Public Communication Ethics

Public Communication Ethics

Response a: Profit vs. Public Health (Ch. 7, Case 30, Promoting "Smart Tanning"?)

Potter's Model

Potter's model concerns the individual's relationship within the social and professional context. In terms of the Classic Tan case, number 1, 2 and 5 appear particularly applicable. Those in charge of advertising for Classic Tan are not following their "Duty to themselves" in terms of the Potter model. There is no apparent adherence to the individual conscience or integrity. Instead, blatant lies are promoted in order to ensure a profit for Classic Tan.

In addition, the second facet of Potter's model, "Duty to clients/supporters" is not applied either. Classic Tan is apparently has no concern for its clients or their long-term health. Hence, a number of wild statements are offered as fact, with little effort to investigate the true long-term effects of the company's service.

Finally, the company is also not fulfilling its duty to society. Instead of social responsibility, the company is perpetuating lies not only via public statements, but also via a prominent Web site that promote those lies. There is no attempt to liaise with recognized scientists such as the ADAA.

2. Ethical Theory

I believe the ethical theory that best addresses this issue is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. The imperative demands that a law or action is universally applicable. It is clear that Classic Tan is promoting lies for the purpose of maintaining its profit level. This is clearly wrong in universal terms. A business that promotes lies regarding the health hazards of its product is unethical and should not be allowed to conduct business. The ethics of being truthful regarding hazardous products is a universally applicable law.

In terms of social good, the company is also not concerned with the harm it causes to clients. Instead, it modifies statistics to encourage individuals in the use of a potentially harmful product. While Kant's categorical imperative may therefore appear somewhat inflexible on the one hand, its relevance to this case is undeniable. Some principles are universally applicable, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Lying to clients and society as a whole is not morally defensible, and should therefore be most strongly discouraged and eliminated, where possible.

3. Defending my position

In communicating my position, I would first ensure that I have proven facts. From an initial survey of the situation, it appears that ADAA has more facts on its side than Classic Tan. I would therefore approach them for statistics relating to tanning in the sun as opposed to using tanning salons and their equipment. Armed with these facts, I would then pay a visit to Classic Tan to make a comparison with their figures. I would also ask the Classic Tan professionals for evidence of their statistics, if they have any.

In the event that Classic Tan cannot produce satisfactory evidence, I would suggest that they stop or at least postpone their practice while the situation is being investigated. Rather than threatening to publicize my findings, I believe a better approach to the situation would be to investigate ways in which tanning beds can be made safer for the public. Classic Tan and ADAA could work together to achieve this.

Although this would take time, Classic Tan should be encouraged to understand the irresponsibility of promoting their products as healthy when they are in fact highly dangerous. In this, they are posing a public health hazard, and should be encouraged to modify their products. While taking time to modify their tanning beds for better safety, it is anticipated that the public demand for these services will not diminish. The public should however be made aware of the safety hazards.

In addition to preventing burn, I would then suggest that the Classic Tan Web site include ADAA approved hazard warnings regarding their products. Although this may discourage potential clients from making use of the tanning product, Classic Tan will have the benefit of becoming known as an honest corporate citizen. At the same time, the company can promote additional products such as after-sun and tanning creams, which would promote both safety and health. I believe the best approach in this case would be to promote a mutual understanding among Classic Tan, the ADAA, and the public in order to allow informed choices when using tanning products. Threats to make information public should only be used as a final resort.

Response B: Right to Know vs. Personal Privacy (Case 19, The Controversial Patriot Act)

1. Potter's Model

This case relates to the government and its relationship with a public it is to protect. The public has the right to be protected and the right to knowledge, but also the right to personal privacy. Personal privacy is one of the primary democratic rights. In terms of the Patriot Act, Potter's model can be applied in terms of the fifth element.

The fifth element of the model applies to the "Duty to society." The government is perhaps the organization with the greatest responsibility to the public. It is to maximize public protection and minimize harm. The Patriot Act has however not achieved this. Instead, clear violations of privacy rights have occurred, where law-abiding citizens and immigrants have been treated unfairly based on their ethnic heritage rather than any evidence of terrorist activity.

The government's argument is that it is concerned with public protection. However, one must also consider the balance between public safety and the rights ensured by a democratic government. Innocent people have been harmed under the Patriot Act, while terrorists have continued their activities unabated. This means that the Act has not been very effective in terms of its stated purpose. Instead, the truth appears to be that the Act has increased the government's power to the detriment of the public good.

2. Ethical Theory

The ethical theories that best address this is a combination of Confucius' Golden Mean and John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. The Golden Mean principle holds that two extremes that are both hazardous can be compromized by obtaining a golden mean between them. When applied to the Patriot Act, for example, this is an extreme response to a projected threat, rather than an existing one. Understandably, the government's aim is to prevent any future terrorist activity. In order to accomplish this, however, officials have engaged in many and unnecessary actions, and harmed the public at the same time. Furthermore, the Act has been only minimally effective in its aim to prevent terrorism.

Hence, even though the extreme response was chosen, public harm was maximized while the good was minimized. In a Golden Mean response, the government could have deployed targeted investigations at locations where terrorism is suspected. It could also have implemented a public monitoring scheme, where rewards are offered for reports of possible terrorist activity. Thorough investigations should be launched before detaining anybody.

In terms of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the most people are not being served. Indeed, most people involved are harmed by the Patriot Act, while no terrorist arrests have been made as a result of it. Utilitarianism in this case would require that the government makes an assessment of actions that would bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. It appears however that the country's leaders have served their own drive to more power over individuals rather than truly serving the public good.

3. Defending my Position:

I would use the basic principles of the Constitution to defend my position. No threat is sufficient to warrant the government to violate the constitutional rights of the public. I would then use my position in journalistic circles to stimulate debate around the issues. Because of the increasing power of the government, the press appears to support a singular position, promoting the Patriot Act as a public right instead of privacy, due process, and the numerous other rights violated by the Act.

Furthermore, information regarding detainees and rights violations due to ethnic heritage and groundless suspicion of terrorism has been minimal or indeed entirely hidden from the public. My aim would not be to attempt to extract such information. Instead, I will publicly suggest that the government has been promoting an Act that is in fact a blatant violation of human rights.

Currently, there appears to be a lack of public debate regarding the issue. I would therefore use both online and print publications to promote public awareness of the choices exercised by the government. The public also has choices regarding its response to government actions and how the government conducts its affairs. The government is the servant of the people, and as such should focus upon the promotion of this interest, rather than its violation.

Response C: Media Interests vs. Community Interests (Gatekeepers II: Opening the Door)

1. Potter's Model

The second, third and fifth elements of Potter's model appear to be applicable to this case. News media have a duty to its advertisement supporters who pay the bills. Once an agreement is made and money received to place information from a paying client, a news publication has an obligation to print the information. This is a contractual obligation, as money has been received for a certain service.

This is closely related to the third obligation in the model, which is "duty to the organization." The press has an obligation to provide the public with a wide variety of viewpoints in order to ensure public debate and accurate information. If a certain piece of information is withheld from the public as a result of its controversial content, this constitutes unfair censorship. The general principle of the press is to promote knowledge rather than censorship. Hence, information that could cause disagreement should not be withheld on those grounds alone.

On the other hand, the press in general also has a duty to society in terms of providing accurate information. The advertisement is in direct opposition to generally accepted facts regarding slavery. Hence publishing it on the strength merely of publishing whatever opinion is paid for could be considered unethical in terms of balanced and fair information provision. Particularly, the audience of the publication in question should also be considered. If the audience is for example generally black, one cannot endorse the publication of a piece that could be considered as racist or in some other way socially harmful.

2. Ethical Theory

John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance theory appears to address the matter adequately. This theory requires a social contract among parties that are assumed to be equal. Hence, in the situation at hand, it is advisable to consider the statements made in the publication on the strength of their value when they are divorced from social or racial issues.