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