NYC Book Launch of Turn On The Lights 

     “It doesn’t matter what cards your dealt, the only thing that matters is how you play the hand”.  “Turn on the lights: So You Can See” is a self-help book written by Latisha Robb, . On Thursday April 24th, Robb celebrated her debut of her book with a private book release party at Toshi’s Living Room & Penthouse in New York City. Celebrity friend and Grammy-nominated R&B artist J. Holiday, who is an endorser for her book supported Robb by celebrating and performing from his new album "Guilty Conscience". Other celebrities who were in attendance and have endorsements come from award-winning artist “Gangsta Boo” aka Lola Mitchell of Three6 Mafia/Mafia6, and two-time Grammy-nominated Torica (R&B/Pop Artist).

“Being raised by a single mom, I had to read this book. And like

My mom’s story, this story is one of a survivor. One of a woman that 

Just wouldn’t take no for an answer and wanted the best for her and her children.

Turn on the lights! No one likes walking in the dark. Definitely a self-help handbook.

A must read.”

J Holiday performed his new single "Incredible" with a live band "Busy Signal"Onee Gil (Piano), Odane Wilby (Acoustic Guitar), Kyle Penceal (Bass) and J Griffin (Drums) 

     Latisha Robb, a US Navy Veteran, is a strong woman who faced adversity with family and overcame an abusive relationship filled with violence and drugs. In a room full of her friends and media personalities, Latisha shared that this book is supposed to turn on the lights in our minds, "The light switches in this book are my realizations...when a person is armed with knowledge, they have priceless power that can be harnessed and used for the best. "  This book is a self-help book to help show you how to be the light in dark times. Celebrities and media personalities enjoyed the night with drinks by Cayrum and SX Liquors and some good music.

Latisha Robb and I holding her book and a bottle of SX Liquors

     Aristotle’s gold mean focuses on the actor; every special media guest and friend that was in attendance came to support Latisha because this was her night and they wanted to get to know HER. She worked the room talking to everyone, taking pictures, dancing, and enjoying her day. It made me realize how her friends loved her and bloggers, PR professionals, marketers, etc support her. By her thank you speech, her energy, and that constant smile that never left her face, I was convinced that she had had a successful night and proud of what she had accomplished. Mills Utility Principle focuses on the outcome; Ms. Robb’s outcome for this night is the beginning of future success in her endeavors. I can’t wait to see what else she has in store!

“Turn on the Lights” book launch was sponsored in part by Cayrum, T.Morrison Agency, JSquared Magazine, Toshi's, and Egami Consulting Group.

PS: Thank you to my friend Jason at JSquared Magazine for the invite and my dear friend Abby for coming with me!

Xoxo,

Laini

The ethics of maintaining and identifying identity

Source Click here

After reading the article “A hoax, a suicide- a journalistic dilemma” by Roy Malone, Pokin and the Journal were ethically justified in maintaining the neighbor’s privacy because they wanted to shield the neighbors from the outrage of the public. When looking at ethical principles, Mill’s utility Principle focuses on the outcome and that is what Pokin and the Journal did.  Pokin and the Journal called it “a judgment call” to protect the neighbors from the public. If they had revealed the names who knows what could have happened? Although the names were later revealed, by them not revealing the names right after the incident it gave the public time to calm down (a little bit).

While I agree with Pokin and the Journal, I’d like to make a case for why the Post was ethically justified in identifying the neighbor.  To me the Post revealed the neighbor as a safety issue. They wanted the other parents and kids in that neighborhood to be aware of who their neighbor was. It’s like we hear often, sexual offenders are required to register as sexual offenders so that community they live in is aware. It’s the same thing here; the Post was concerned about the ethical principle of communitarianism (community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice).

Source Click here

Of the two ethical justifications discussed above, I find the first (maintaining the neighbor’s identity) to be more compelling. I agree with both equally (maintaining and identifying) but I can see why maintaining that information in this case can be more efficient. As the public, we tend to want to take matters into our own hands sometimes, and if the neighbor had been revealed right after the incident I believe an outrage could of broken out and harm could’ve been done. If something had happened we’d then be feel responsible and hold Pokin and the Journal responsible, which wouldn’t be fair. I agree that things like this that affect the community should be made known to everyone, but I also believe in letting the law take over (even if we don’t agree with their decision). And at the end of the day, we should also respect the families of both the victim and the neighbor.

Source Click here

Another alternative to justify exposing the neighbor’s identity would be Aristotle’s Golden Mean in ethical principles, of focusing on the actor. When you read this article all parties, the Post, Pokin and the Journal, wanted to focus on the neighbor. Pokin and the Journal decided not to reveal not only because of what the public would do but also because they wanted the law to handle it. The Post who did reveal the neighbor, wanted to remind them that even though they were not convicted on anything they played a part in something tragic and needed to be held responsible somehow. By being identified it didn’t just let the public know, now their friends, and family also knew who they were and what they were capable of.  

Companies use ads to tell your secrets

Source: click here

After reading the article “How Target figured out a teen girl was pregnant before her father did” you start to question and wonder, "What happened to the code of ethics here?" This kind of data analyzing is cause for ethical concern. Target is definitely on a “no boundary” movement by prying into people’s lives like this. Even with saying they are “studying those details to figure out what you like, what you need, and which coupons are most likely to make you happy” in the end they are being invasive. This becomes unethical because now you are getting into people’s personal lives and causing problems. This is a happy time for women and they want to share that news, not have Target or another retailer do it for them. They have the right idea in creating helpful ways to make this process easier but they are going about it the wrong way. 

This type of marketing is cause for ethical concern because they are abusing the safeguarding of private and confidential information, like credit card, name, or mailing address. Most retailers save that information to send you deals and update you on new items, not categorize you and start sending you coupons because of what they “think” you want to receive. As a consumer I wont sign up for anything, not only at Target, but anywhere else because I lost trust in the company. By singling out pregnant women it makes them a target and companies should not be singling their customers out. I find it unethical that that’s the one group they could focus on. They could have had ads for just women, women who work out, men, children, etc but they chose a specific group: pregnant women. 

Source: click here

The Target manager’s ethical obligation was to apologize on behalf of the company “The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.” I believed he fulfilled his obligation, especially when he called again after the first apology. Although the manager didn’t exactly know and was confused by the fathers outrage, he is the face of the company and still has to take the blame. The manager showed communitarianism because he knew his company was wrong and there was an angry father/customer out there. He also showed emotion by caring. If he did not care he would not have called back this angry customer. He cares about his job and his customers.

Target’s ad mixing of coupon books is still unethical because they still tried to get these pregnant women to buy by getting “sneakier” and making the baby ads random by mixing ads. If Target knows that looking up your first date on Google or Facebook is “stalking” and “creeps people out” (which it does by the way), why get “sneakier” and let these women believe it’s random? To me, this only means they are fully aware that what they are doing is wrong, which is why they even declined NY Times writer Charles Duhigg access to their headquarters and were against his article. 

Advertisers and PR practitioners are supposed to help build trust between companies and customers: this does not do that. Some more values in the code of ethics for PR professionals are to “protect confidential and private information” and “work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession”. Target used private information to create these coupons, and they lost the public’s trust. In Bok’s ethical decision-making process, Target can find another way that is acceptable to achieve this goal of trying to reach pregnant women. Not every woman getting pregnant is a teen girl who doesn’t tell her father, there are some grown responsible women out there anxious to tell their loved ones, and target shouldn’t take that away with coupons targeted at them because “target knows before it shows”. The excitement of pregnancy starts in announcing, no one should take that away! 

Source: click here

Secrets in media?

Source

What should be kept as a secret? What shouldn’t be? These are two questions I don’t think we’ll ever be able to answer. Certain things should be kept a secret; we have a right to privacy. But then again, when you are in the public eye for example, you kind of waive that “right to privacy” involuntarily. And even then, how far is too far? As a media professional these questions become harder, especially when it comes to ethics. At this point ethics goes out the window.

In undergrad I worked as an RA (resident assistant), I had to make sure I understood what the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act" of 1974 was. FERPA, as amended, sets forth requirements regarding the privacy of student records. The purpose of the act is to give students access to their official records at the college, to provide an opportunity to correct inaccurate or misleading statements and to ensure that records are not released to unauthorized persons without the consent of the student. As an RA I saw parents who were concerned but I also saw parents who were having a hard time letting go or as some called them “controlling”.  Most students come in as adults and should have the right to privacy. This act has also failed some students but has also done its job.

For example, in 2002 Mike McQueary, the then-graduate assistant told head coach Joe Paterno that he had witnessed defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky abusing a boy in a Penn State locker room shower. Paterno informed athletic director Tim Curley, who later met with McQueary and Gary Schultz, senior vice president for finance and business. This information should not have been kept a secret as long as it was. Some like district attorney Ray Gricar, who chose not to prosecute Sandusky in ’98 when these allegations surfaced, make you think that he wanted this kept private. Making this a wrongfully kept secret. McQueary was not the only one who had seen anything; Jim Calhoun, a temporary janitor told co-workers and a supervisor in 2000 that he witnessed Sandusky engaging in sexual activity with a boy in a campus locker-room shower. Later, several staff members said that Calhoun, a veteran of the Korean War, was “visibly shaken” by what he reported seeing.

As a media professional I believe in the right to privacy, but at the same time I believe people should know the truth. And quite frankly, some people need to be exposed.  McQueary was right in coming forward and standing firm. He had a lot to lose when he made that decision to honor his primary responsibility, which is to protect the students. He may have hurt them by opening up old wounds, but he saved one of those kids from doing something like that to anyone else. Kids who are abused tend to abuse.

Personally, I couldn’t use the media to share this type of information if I’m asked to do it just to hurt people and completely destroy families. If I am going to do it, it will be to bring awareness. As a media professional, I think it is a challenge to avoid getting entangled in secrets. You have to decide how much is too much, what should be revealed and think about whom it’s going to hurt. This is an inescapable ethical dilemma.

Communitarianism, an ethical perspective discussed in class, which is about how community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice is shown in this case. This also brings up Bok’s ethical decision-making  question: Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?

The Gym Shoe Phenomenon

Source

Tonight I want to discuss a case study “The Gym Shoe Phenomenon: Social Values vs. Marketability” by Gail Barker from The University of Florida (found here). In this case study, Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan are both chosen to represent Nike’s shoe campaign for “Air Jordan” and “Bo knows”.  Jordan and Jackson were chosen because they had no skeletons in their closet, no drugs or alcohol scandals, and both “family men who are active in their communities”.  These two African-America men were role models for young people, but when violent acts started to take place it was concluded that the popularity of the shoes had something to do with it. The media blamed Nike; for the celebrities being used were not only African American athletes but also they did not promote education.

                

                                                                    Source: Here

                                                                      Source: Here

The Public Relation Service of America is helpful in evaluating the ethical values vital to this case study because in being advocates for clients’ public relations professionals should “…serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate”. With this case Melinda Gable, public relations executive for Nike did a good job at being an advocate for the company. The public wanted some type of proof or even acknowledgement that both athletes were not just about sport but more than that, “’…[Jackson] is a person kids can look up to. He’s crazy about his kids and his wife and family. He’s somebody who has applied himself and came from a really humble background,’” says Gable. 

In this case the Code of Ethics are not helpful in evaluating the ethical values because there is nothing that talks about race “…critics still question the tie-in with African American athletes.” There should be something about what is ethical when it comes to race. Is it right to create all the fuss and have boycotts by associating it with skin color? Its race now, what will it be in the future? Religion, political views, etc.

Two ethical perspectives that might supplement the industry’s ethical code and provide alternate points of view for understanding the ethical consideration are Aristotle’s Golden Mean theory and Bok’s ethical decision-making. Aristotle believes happiness is the ultimate human good, focused on the after (is the person trying to do good?).  Nike was trying to do good by making young kids happy to see their favorite athletes/role models wearing these shoes. Bok is all about thinking of the situation at hand and how should you respond. How you feel about the actions, your gut reaction and a professional way to achieve the goal without raising ethical issues.  Nike responded by a hiring minority vice president, naming a minority as a board director, etc all that to show that they had heard the public loud and clear due to the boycott. 

I think the company developing “Bo Knows School” was helpful in showing the public that they were heard. Nike did a good job at proving that they had not just hired anyone in Jackson, that he really was an educated black man.