Discussion Leader 5 - Elizabeth Lauten's Turkey Day Posts

(Minute 3:43 - Brilliant!)

Facts:

·      It’s a national tradition for the US President to pardon a turkey each Thanksgiving. The event usual occurs as a live press conference in the White House the day before the holiday.

·      A live turkey is present during the press conference, where the President usually says a brief speech before officially pardoning the bird.

·      As a tradition, the children of the president usual attend the press conference.

·      On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 President Obama held a press conference to pardon the National Turkey.

·      His daughters Malia and Sasha Obama were there. They are 16 and 13 years old.

·      On Friday, November 28 Elizabeth Lauten, communications director for a Republican congressman, posted an “Open Letter to Sasha and Malia” on her Facebook page.

·      The post criticized the Obama daughters for their attitudes and appearance during the press conference.

·      It’s commonly understood in the national public that the turkey pardon is a fun, wholesome aspect of Americana.

·      Lauten was criticized—sometimes viciously— for her post on social media.

·      One Washington Post Op-Ed piece entitled “Nothing classy about Elizabeth Lauten’s criticism of the Obama girls” says, “Expressing such disdain for young girls hardly seems like the way for Republicans to woo women, minorities and youth. Or the way for one Republican woman to stay employed.”

·      Another criticism of Lauten said that she “straight lost it on Facebook”. And the same Op-Ed piece states “Ma’am! Was that a scolding on what constitutes class from the spokeswoman of an elected official as she publicly blasted minors on her Facebook page? Are you behaving with class when you overanalyze and insult teenage girls? (The Root)

·      Lauten later deleted her original post and posted an apology on Facebook.

·      The firestorm, however, still lasted for some time.

·      On December 1, 2014 Lauten resigned from her position as communications director for Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee.

Links

·      CNN (Elizabeth Lauten story) - http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/gop-staffer-resigns-over-criticism-of-obama-daughters/ (stop at 0:55)

·      White House (Coverage of the event) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h-7nxkCm1g (start, 3:00-4:00 and 4:35-5:20ish)

·      The Root (Snapshot of Facebook post) http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/11/elizabeth_lauten_faces_backlash_after_scolding_sasha_and_malia_on_facebook.html

Connection to Our Readings

·      Under the PRSSA Code of Ethics, Advocacy states, “We 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.”

·      Lauten’s comment contributed to the “marketplace of ideas.” Through freedom of speech, she does not have a gatekeeper to monitor—or censor—what she contributes to that space, as a professional or personally.

·      Under the PRSSA Code of Ethics, the Conflict of Interest section states, “To build trust with the public by avoiding or ending situations that put one's personal or professional interests in conflict with society's interests.”

·      The ethical persuasion for PR reps lies with ultimately with their loyalty. Their professional code of ethics claims that their members should hold a balanced loyalty to both the public, to the interest of society and to their professional interest.

·      Lauten’s comments were not apart of a communications initiative. However, because her comments were distributed into the public marketplace, we can preform a TARES test on her social media posts. Was it truthful, authentic, respectful, equal, or social responsible?

Discussion Questions

·      Loyalty is an ethical decision many communications professionals have to make. Whether they show greater loyalty to their client or to the public is a great debate. When Elizabeth Lauten posted her comments about the Obama girls, who was she being loyal to? Her congressional client? His constituents? Republicans? Democrats?

·      Elizabeth Lauten, in many regards, is a private citizen, though she has a high profile job. The representative that she worked for was not a well known member of the US congress. Should she have “lost her job” due to her posts on her personal social media page? Does the First Amendment protect Lauten’s comments? Does the First Amendment protect Lauten’s job?

·      Under the PRSSA Code of Ethics, Advocacy states, “We 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.” Lauten was a media professional. The comments she made on Facebook made a contribution to the market place of our society—or, more directly, to our “marketplace of ideas.” Even though her comments were not a part of a media campaign, she used social media to distribute her message. And, through social media, strong response to her comment emerged. Was Lauten’s comment social responsible? Was Lauten acting as a responsible advocate for Rep. Fincher (Tenn.)? How could Lauten have used her right to free speech and not have effected her position as communication director for an elected official?

·      Can Lauten’s mistake be credited to her age? Or to the fact that she is a digital native?

Born Just Right

(www.bornjustright.com)

Micro Issues                     

The blog Born Just Right is a very personal blog about the life and challenges of a little girl and her family, to some extent. It only violates the privacy of the Reeves family if they do not want to share that information. But, since they are willingly putting that information on the Internet, it is assumed that it’s not a violation.

Kant would evaluate this blog by justifying its creation as a response to a need, therefore making it ethically sound. The act was prompted by a mother’s need to acquire and share knowledge.  Aristotle on the other hand, would judge the ethical standard of the blog based on the mother’s character and what it is she is actually doing with the blog. The mother’s behavior with the blog, for example what she chooses to write about and what activities she exposed her daughter to, are all up for ethical consideration, according to Aristotle.

The author’s journalistic experience plays a large part in the success of this blog. As the case study points out, maintaining a blog is time-consuming and in some cases can become arduous. There is no doubt that the mother’s training helped her in several ways. First, she is professionally interested in journalism and new media as a professor of the subject. Also, her ability to explore and develop her media interests no doubt helped in fueling her drive to maintain her personal family blog.

Midrange Issues

Monetizing the blog would absolutely change its character. It would also change its content. Loyalty is a value that exists on a continuum, according to the text. The loyalty of the blog would shift if it began to monetize. The loyalty would change from sharing her daughter’s life experiences to pleasing her advertisers, either by selling/advertising certain things her daughter is using or by introducing things into her daughter’s life unnaturally just to feature it on the website. In terms of truthtelling, that may be affected as well. To what extent, I cannot tell at this point. The blog is primarily about her daughter’s experiences in life. I’m not sure how monetizing could effect the truthfulness of telling her daughter’s experiences.

In terms of this case study, I do not think it’s ethically wrong for Jen Reeves, the blog’s author, to have reviewed it. It depends on whether or not she had the ability to change facts or details from the case study. If she merely read it, I would say the textbook’s loyalty would still be to its readers and to the education of the reader. Bok’s ethical decision-making calls us to ask if there is another acceptable way to achieve the same goal. It’s possible Jen Reeves could have not read the case study before it was published.  But, if she was not allowed to give her approval, does it truly affect the outcome of the decision? I don’t think so.

Marketing of Jen Reeves’ blog would be a relatively easy task to undertake. As of today, she has over 3,000 unique visitors to her site, her site has a niche market - parents of children with “limb differences”, and her site provides a unique – and free – longstanding observation of a the ability of a child born with a limb deformity. She could easily market to parents, scientists and prosthetic manufactures. The money she raises from this fund could contribute to the overall fabric of the society, making it an “easy pass” for the TARES advertising test. The content of the blog would be socially responsible as would be the use of the funds raised (if it went toward her daughter’s college education or for future prosthetics).

As we saw from some of the socially responsible ads in class, marketing that makes people aware of – or challenge – social norms is marketing that adds considerably to the “market”. It makes the consumer more socially educated, thus able to make a better moral decision. The content on Reeve’s blog tells an uncommon story. Marketing this story could help to improve the community’s perspective of families with this unique situation.

Though the blog is substantial and seemingly has an interested audience, the narrowness of the topic makes it not news worthy on a larger scale. It’s a very niche blog. As a news consumer, I’d be more interested if this blog started marketing or monetizing and raised a significant amount of awareness or money outside of its target audience.

Macro Issues

The Born Just Right blog is definitely new media. Whether or not it’s journalism is up for debate. The chapter talks about the “citizen journalist”. In many cases, blogging is a throwback to journalism’s origins. The chapter mentioned that interviewing was looked down upon when first introduced to the journalism profession. The “first informer” model was the way news was reported. In many ways, this blog is a first informer journalist report. Where else is the information about a disabled girl’s challenges and triumphed reported? The discoveries for this family are news-breaking for people in their situation. The argument can be said that the author isn’t assuming a reporter’s role while documenting her daughter’s life, but I would ask: Is journalism merely the collection – or qualification of the collector – of information or is it the dissemination of information? Because regardless of the way the info is gathered, it cannot be news until it’s told. The blog is original content, something coveted in the journalism field. It’s also adapted to the emergence of social media. With all things considered this blog can be considered journalism in its own form.

            

In the Eye of the Beholder: Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty

Case 3-G 

Macro Issues        

The DOVE Campaign for Real Beauty represents Ogilvy and Mather’s attempt to “cut through the clutter” of western beauty standards. By depicting women of all shapes and sizes they are making a social statement about the widely accepted beauty ideal.

Using the TARES test to evaluate the DOVE Campaign for Real Beauty, I would evaluate it as follows:

·      T - The depiction of “average” looking women is true. The body types, sizes and shapes of women vary greatly. DOVE’s ad showcases that in true fashion.

·      A - The question of authenticity is not so clear cut. On one hand, DOVE claims that due to the findings of their research there’s a need for a “wider definition” of beauty among women. The campaign is an attempt at making a social statement – or movement – to help widen that definition. In that sense, the brand is making an authentic claim about the standard of beauty being too narrow. But on the other hand, the beauty brand is trying to sell products that help to promote beauty. So their claim essential is, we see there is an unrealistic social norm in existence, so we want to challenge that by informing you of our products that claim to enhance beauty.

·      R - It can be argued that showing naked women, in any shape or size, in a print ad is not respectful of tasteful. And to be fair, the DOVE ad did not show women completely naked. They were in their underwear. I think this is a matter of taste. Could they have pulled of the same effect if the women were in a t-shirt and jeans? Was is necessary for the women to be in their underwear? Is body shape/size alone the only factor women consider when measuring beauty?

·      E – The equity of this ad is hard to be determined. One way to look at  it is to reason that depicting more photos of “real women” will improve the overall consciousness about beauty. But, how true is that concept? Does seeing another women of a similar body type as your own improve your view of your own beauty, or of hers? Does this ad actually widen the definition of beauty? If so, then both the receiver of the information (real women) and the company (DOVE) are on an equal playing field.

·      S – For this example, we look at the social responsibility of this ad as to whether the public relations advocacy impedes or contributes to the robust function of the marketplace of ideas. I would say that this ad is social responsible because if contributes critical social commentary to the modern marketplace concerning women and beauty.

The role of authenticity when it comes to beauty products is a little confusing. But, I would say that beauty is such a core belief in the larger society, that the claim that states: “you will look better” then you “actually do”, isn’t completely untrue. This depends on the product…and the use of that product. But if you are considering facial cleansers, the claim that washing your face will make you look better then not washing your face is true, and the suggestion to use a certain product to wash your face with isn’t an unrealistic suggestion.  The question of authenticity comes down to this: are you promoting this product with the “right attitude?” Also, is there a sincere need for this product? Because, let’s be honest, in our market there are numerous facial cleansers and various types of beauty agents all claiming to produce similar results to your beauty.  Advertisers have to be careful when phrasing claims about their products. In the case of DOVE, their campaign was clever. It peeked the social consciousness and charged us to question our ideals. In this case, I would say authenticity was fairly met.

Midrange Issues

The claim that the DOVE campaign is an example of ethical advertising is a fair one. It most likely stems from DOVE’s extensive market research and critique of its audience. The praise can also be derived from the campaign’s delivery. The approach of challenging – and critiquing – a social norm proved to fair well with the masses. Realistically, women know that they do not look like the models in magazines. DOVE was able to communicate this insecurity by offering a solution not a product – namely, social change. What they described as a “wider definition of beauty”. There campaign tackled a common issue in a new way, instead of offering to help average women elevate their level of beauty by purchasing a product, they suggested that their product celebrated the beauty they already possessed – thereby helping to redefining the social standard.

DOVE chose not to feature the stereotypical model when creating this ad.  That was a purposeful choice. They wanted to feature something different. Ethically, there isn’t a stereotypical concern about using the image of an “average” woman.

The ad’s creator was loyal to their belief that beauty comes in all shapes, ethnicities and sizes.

Macro Issues

Ads are tied to self esteem and body image issues for many women. Since the women depicted in ads are in peek physical condition and are made up to be extremely beautiful, this can cause low self esteem in average women. Eating disorders are a direct result of a girl/women opinion of beauty and of herself. Ads are probably the most influential agent in forming a women’s standard of beauty – because they are lasting. An image in a movie or TV show can be not as easy to remember, but the image in a still photo can be remembered a longtime.

The stance of widening the definition of beauty is a clever approach. DOVE does not claim to redefine it. I think that’s a key element in their campaign. As the population gets older they will see their outer appearance change. DOVE’s campaign challenges you to accept beauty on different terms – terms that look more like real life. I don’t think DOVE was thinking about an aging population, but their message can surely serve that purpose as well.

Ethically, DOVE probably thought about what age range they wanted to depict when showcasing “real women”. The issue may not have been as widely accepted if it was a teen campaign or for that matter an older woman campaign. By choosing women who were in the 20’s and 30’s DOVE played to their target population, but also a larger audience that accepted their kick at a social standard of beauty.