Ethics assignment 9: RTNDA and Objectivity

* Why do these websites have different approaches to, and attitudes about, the news that they represent, considering that they ascribe to the same code of ethics?

These websites have different approaches and attitudes towards the same subject matter because there are innumerable ways to present, or "frame" a story. The same code of ethics simply insures that both approaches to the same news must be factually accurate. But, the semantics of words used in the article, and the overall ton eof the article have a dramatic effect on the reader. In addition, much can be suggested without actually being stated. Even the headline of the article itself an be either positive or negative, or implicate a certain group. The attitude towards the subject matter is a direct reflection of the authors feelings on the subject--sometimes veiled better than others.

For instance, when the riots in France were occuring last month, Democracy Now! reported "Urban Unrest Escalates in France as Riots Continue", while Foxnews reported "Muslim Rioting in France". Both of these titles are technically correct, while one attempts to draw attention to the fact that the rioters were Muslim. The religion of the rioters as a factor in their "Urban Unrest" is implied by one source, but not the other. These implications are carefully worded so as to be true, but still express the opinions of the publishers. Another example of conflicting semantics is the fact that an article was published indicating that some accomplishments of the war in Iraq had been exagerated. One news source published the story without any followup about what the white house was doing to ensure that those exagerations were not reported as fact, while the other ran an article about how president Bush was "Troubled" by the reports, while not reporting on the exagherated documents themselves.



These approaches have a dramatic effect on their audiences. Those who are on the ends of the political spectrum tend to feel re-enforced by their corresponding pundits. However, if the news were truly "fair and balanced", it wouldn't matter which source one got their news from. In actuality, people tend to believe the stories that support their pre-existing beliefs and reject those that contradict them. The more obviously biased a news story is, the less effictive it is at actually getting news across, and is subject to labels of radicalism.

* What are some possible reactions from different kinds of audience (social class, political affiliation, ethnicity, gender, etc.). If differing reactions to these sites occur, what implications does this have to the ethic of impartiality, as stated in the code?

As ethnic, economic, gender, political, and social class divisions divide our cultural tendencies, so do they affect our receptiveness to news. The ethic of impartiality is, in effect, impossible to obtain. Even an article published by someone who truly has no opinion on a matter will at least be interpreted as having one. This branding of "liberal" or "conservative" with respect to a news source then follows the publishing company, and not only the author.

* To what extent is this code of ethics viable in an electronic medium, especially one that is driven, in part, by advertising?

This code of ethics can lose its validity in electronic media because advertising agencies, pundits, political commentators, and mouthy bloggers are not subject to such codes. Aside from flagrant false advertising, advertisement has a large amount of freedom in the message it sends out. In fact, advertisements are notoriously misleading. The only way a degree integrity can be maintained is if the code is upheld by the major news sources, and that they keep attempting to present a fair and balanced view.

Ethics assignment 8: Sources

Catton's piece sets up the telling of the day the people of Richmond learned of the 1865 fall of Petersburg by introducing the scene as "warm, with a mild breeze stirring the early blossoms". Such a description gives a feeling of serenity and calm, while the reader knows the sentiment is about to change. While desribing the interruption of church services to give the news of Petersburg's fall, the tone indeed changes to one of forlorn. Catton leaves the reader with the ominous realization, that "there could be nothing now but a restless, fruitless stirring-about in the face of approaching catastrophe."


Catton, Bruce.
Never Call Retreat
Doubleday and Co., Inc.
(1965): 444-445.

Ethics assignment 7: Qatar computing code

1. This code of ethics is composed of “dos” and “don’ts,” and mostly “don’ts.” How can forbidding individual behaviors be a protection of the public interests? In what way does the code address the protection of the public?

The forbidding of certain behaviors is a protection of the public interest in that it puts the utility of the group ahead of the desires of the individual. If the so called "don't"s didn't affect the computer usage of others, they would not need to be expressly forbidden in the code of ethics. The code tries to insure that there will be adequate security, copyright protection, and bandwidth for all students and faculty wishing to use the computers.

2. Does the code violate individual rights in its restricting the user’s freedom? Does the code protect the interests of users, too?

It can be argued that individual rights are being restricted by the ethics code. Plus, it doesn't guarantee any rights for the user. However, it must be kept in mind that the user's rights are being superceded by the overall security and equality being afforded to the majority. In ethics discussions, it is popular to categorize rights into three "tiers". The first tier is composed of the right to life, right not to be injured, and those that would worsen a persons level of happiness. Second tier rights are those used to maintain current status, and third tier rights are those rights granted to better one's current situation. If one uses this idea, the computer users rights would be consideered third tier rights, which would be superceded by the right not be harmed (security).

3. Are all the rules detailed, clear, and specific? Is this code reasonably comprehensive?

This code is somewhat condensed and clear, but lacks a bit of depth. It doesn't afford many priveliges to the user, and makes some uses inconvenient. For instance, if atudent is sick, but needs to work an an assignment, they cannot send a friend to retrieve whatever files they may need. The code also says "should", leaving a fair amount of interpretation.

4. How enforceable is this code?

This code is difficult to enforce, since it is doubtful that there is security in the computer lab, and much more so that the computer lab staff visually recognizes everyone in the lab. Also, unless they are able to monitor the network usage of all computers individually, it will be hard to determine which students are breaking rule #4. The last rule is especially hard to enforce, since the school really has no power over what is said, written, or told outside of the computer lab.

5. What would you suggest if you are asked to rewrite it?

If I were to rewrite the code, i would be more explicit about exactly when high-bandwidth applications could be used. I would also ask each account holder to sign a promisory agreement stating that they have read and will comply with the rules given in the code of ethics.

Ethics assignment 6: International Ethics & Economics

I believe it is impossible to determine whether unethical local practices means respect for local practices. This is simply because the way business is conducted at a lower administrative level is not indicative of the morality or ethicality of an entire population of people. I fact, I think poverty has a lot more to do with corruption of public officails than does the ethics of the local population. The manager's decision, however, is not necessarily reprihensible. The line between "expedition" of government services and bribery can be blurry. This is especially true if one makes the distinction among bribery, grease payments, and extortion. In this case, the payments made by the manager are a paradigmatic case of grease payments.

One may say, “Using child labor and demanding unpaid overtime work are normal practices of local businesses.” Why shouldn’t we do the same?

We shouldn't do the same for the simple reason of Respect for Persons (RP). RP is the idea, which is a somewhat culture-transcending notion, that individuals have a certain degree of rights. These rights include the right to life, health, and protection. We don't adopt these practices because we consider children individuals with rights.

If bribery or kick-backs can get businesses moving to best benefit the company, why can’t they be adopted?

Bribery or kickbacks can get business moving to best benefit the company, but aren't adopted. This is mostly because they encourage corruption, and add unfair advantage to those currently in power. In addition, such practices discourage competition, and make it impossible for legitimate business practices to exist. In essence, they are self-destructive to the country that accepts them.

Should the code of ethics for domestic businesses be applied to international situations?

The code of ethics for domestic businesses should not be directly applied to international situations, because many countries would not be able to make a rapid change and eliminate corruption. As long as this corruption exists, companies will find a way to participate in it. It is better to establish a set of "do"s and "don't" that may evolve into a more stringent code of intenational ethics.


The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits bribery beyond the national borders. Is this act valid for American-owned international businesses? What challenges these businesses to encounter to keep themselves clean?

These companies face the challenge of being caught, for one. However, if a company can prove that it was paying money as a form of grease payment, or being the subject of extortion, they may, in fact, participate in these questionable acts. The difference is that extortion and grease payments are more of a response to an offer from a government, while bribery is an active solicitation to commit a crime.

I would propose that a well defined set of rules be made on a region by region basis. Intracontinental countries with similar cultural norms often have similar economies. If we, as the United States, establish a consistent policy to start with, a transition into a more honest way of business can begin. These regulations may be somewhat unrestrictive at the beginning, but will at least provide a basis for further legislation.

Ethics assignment 5: McChina

McDonald's's universalization of its model for modernity is a difficult topic to address. In the Unites States, flagrant false advertising is illegal, but misleading advertising is rampant. It is common in our society to take advertisements with a grain of salt, so to say. For instance, a commercial may show a teen with acne, who after an acne treatment suddenly gets asked to the prom by another handsome teen. This type of advertising implicitly says using the product will make you more popular with the opposite sex. Having visited China for a period of time, I have found that while big issues are regulated by the government, there are surprisingly few rules governing advertising and consumer rights (with the exception of explicit material). This means that companies and ad agencies may have a completely different set of rules which may be unofficial. These may include not making unmeasurable claims, no matter how abstract they may be. In such a market, a claim that eating McDonald's will make you more modern may prey upon the insecurities of a country currently struggling with its own self-image, much like the teen may be struggling with the insecurities of having acne. The difference is that the people of China may not separete the dishonesty of such a claim, and be influenced in a strange way.

Because of our cultural differences, good intention will not ever be enough to address issues cross-cultural communications. In fact, convincing another culture that you're out for their bests interest has been the subject of more than a few wars! These things are not soon forgotten, and affect the company in the future. No culture likes being simplified into a series of icons and phrases. The only thing that can be done in such a misunderstanding is to issue an apology and remove the ad ASAP.

Such cultural miscommunications will probably continue to happen. However, i feel like the best way to avoid them is to work very closely with ad agencies in the host country. Those responsible for advertising in China are much more in tune with the norms and taboos of their country than foregn ad executives.

Ethics Assignment 4: Racism

This exchange of emails can most definitely have an impact on the bottom line for the company. Bringing racial stereotypes into a work environment is a delicate subject initially. Coupled with a condescending tone, and the assumption that it was indeed a minority that broke into JJs car, such accusations are very improper. A person like JJ may be a good lawyer, but if he holds that type of attitude, his ability to communicate and do business in a predominantly black/puerto rican community will be severely hindered.

These emails are troubling, and must be dealt with carefully. Obviously, you do't want to come off as a whistleblower to your boss, but hopefully you realize that such behavior is not only unethical, but potentially damging to the firm. To address this issue, I would have a private conversation with JJ, letting him know that he is doing may be riskier than he might think. Perhaps the emails were meant in jest. JJ should, however, realize the implications of what he is saying, and that they may offend someone.

I believe that you do indeed have a moral responsibility that extends beyond your professional role. However, you must determine if "fixing the world" to this small degree is worth creating friction in the workplace. Such comments are often said in private. However, putting them out in the open creates tension, and is downright disrespectful. For this reason, I would say something must be said, even if lightly, to JJ and Steph. Silence in this situation will not only change nothing, but it may even set a precedent for what is allowable as workplace banter. This is dangerous, as people may begin to test the limits seemingly set by their superiors. Saying something may put you slightly at odds as a "stick in the mud", but it also may win you respect for saying what you believe is and isn't innapropriate.

In this situation, I would use a casual, friendly, and private person-to-person approach to gently inform JJ and steph that their comments could be construed a great number of ways, and that someone may take offense, creating unnecessary tension. If the entire firm were white, chances are that there would be no severe opposition or repercussions. But, an all-white law firm is neither feasible, nor ethical. Because there will always be other ethnicities involved in the endeavors of a law firm, it's important that these slurs be addressed

Ethics assignment 3: Mutual Accountability

Being a part of a group for the WIki project has indeed intoroduced the notion of "mutual accountability". Joint accountability seems to affect different students differently. Is one assumes a bell-shaped grade distribution in a class, chances are that students from all over the curve will be grouped together. In such a configuration, the quality of work that will ultimately result will usually reflect that of the stronger students-- if for no reason other than the stronger students will pick up the slack left behind by the weaker students. This seems to create an unfair division of labor. In our case, i feel like the effect is indeed amplified, since the web-based nature of this dilutes the confrontation issues, allowing some to put in less effort without facing criticism or retribution in person.

I feel that in our particular Wiki, I am doing my fair share of the work by both puttin in infomational ideas and carrying out the plans agreed upon by the group. For a project such as this, the division of labor is very skewed. The project itself is simple enough that the division of labor actually hinders it. One person could finish the Wiki in a few hours. In contrast, having 7 people on 1 assignment causes confusion, while requiring that you ask permission to make changes. Also, not knowing your group members, and not being able to readly communicate with them makes it difficult to asses strengths and weaknesses, which are important for delegation of duties. This could be improved if the assignment had more facets to it. For instance, a project that required research, writing, creating figures, and interpretation. Such a project might stimulate more communication and improve workability of a larger problem by making it more straightforawrd to delegate duties.

Ethics assignment 2: email forwarding

In Case A, the issue is two fold. First, it is unclear whether by sending an email with sensitive information to a representative, that the client intends to forfeit his/her right to privacy. The client may have given the informatin freely, acknowledging that it may be used and rerouted within the company. The second issue is whether the company should do so, even with permission.
It is, realistically, very helpful to provide the necessary information about the account to solve whatever issue has come up. It would be quite a hassle to solve problems without specific(but necessary) information. However, both of the mentioned issues can be solved with proper communication between the company and the client. A way to accomplish this is for the company to include a disclaimer stating that any information sent may be shared within the company. As an extra precaution, the reprisentative should re-iterate this policy before forwarding the email, and await permission to redistribute the informatino prior to doing so. If this were company policy, the client could expect that their right to privacy would be respected, but that they could waive that right in the event that their account infomation can help solve their problem.

Case B involves the same ideas that have been facing the office environment since the advent of the internet. Writing personal comments about an employee and forwarding it can indeed compromise a business relationship because it may be a sort of public slander. Generally, it is unacceptable to spread gossip about a person in the workplace. In confidence and between two employees, however, such actions are unaviodable. The question that should e asked is whether it would be acceptable to say the personal comments in person, in the company involved. Or, if the person pressing the Reply button would also be willing to send the same message to all recipients via interoffice mail. The act itself is not improper, unless what is said in the message is improper by any other standards (i.e. verbal and written communications).

These two situations are weakly related. They both involve e-mail ettiquitte and privacy, but the first is a question of communication between client and employee, while the second is a question of ethical behavior towards others. Both cases do, however, have potential to become serious problems, and should be approached with caution.

The Reply and Forward functions of an email certainly create a less personal method of communication. Being somewhat removed from the confrontation of such communications makes it easier to accidentally slip something we wouldn't otherwise do. Companies should therefore enact policies that would observe the same rules as other communications methods. For this reason, employees must note that email communication may feel more benign than other forms of communication, but it is no less "real".