New Blog

I am testing a new blog site: WordPress. My new blog link is www.katitaylor.wordpress.com

 Check it out.

Social Media, the libelous law suit that almost & how to stay out of trouble

In case you were wondering, this is a blog about libel. In this blog, I will refer to libel as the “L” word, because as a PR gal, the THOUGHT of someone posting defamatory statements goes against my ethical (and moral) core. Therefore, even mentioning the word on paper makes me cringe.

The “L” word refers to a written statement about a person considered false by that particular person. If what is written causes the person to receive hatred, scorn and ridicule by other people, it might be the “L” word. If what is written causes the person’s reputation to suffer, it might be the “L” word. If what is written causes the person social deprivation because others are repulsed by them, it might be the “L” word. If what is written causes the person to lose their job or not get a job, it might be the “L” word (Bufkins, classroom).

There are three ways to help determine if what was written is actually the “L” word: defamation, identification and publication. If these things happen AND what is written is proven false, it is DEFINITELY the “L” word.

To defend against an “L” word dispute, you can use the statute of limitations, truth, the First Amendment, privilege or consent. First Amendment defense is a slippery slope but in Social Media, it is easier.

Here is an example. Portland blogger Tiffany Craig posted on her blog and Twitter account in June that medical spa doctor Jerrold “Jerry” Darm was “ubiquitous” because of his advertisements. Then, she cited a 10-year-old case against Darm by the Oregon Medical Board, claiming the doctor attempted to trade sex for procedures (Ho).

BOOM – the “L” word. Here’s why.

Craig said something defamatory, identified Darm and published it online. PLUS it was not an accurate accusation.

Craig didn’t research thoroughly, or she would’ve noticed Darm was actually accused of “unprofessional 

and dishonorable conduct” after Oregon Medical Board investigated a complaint against Darm for agreeing to provide free services to a client. He then “kissed and touched” the patient but nothing ever mentioned sex. To avoid charges of defamation, Craig’s lawyer, Linda Williams filed a motion under Oregon’s anti-SLAAP laws. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, suits are attempts to hinder speech against issues considered of public interest (Ho).

Williams argued what Craig wrote was a matter of opinion based on the facts of state medical board records and even linked to those documents within the blog. Since Darm is a very well known doctor in Oregon, his record is important to the public, especially with a record like this. Thomas McDermott, Darm’s lawyer, however argued since Craig was never Darm’s patient, it was not public interest (Ho).

This past September, the judge ruled in favor of Williams and a court date was set at the end of October. However, before the date, Darm dropped all charges against Craig (Ho).

Since 1980, 334 “L” word awards were given against media defendants, however no actual cyber case has gone to trial. Why? Most are considered public forums and are protected as matters of opinions based on “facts” (Ho).

It is very difficult to take a cyber case like this one to trial because many times, it is considered “public interest.” By this, the accused points out social media accounts like Twitter, blogs or Facebook are all personal and meant to announce those personal opinions to the online realm. In this particular case, Craig made an inferred opinion based on truth in her personal blog, so Darm could not prove fault or falsity.

To keep you in check against the “L” word, here are a few simple and easy steps to take.

• 1.     ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, do your research. If you imply something based on a fact but there is not hard evidence supporting your claim, don’t even go there. Reword your sentence if you are concerned it could be considered the “L” word.
• 2.     Know the facts and the truth of the story. Remember, it is possible to lie by omission. The truth is out there, search for it to protect yourself against the “L” word.
• 3.     Finally, RECORD everything. If you interview someone about a scandalous case, make sure you document what exactly the person said. If you have a direct quote that could be incriminating, make sure you can prove they said it.

Staying off the “L” word’s radar is simple, as long as you take care of yourself and don’t jump the gun on a story because it has a twist. With how quickly information is passed along the viral realm, one wrong move could receive hundreds of impressions within minutes. Even if you retract a false statement, nothing ever truly disappears from the Internet. It’s better to be patient, wait for the truth and be credible than jump the gun and spread a potentially career ruining, defamatory, statement.

Sources:

Ho, Sally. "Oregon's first Twitter libel lawsuit." OregonLive.com. The Oregonian, 10/10/2011. Web. <http://www.oregonlive.com/tigard/index.ssf/2011/10/oregons_first_twitter_libel_la.html>.

Advertising and Public Relations: a look into their ethical codes and how consumers blame them for their disappointments

Everyone always jokes that advertising is a glorified version of lying. Ads are all deceptive, meant to confuse the common individual and persuade them to buy something they don’t need. Advertising is dishonest, people say, and is only used for companies to make a profit.

People also declare public relations a profession for liars. Since there aren’t really laws governing what PR professionals can say about their company, they just say anything, regardless of truth. PR revolves around lying to achieve a profit and is not worth investing in or learning about.

It is unfortunate society does not understand or appreciate the importance of these two professions. While there are many folks in the advertising and public relations industry who DO fit these stereotypes, a good majority abides by an ethical code.

Public Relations Ethical Code

Public relations professionals typically follow the ethical standard set by the Public Relations Society of America, or the PRSA, which is the largest organization of PR professionals in the United States. This code provides a series of ethical laws under the themes of advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness. It provides PR professionals with direction and consistency. However, since much of what PR professionals do is write or speak about their company, protection comes from the right to free speech. PRSA provides a series of guidelines for how to act ethically in certain situations, such as when to avoid conflict of interest and how to safeguard confidences (The PRSA Member Code of Ethics).

Advertising Ethical Code

Specific laws and regulations, on the other hand, govern advertising. There are a variety of FTC laws about how much truth is required in an ad and how to correctly disclose information about supporting a product or company. Advertising does have a code of ethics through the American Advertising Federation, or AAF, which is run in partnership with the University of Missouri School of Journalism and Reynolds Journalism Institute. There are nine principles the AAF asks its members and all advertising professionals to follow. These are similar to the PRSA code of ethics and have a mission to “always do what is right for the consumer, which in turn is right for the business as well (The Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics).”

  

The Truth

The fact there are ethical codes for advertising and public relations professionals proves not all people involved in these professions are liars. Obviously, someone, somewhere, had enough of a moral compass to go through the process of creating an ethical code to abide by.

The problem is within the actual society members themselves. Yes, advertising can be deceiving. I even went into a store today called H&M, searching for the clothing items marked “50% off” which were promoted outside the store, only to discover not all items were truly 50 percent off. However, I put it upon myself to search for the truth and discovered it on my on. Advertisers will not always give you the answers; sometimes, they must be searched for. This is what frustrates people. We live in a world that craves everything right now. Whenever a sign or promotion or ad does not give them exactly what they want when they want it, the ad becomes a ‘lie.’ This ‘lie’ then permeates the mind of the consumer and they lose trust for the company or product, and thus the actual advertiser.

This is not fair.

Take my H&M example. Items WERE 50 percent off inside the store, just not the particular items close to the sign. It could be argued it was best for me as a consumer to discover the truth on my own so I could grow as an intelligent consumer. It could even be argued just placing the sign close to the clothing items (although not directly next to it) is good for me as a consumer because it makes me only purchase something I REALLY want, not just something cheap. The problem was not the actual advertisement but the miscommunication between the store placement of the advertisement and the consumer.

Society looks to blame other people for their issues. Taking responsibility is something we have conditioned out of our children and now this is illuminated in present day adults (myself included) and how we blame outside circumstances for our misfortune. It is not the public relations or advertising professionals fault that you did not receive the expected pleasure of the product or company because their job is NOT to provide the experience, but to tell you the experience is possible. The item I desired was not 50 percent off, but another item was. The experience of a bargain was possible for someone, just not for me. You know what though? That is absolutely okay.

Think about all the ads you come in contact with on a daily basis: McDonalds, Nike, Starbucks, Apple and even little places like Denton Square Donuts and Jupiter House. All these advertisements and promotions are trying to convince you there is an experience waiting for you. However, you must consider that you are not always the “you” the experience is waiting for. The world, as hard as this may be to hear, does not always revolve around YOU as a consumer. Sometimes, the “you” is meant for someone else. The cliché “you can’t please everyone” definitely pertains to advertising and public relations.

The moral of the story is this (ha! A pun): advertising and public relations professionals are not all liars. Some are liars and give us a bad reputation however many times, those who perceive these professionals as liars are just a little wounded they did not receive their desired experience from a particular product. 

Check out these ethical codes for more information about how public relations and advertising professionals keep themselves in check -

PRSA Member Code of Ethics: http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/CodeEnglish/

American Advertising Federation Ethics: http://www.aaf.org/images/public/aaf_content/images/ad%20ethics/IAE_Principles_Practices.pdf

WWKS or WWJS? You Choose

What Would Kant Say

What would Immanuel Kant say about advertising today? Well, he’d have a lot to say because he asserted that nothing was right or wrong, the only thing that matters is the intentions behind the action.

So, an ad is only as good as the intention behind the creation. Analyzing every intention behind every ad would take forever, but if a company is really looking after their customers’ best interest (which most companies claim to do) then every ad would be “good.” Imagine if all advertisers thought this way. How would it change things?

If all ads had good intentions behind them, then the public would take comfort in advertising.  But let’s be honest, not every ad has the best intentions for the customer. 

Some ads are created with the intention of selling more products, regardless of the consequences to the customer.  So you would think those companies are acting unethically because the intentions are bad.

Wrong.

Kant would say the intentions of the company were good, because he doesn’t specify whom the good intentions are for, as long as they are good.  The results do not matter.

Lets take a look at this ad:

http://www.thomaslockehobbs.com/2004/04-08-31-01.jpg

This jean ad is more like an ad for sex and definitely doesn’t scream, “buy Calvin Klein Jeans”, it screams...well nothing, really.  What about the intentions behind this ad? Do you think that advertisers had the best of intentions when this ad was created? What about their intentions for the company? Were those good?

Kant could probably write thousands of aimless words and never answer these questions, but overall I think this philosophy is bull, at least in regards to advertising.  Kant probably didn’t make many friends with this philosophy, and neither would a company that abides by the same.  An ad is only good if it works. This moves us into WWJS.

WWJS – no, not what Jesus says but what Jeremy says. Jeremy Bentham.

What Would Jeremy Say

Jeremy would say that an ad is only good if it has a positive result for the greater good. If an ad caused the customer to purchase the product, then all the customers died but the company made the most profit in a decade, it could be argued that the ad was good.

Personally, I think that Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy is easier and more effective means of rating the “goodness” of an ad. Named Utilitarianism, this philosophy allows advertisers more slack. To determine if an ad is good, all one must do is look at how the ad effected the largest number of people. If the largest number of people received a positive, pleasurable experience, the ad is considered good.

Check out this ad: http://www.tomsshoesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/toms.jpg

Almost everyone knows about TOMS. This ad encourages people to buy TOMS, which donates “a shoe for a shoe” and to give blood. Obviously, this affects a large number of people positively. So, this ad is “good.”

I believe this Utilitarian philosophy puts ads in the best perspective. It looks out for the majority. While having a majority means there is a minority not benefiting, it’s hard to argue against something that benefits the most people.

Therefore, I believe analyzing ads with old ethical theories is challenging but worth it. It lets you decide how to best analyze an ad, on your own terms. Companies should look at what benefits the most people, not what the intentions behind the ads are. I am most definitely a WWJS girl.

Need for ethics in media and business decision-making

The need for ethics in media and business decision making

When I read this question, multiple situations pop into my mind: Enron, Watergate, Jayson Blair, all those tobacco companies, even William Hearst and his yellow journalism. To me, that was reason enough to need ethics in media and business decision-making. All things considered, I believed the situations explained themselves.

They don’t.

We need to explain why we need ethics because of these situations. A recent article in the PR Daily said that PR students think they are supposed to lie. Logic suggests that if we let them keep thinking this way, there will be more cases for ethic classes to study.

So, here are many reasons it is beneficial to have ethics in a media and business environment.

First off, ethics is required for social interaction. In every situation there is a certain level of trust that must be met. When you order at a restaurant, you trust that the employee will bring you what you ordered and you trust that the cook will make it correctly. In the business world, companies do the same. They trust their employees to do their jobs honestly because if they didn’t, goals wouldn’t be accomplished. They trust other companies to meet agreements made and they meet their agreements.

Without ethics, companies couldn’t survive. If everything came down to lying, cheating and stealing, no one would trust each other and nothing could be done. There is too much interdependency in our business world – everyone needs something from someone. Since ethics is acting out on moral values and lying, cheating and stealing are against the cultural norm, the companies partaking in unethical decision-making would basically be asking to go bankrupt (I will get into that later).

The second reason is to resolve conflicts. If company A put out ads claiming company B had products that caused death and there was nothing that said false advertisement wasn’t allowed, then company A just screwed over company B. This, of course, is unfair and definitely unethical. However, we only know it is unethical because we know what is ethical. Ethics help make business environments easier to work in and make them fairer. Having an ethical code in businesses and in the media helps employees in those fields have guidelines to make decisions.

William Hearst believed it was okay to tell a little lie in his papers because it meant more business. What if that happened today and journalists had the ability to tell little lies like President Obama just committed adultery. Our culture, which doesn’t approve of adulterers, (see, ethics in work) would be outraged. 

Without having ethics, the journalists making the decision to write that story would be under no obligations to write the truth. The conflict couldn’t be resolved because, well, there wouldn’t be a conflict.

Thirdly, we need ethics because our culture needs some sort of moral hierarchy. Since businesses need the publics to be a business, whether they agreed with ethics or not, they would have to follow an ethical code in order for their product to be sold. Society places a high value on trust (as mentioned earlier). Without really knowing it, most people trust people to do even the smallest of tasks. If the public saw that a company did not follow a code of ethics, they would not trust the company.

The need for ethics in media and business decision-making is of great importance. Without ethics, the world of business and media would not be functional. Having ethics in decision-making, future PR friends, should be the butter on the bread, the parachute to the skydiver, the… well… you get the point. 

What I've learned

JOUR 4460 is a writing intensive, time-consuming class that is excellent for preparing public relations students for a real life job. A real life public relations job is time consuming as well as writing intensive. You have to know your audience, know the best way to reach them and PR communication teaches that. You have to know the best tactics to reach the audience, whether it is a brochure, press release, social media campaign or even just a billboard. PR communication provides examples and knowledge on how to execute the perfect tactic. I am prepared because my professor has high expectation of my work and any employer will expect the same. It was challenging and frustrating. Certain aspects seemed useless and pointless, yet reflecting on the semester, I realize that there is a high probability that I will use almost everything I learned and even if I don’t use it, I will consider using it.

The communication plan was a pain in my butt. I had to work with classmates that I was assigned with and create a strategy that I really didn’t know would work or not. However, having the opportunity to create the campaign, even if it does not receive a good grade, was amazing. It prepared me for working with people and clients that I did not necessarily want to work on but still have to do my best and give it everything I had. I appreciate having that opportunity because I know that when I enter the public relations ‘real’ world, I will at least have some knowledge on what to do and something to contribute.

This semester was a wonderful learning experience that I can take into any job. I can tell them about my class work, show them I am talented and well educated with examples to prove it. I am really glad that I learned so much from this semester. 

Twitter: a push strategy

I spent all last semester under a rock. I had no idea what was going on in the world unless I thought I would be quizzed on current events. Then, I was forced to get a Twitter.

Suddenly, information was available at the touch of a button. Posts would appear telling me what was going on in Iraq, Egypt, or even Libya. I could see what was happening locally or nationally all in one little program. It was brilliant! It pushed me into the sunlight and allowed me to see the world and that I was meant to be a part of it.

Twitter is a lot of things. It is a social network for friends, a news medium and even a part of a new product launch. It will show you pictures of your sister’s kid and tell you about a deal at the local Chick-fil-a. Twitter is all about the giving and receiving information and it is crucial to any public relations strategy. Well, not any. But Business to consumer, Twitter is definitely a wonderful medium for interaction.

The strategy is not necessarily meant for every company or product, but any desiring a connection, a relationship with the consumer should consider using Twitter as part of the push strategy of information. It is quick and has 250 million users on the network. In order to separate your Tweet from the other 50,000 Tweeted every day, you need to figure out what information your consumer needs and how they need it. Do they respond to humor or serious jargon? Do they want promotions or just straight facts?

Twitter is meant to give and receive information. For a public relations professional, it can be a vital component to a communications strategy. Research your consumer and figure out of Twitter can be used as an information giver for your company.