Everyone has their truth

It’s difficult to choose between my classmates blogs, so many interesting insights; also I really enjoyed our discussion at class. Even thought I could be agree or disagree with some of the points of view of some of them, I respect all opinions. I decided to comment on the blogs written by Cecilia, Joel,Melissa, Michael and Priscila. 

“P.R.’s Identity Crisis” by  Cecilia Lopez-Abitang ( January 28, 2012)

In Cecilia post “P.R.’S Identity Crisis"  ( January 28, 2012) she talked about the issue PR firms representing dictatorship, she mentioned that Corbertt pointed out that PR people have to think about work and promote a government that did not offer freedom for their own people. She stated that since she born in the Philippines, during the government of Ferdinand Marcos, a dictator whose reign of terror was comparable to despots worldwide, she considered that a PR agency should not promote a government that torture, kill and where media people were jailed.

I am 100% agree with her. Perhaps since my current president is kind a modern version of  a dictator, the only different is that he changed the law to convert illegal actions in legal, I must add, I could not understand that someone involve in the media and communications world  would even considerer  work for someone that not afford any kind of freedom for their own people. Sadly sometimes is a lot of money involve, and there is when personal ethic values could succumb for another loyalty.

In brief, Cecilia considered a good idea  to keep the eyes open and watch carefully the actions of PR practices and practitioners, mostly if there can influence and change the image of  tyrannical governments, inside and outside the country involve. “ If other industries have stringent code of ethics, rules and regulations, then it is likewise necessary with the P.R. industry where communication is used to influence and sway people's opinions”. 

“Secret, Secret, I’ve Got a Secret…” by Joel Clark Matson (January 13, 2012)

In his second blog Joel talked about secrets, and how they can harm relationship, if they are release to they public that maybe don’t need  to know, but probably they want to know. Joel stated that in our times, its really difficult  to keep away secrets from the eye of the public.

“In today’s world those processes are much more difficult to achieve given the ubiquitous recording devices that have instant access to the Internets. For example the release online (already pulled from here on YouTube but still up here) of the video of Marines in Afghanistan urinating on the bodies of three militants came at a time of a very sensitive relational process between the United States and representatives of Mullah Omar of the Taliban. That released material could only serve to damage that process and the nascent relationships arising from it. Should it have been kept a secret? In my opinion yes, since its release was only intended to inflame passions, destroy relationships, and disrupt movement towards peace”. Joel argued.

I’m in general agree with Joel, probably that information should keep at the “secret expedients” of the government, but also I can’t help to think, if that acts of the marines is not accord with the right behavior that is expect from one official of the United States, would be better if nobody knows what they did, and more important, why? was unethical to record the incident or the act itself. I am not and expert in military or wars, but I can imagine that be in hostile situation, when in any second you can lose your life should be a detonate for emotional response, since the marines are humans beings, but Is it that reality something the public need or want to know? or going forward, have the public the right to know the horrors that happened in one war? I think partially they need, probably a large group of the public want and lately the have the right to know.

Thus they have to know why the marines did that, but not just the final action. Wars are not fun, it isn’t like a videogame, there is a lot of stress, fear, blood, mud, and not always the good guy wear the white hat. 

“Cyber Bullying..the New Terrorist?”  By Melissa Valerio ( February 3, 2012 )

In Melissa’s blog about cyber bullying, and talk about the tough decision of Steve Pokin about rather mention the names of the Megan’s neighbors or not in his story. First that all Melissa argued that Pokin thought that omitting the names was a simple matter. I am completely disagree about that, since he consult with his editor, lawyers, and probably some coworkers, it’s seems to me that was a difficult ethical making decision for all of them.

Also, she established that she is agree with the Post decision to post the name of the people involved in the case of Megan.  

“I agree with the Posts decision to post the names of the people involved in this heinous crime. Why should they be protected? The public has the right to know what happened and who caused this to happen. The minute that Lori Drew wrote the first message to Megan she was committing a crime. “

I’m not sure how Pokin could know that Lori wrote all that means messages to Megan, and since after the investigation the authorities did not find that any law was broke, how can be considered that they were committing a crime? Let me be clear I’m not saying that I consider that the neighbors did not do a wrong and perhaps an immoral act, but since the current laws are no clear about cyber bullying, I think that was not an easy decision to put their names or not.    

“Tortilla with Cheese, Meatand Vegetables” by Michael Dominguez ( January 27, 2012 (

In Michael’s blog, titled Tortilla with Cheese, Meat and Vegetables he argued that a government that could be categorize like a dictatorship, didn’t need hire a PR firms, since the control the communications and military.

“I digress - really, a dictator doesn't need a PR campaign: that's why he has propagandists and a military, to boot”.

Also he stated one person who works for dictator must be insane, but also they probably just are looking for money.  

“Finally, a note on the practices that are being researched by the FTC and the PRSA - I am personally in hysterics for the first one: If someone chooses to align themselves with a dictator, they've already got a couple of screws loose, but on the other hand, it's just a business with a poor sense of ethical theory taking whatever job they can scrounge up”

I have to say about the first statement that since PR’s strategies born from the propaganda, I think that modern dictator don’t just need, they probably have to hire a PR firm. Modern and old styles of dictatorship need to “sale” their project to the domestic “buyers” and also for foreign stakeholder, that in order to maintain control over the country. The only different between democratic politicians and a tyranny is perhaps is harder for the PR people to sale a good image of the last ones.

That is why I think that is definitely a good news when you know that the FTC and the PRSA are keeping the eyes open and watching the practices of the PR firms and that matters. Sometimes, with the help of a good PR campaign, a tyrannical government tortilla with just authoritarian cheese and zero freedom may look very appetizing.  

 

 “A picture tells it's own story” by Priscila Pauta ( January 22, 2012 )

In the blog wrote by Priscila “A picture tells it's own story” she talked about the Case “Visualizing September 11” .The ethical issue is about a well known photographer who took a picture right after the 911 attack. The picture showed a man falling from the tower, which was used for many headlines. He got a lot of complaints from people who believed that what he did was morally wrong.

She argued that was action was morally right, since that image show an horrible scene that happened and perhaps helps some people to perceive what is wrong in our planet and do something about it.

  “In this case, Benthams utilitarianism theory is proven, where the ethical philosophy follows the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, interconnecting the theory, and Codes of Ethics the National Press Photographers Association follow. Taking the picture was a necessary thing to do, it is in accordance with his views and ethics, therefore,  it was morally correct”

I’m kind of agree with her, but I was wondering if another picture could cause the same effect as well, without revealing a potential identity of one poor man who lost his life at that fateful day. Also, during my research for my final project I could notice that a lot of photography’s that won a Pulitzer do reference a tragically and even mortal moments of human beings. So we should ask ourselves, that photos that won awards are piece of information that we needed or wanted to know?