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.