(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?
No comments:
Post a Comment