a stereotype? No, I disagree with that argument. Yes it does show Kelly Dodson with a lot of kids, which might promote the stereotype of black women having many children. I think otherwise and that her children are part of her visual story, bringing the human element to the story. Kelly Dodson is a mother, and we all have mothers, making the story hit closer to home when some one attempts to rape her. The story is not meant to be racist although you can see what you want with any story out there. Rather, the story is sloppy and careless with its presentation of the facts.

A Brave New World

The Atlanta Braves are in a world of public relations hurt right now. Between one coach being suspended for crude behavior towards fans in San Fransisco, and a starting pitcher being arrested for DUI, the public relations department is overwhelmed. Atlanta, led by sophomore super-star Jason Heyward, is in the midst of rebuilding, something that fans recently are not used to. Since winning the NL a major league record 14 consecutive seasons during the 90s and early 2000s to., the team has struggled and failed to make the playoffs. Anyone follows sports knows the delicate position rebuilding teams are in, with either success or failure on the brink either side. When pitching coach Roger McDowell directed gay slurs towards fans, along with inappropriate sexual gestures and threatening another fan with a bat, it brought added pressure to the organization. If that wasn't enough, April 28, one day after McDowell was accused of inappropriate behavior, pitcher Derek Lowe was arrested for DUI, further compacting the Braves woes.

So what do the Braves do as an organization? Well, luckily for the Braves two examples of how to handle both. In McDowell's case, the Braves need to handle him the way the Lakers, David Stern, and the NBA handled Kobe Bryant's gay slur that was captured on live television. Reprimand quickly, and have the offender respond in a timely and sincere manner, which McDowell has done recently in a statement released by the Braves. For Lowe, a slightly different approach is needed. Miguel Caberra, the first baseman for the Detroit Tigers, was arrested February 16 for DUI during spring training. Since the season, the Tigers have let Cabrera play, and separated his athletic career from his legal problems with great success. The Braves started Lowe today, which resulted in a 6-5 win over the Cardinals. Another success for the Braves. By this standard, the Braves are well on their way to easing over their problems.

Saving Major League Baseball

The question of whether Barry Bonds did steroids did steroids has long since left the park, so to speak. Major League Baseball's greatest homerun hitter will no doubt be linked with steroids along with other prolific baseball players of the era. Not only is Bonds' baseball reputation suffered a black eye, but his legal reputation is now stained with a guilty conviction of obstruction of justice. But Bond's story is just a small part of the larger picture that is the steroids era of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Tarnished eras of Major League Baseball, and all major sports for that matter, are nothing new. Between the Black Sox Scandal of 1919 and Pete Rose's banishment from the game for his role in bets made on a game he coached, America's love of the game is almost as cyclical as the economy. After the Black Sox Scandal, which involved betting, baseball ushered in it's long “Golden Era”. The time between 1920s a nd 1960s saw the likes of Babe Ruth, Ted Willaims, and Willie Mays make America fall in love with the boys of summer. Between the increasing popularity of both basketball and football, the MLB's marketshare of the professional sports world decreased. When fans saw the greatest hitter in baseball history, Pete Rose, thrown out of baseball for life, baseball suffered further loss of its image as America's pasttime. The image improved when power sluggers entered the game in 90s. In 1998, Mark Mcgwire and Sammy Sosa had the greatest home run race in history, as Mcgwire would eventually win, hitting 70. (Bonds would end up breaking that record with 73.) And Mcqwire would eventually admit to using performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career. So the media fire storm that erupted from the Mitchell report, which listed every player that tested positive for steroids, in 2007.

Four years later, the scrutiny surrounding baseball as somewhat resided, as commissioner Bud Selig and the MLB have taken leaps and bounds to ensure every team tests their players for steroids. In the midst of an ongoing NFL lockout, and an NBA lockout possible after this summer, baseball could be the only sport played in August and September this year. Major league baseball is in the best possible position itself as the fun sport everyone loved growing. What's one step that would make it more popular? Make it more fan friendly. For anyone ever hoping to look for a highlight real of Ian Kinsler on Youtube or a video montage of Pudge Rodriguez's cannon arm, it's near impossible. The MLB has such a strict hold over all visual material and past game's that fans can't have fun with it. One of my attractions to football is that if a player has enough material to make a highlight film, I can find the video somewhere. If I want to watch Adrian Peterson run all over the Chicago Bears, I can. Another way to increase fans is bring down the price of accessing that media. A MLB app for the iPhone can run as much as $15 while a similar app for the NHL is absolutely free. Which do you think encourages fans more? MLB has a prime opportunity to make its stand in the professional sports world.

Kobe's Reform

Kobe Bryant is without doubt the NBA's most dynamic player. Bryant has won five NBA championships is a 13 time NBA All-Star, and is hoping to add his sixth championship this post season. There is no doubt that Bryant has the credentials to go down in as one of the greatest athletes of all time. The NBA great might also have a spot among the most polarizing players of all time. You love him if you are a Lakers fan, and hate him otherwise. It doesn't help that Bryant has had several brushes with controversy throughout his storied career. In the summer of 2003, Bryant was charged with sexual assault in Eagle, Colorado by a 19-year-old hotel employee, Katelyn Faber. The charges were ultimately dropped, and a civil lawsuit was filed by Faber and settled out of court. Although Bryant avoided trouble with the law, he lost numerous sponsorships and his public perception plummeted. However, as it is true in most cases, if you win, America will forgive and love you.

Bryant then again ran into some minor controversy when Bryant starred in an ad for Activision's “Black Ops” when the game debuted this past November. And let's not forget the Kobe-Shaq feud after the two led the Lakers to a three-peat. The feud ultimately landed Shaq in Miami and Bryant happy again.

Lately, controversy has found Bryant again, who is known for his strong personality and competitive nature. Bryant was fined $100,000 by David Stern and the NBA for a gay slur used aimed at a referee during a game. Angry after receiving a technical, Bryant can be seen on the bench saying the word “faggot.” (A quick note: how dumb to you have to be to keep a camera on Bryant after receiving a tehcnical when there is a long storied history of out burst by him. Part of the responsibility lies with TNT.) GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) was quickly up in arms, and praised the fine that was handed down by the league. Bryant should be praised from a public relations standpoint for his timely response to his fine, and a phone call he made to the president of GLAAD that included an apology. Whether he was sincere or not (and I doubt his use of the word was actually homophobic), Bryant did the right thing to appease GLAAD. This is a significant departure from his public relations before, which was typically remain quiet, then win a championship to erase his transgressions from the mind of the public This time, he is well in front of the curve.