Category: Media Ethics

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics: General, language, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, media-general, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

Have you seen the infamous Pepsi ad that’s been called “tone-deaf” by progressives, and which Pepsi pulled quickly? Before you read the rest of this post, please write your impression of it in the comments.

I watched the part of it shown on this segment of The View.

Protestor calls for unity
Protestor calls for unity

 

 

And I agree with Whoopi: the message is about inclusion.

Yes, it is co-opting the movement. Advertisements have always co-opted cultural memes. If you wear $60 torn jeans, you can thank the hippies and grunge-punks who wore their clothes to rattiness. For that matter, Bud commercials and Wheaties cereal boxes have been co-opting sports culture for decades (it feels like millennia).

I’m old enough to remember when hijab-wearing women and people of color and same-sex couples would not have been allowed anywhere near a commercial. What I see most of all is a message to DT that we are united in our diversity (and that includes the cops, who are actually our allies most of the time–and which the movement made a big mistake in automatically trashing in the 1960s).

I also agree with Whoopi that water is my preferred drink over any kind of soda.

That Pepsi was attacked to the point where they pulled the ad is much more shocking to me than the ad itself.

But I guess I shouldn’t be shocked. Here in the Blue Bubble, behind the “Tofu Curtain” (not a phrase I invented) in Massachusetts’ Hampshire/Franklin Counties—one of the bluest parts of a very liberal state—those accusations of “tone deaf” are all-too-familiar. Two among many examples:

  • A program in which cops in the schools did something sociable with the kids was kiboshed and the very progressive police chief (an out lesbian who was seen at Pride Day marches long before she became chief) was trashed as tone-deaf
  • Two towns over, several years ago, a production of “West Side Story” was canceled because some people thought the whole idea of the play was racist. I don’t know if they read the script or saw the movie, but to me, that movie makes a statement against racism, just like Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (which has also been criticized for racism, because it uses the N-word—even though it was written in the 19th century when that was the term used and the whole premise of the story is to show the absurdity and cruelty of racism)

It reminds me of the days when the left (my teenage self included) would practically canonize any extreme statement that happened to be made by a person of color or one who identified as any shade of LGBTQ, even if that statement incited violence against innocent people who happened to be white and straight. I should have spoken out against those outrages 45 years ago, but I was just as hoodwinked.

I’m not talk about any false unity of sweeping real grievances under the rug. But I am objecting to the shrill side of political correctness that demonizes the Other without even listening, even when the Other is mere steps away on the political spectrum, dividing instead of uniting and leaving us all at risk when the real forces of repression sweep in.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Eco-friendly, Environment, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , , ,

A couple of Facebook friends (both well-known marketers based in Canada, as it happens) posted a link to an article called “FDA to Crack Down on Home-based Soap Makers.”

Having seen government overreach in such areas as raw milk, I clicked over and took a look. And found very little information. Rather than spend my morning following links on a Google search, I merely posted this response:

But the article says very little about what the proposal actually would do. European cosmetics standards are a GOOD thing, and, as I understand them, would make it far harder for big corps to sell us harmful “personal care” products. Which doesn’t mean this law isn’t overreaching–just that I don’t know because the article doesn’t tell us. Seems like an easy way around this would be a minimum number of bars per year underneath which producers would be exempt. But even artisanal soapmakers *should* disclose ingredients.

Artisanal organic soap bars
Would small-batch organic soaps be affected? No.

Later, I saw another comment from someone who did take the time to do the research; businesses with less than $100,000 in sales are exempt.

In short, this article is an attempt to stir up hostility with a nonexistent controversy. And it seems that Senator Dianne Feinstein is not an evil tool of the personal care companies after all.

I wonder, if we dig deep enough, if we would find some of the big chemical-based personal care products companies—or perhaps an opponent of Senator Feinstein—have a hand in this disinformation campaign. The list of industry giants supporting the new legislation (and thus, imposing tougher standards for themselves) is a long one but it’s certainly not every company.

Incidentally, I’ve said for years that the tough European Union rules on personal care products were a huge marketing opportunity for companies that meet the standards. Whether based in the US or Europe, the first few companies that demonstrate they meet the tougher standards ought to go be very successful in the stores.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, censorship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, propaganda, Psychology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , ,

This may be a new level of stupidity. Murdoch-owned publishing behomoth HarperCollins actually prepared and started to sell an atlas that does not show Israel. At all. Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank are there.

No big surprise, there was lots of pushback when word got out, and HC removed the atlas from circulation and said it would pulp any remaining copies. Even the UK Bishops’ Conference Department of International Affairs condemned the publication as a blow against peace in the region.

The company sheepishly withdrew, saying,

HarperCollins sincerely apologises for this omission and for any offence caused.

But the company is talking out of two sides of its mouth. Earlier, as reported in the Washington Post, it tried to justify the omission:

Collins Bartholomew, a subsidiary of HarperCollins that specializes in maps, told the Tablet that it would have been “unacceptable” to include Israel in atlases intended for the Middle East. They had deleted Israel to satisfy “local preferences.”

HarperCollins has quickly found out that it’s also unacceptable to abandon truth in a volume that claims to offer

“in-depth coverage of the region and its issues.” Its stated goals include helping kids understand the “relationship between the social and physical environment, the region’s challenges [and] its socio-economic development.”

Ummm, hello, and just how do you intend to put the region in context if you ignore the most conflicted issue it faces? Do you really think students in Arab countries haven’t heard of it? Did you really think this would stay a safe little conspiratorial secret just for the cognoscenti?

HarperCollins would have been totally justified in marking the West Bank and Gaza as disputed territory held by Israel, following conquest. But there’s no dispute about Israel being a nation.

This is a time when we all have social media at our disposal. That means it not only should have been totally obvious that this would backfire, but HarperCollins had the tools at its disposal to make the governments demanding this absurdity to be the ones looking ridiculous. If any governments insisted on refusing entry to accurate atlases, the company could have had a skilled social media manager explain why HC would no longer sell atlases into these countries, and create a pressure movement both from outside the country and from those inside who recognize that not knowing geography is a handicap in the global economic arena, and the Gulf states would have lifted the restriction.

Instead, what HarperCollins has done is to eliminate its own credibility. It’s hard to imagine anyone in the future trusting any reference materials from this publisher. Blatant and deliberate repudiation of truth is not a recipe for success in the world of reference books—especially reference books about the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Media Ethics, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This year’s “Shame On You, That’s Propaganda, Not Journalism” award goes to AP reporter Julie Pace, the Associated Press for distributing it, and the dozens of newspapers and blogs that ran the story on President Barack Obama’s decision to consult Congress before going to war with Syria over chemical weapons.

Pace’s story, “Analysis: Obama’s credibility on line in reversal,” greeted me from Page 1 of my local newspaper this morning. Her message: Obama will be seen as weak if his line-in-the-sand on chemical weapons doesn’t lead him to military action.

Perhaps channelling the discredited Judith Miller of the New York Times, who helped drum up domestic support for the ill-advised, illegal, and tragic war in Iraq during the George W. Bush presidency, Pace writes, among other zingers,

President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own “red line.”

The stunning reversal also raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, leaving them with the impression of a U.S. president unwilling to back up his words with actions.

If you ask ME…

  1. The President is constitutionally required to get Congress’s permission. Even G.W. Bush did so, though based on a tangled web of fabrications, untruths, and misleading statements.
  2. It is fairly clear that chemical weapons were used in Syria, and that is definitely not acceptable. However, there’s been quite a bit of speculation about who actually used them. Here, for example, a Congressman in Obama’s own party expresses skepticism about who used the weapons—and about their use to justify military action. And here, an AP story that speculates the rebels may have been the ones using chemical weapons, in order to draw other countries into the conflict.
  3. Pace makes an assumption that military force is the only acceptable response. That, frankly, is just plain crazy. Why not just send in a small, well-protected squad of international peacekeepers to arrest Assad, and try him? This is not so different from the way the US killed Bin Laden, after all.
  4. If the justification is to save innocent lives, please explain to me how the far greater bloodshed that inevitably occurs in war will accomplish anything other than the embitterment of the local populace against us and their recruitment by terror elements, as has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan—which, not coincidentally, undermined most of our credibility and our reservoir of good will in those parts of the world.
  5. War generally does not solve problems. Usually, it makes things much worse.
  6. In this case, war with Syria runs huge risks of involving Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Iran. Do we really want to create a regional holocaust and the potential for World War III?
  7. Diplomacy and example are much more powerful credibility builders than macho posturing.
  8. Speaking of example, the US is not in a position to throw stones here. The US has a long and ugly history of using unconscionable weapons that disproportionately affect civilians. Examples include the Dresden firebombing against German civilians and the use of atomic bombs against Japanese civilians during World War II, Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam (aren’t those chemical weapons?), and depleted uranium in Iraq.

Lastly, which part of Obama’s noncredibility do we want to focus on? Is it the red line in the sand about chemical weapons that Pace focuses on—or the deeper issue that even she mentions later in the article?

Obama could make good on the promises he made as a senator and presidential candidate, when he called for restraint and congressional consultation by White House’s seeking military force. And with the American public weary of war and many opposed to even modest military action against Syria, Obama could share with Congress the burden of launching an attack.

To me, he started losing credibility when he failed to make good on those promises of peace for which he was elected. He has proven himself a war hawk, a lover of the Bush-era NSA spy apparatus, an enabler of torture and false imprisonment at Guantanamo, a suppressor of dissent, and  unworthy of my trust. If he tries to be a Boy Scut about his promise of retaliation if chemical weapons are used, he breaks those earlier, more crucial promises yet again.

Barack Obama is still an improvement over Bush, but it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Shocking:  at least 13 times during the administration of George W. Bush, various US embassies abroad were attacked—with fatalities in several instances. This number excludes the US Embassy in Iraq, which was attacked frewquently—I checked two of these, chosen at random, and both were easy to verify.  13 or more terrorist attacks on US embassies from 2002-2008, many of them with far more dire consequences than Benghazi: 36 people dead (including nine Americans) in one attack, in Saudi Arabia; 16 in another—one of two in Sana’a, Yemen (there were also two in Karachi, Pakistan. And George W. Bush, according to the article, did nothing to boost embassy security after these terrorist attacks.

Yet somehow, those who have been vilifying Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice over this were strangely silent. No outrage from the likes of Lindsay Graham and John McCain when a Republican, even an unelected one, was at the reins. Democrats were quiet too. They actually believe their own rhetoric about defending our president in times of crisis, even when he’s wrong.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. After all this is the same Republican crowd that fiddled while His Imperial Delusional Majesty burned up the Bill Clinton budget surplus and replaced it with soaring debt and massive deficits stemming from his two illegal and immoral wars, from corruption, and from giveaways to corporations that didn’t need them, at the expense of the safety net—but turned into deficit hawks and affordability watchdogs the moment Obama took office. And why does the media give these clowns a platform, under the circumstances?

I certainly have my issues with Obama, and have criticized him often in this space and elsewhere. But we all need to call attention to the blatant Republican hypocrisy on this and a host of other issues. Let’s be fair, people!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Diversity, Media Ethics, Publishing Tagged with , , , , , ,

Is this crazy? The News Journal, Wilmington, Delaware’s Gannett-owned major newspaper, offered blogger Kristopher Brooks a reporter job. He blogged about it. And the paper withdrew the offer—before Brooks even started work.

The termination came just one day after Jim Romensko, whose blog is must-reading in the journalism world, posted a story about it.

As both a business ethics expert and as a journalist/blogger who has been writing news and features for more than 40 years, I heard the story and looked at the press release (linked above). It was a bit over the top and certainly at odds with the mainstream journalism pretense of objectivity.

But cause to withdraw the offer? Not even close. One presumes that they knew going in they were getting an outspoken, opinionated *blogger* who would be quite likely to do something like that. They didn’t hire a straightlaced just-the-facts reporter. So unless they told him upfront, don’t blog about this or run it by us before you post, from a business ethics viewpoint, they crossed the line by withdrawing the offer.

From the view of the suits who run the paper, I totally understand why they wouldn’t want a perceived “loose cannon” or someone with that big an ego running around and injecting himself into the stories he writes. For every Hunter Thompson or Tom Wolfe who injects himself into the narrative, thousands of mainstream reporters toil in near-anonymity, writing pieces that only a seasoned analyst would be able to recognize as theirs—that’s what journalists are trained to do.

But if that’s what the paper was looking for, the editorial team that hired him should have run both sides of Brooks—the anonymous mainstream reporter and the flamboyant blogger—by the suits before making the offer. Once the offer was made, it should have been honored, barring a much more outrageous violation of journalistic norms (like being discovered making up sources).

Also—I say this without any knowledge of the paper’s diversity and hiring practices, just wondering out loud—I do wonder if a white reporter would have received the same treatment.

The stated justification (I’d call it an excuse) was that Brooks used the paper’s logo and quoted his offer letter without permission. If you believe that, I’ve got a nice antique bridge to sell you across the East River between Brooklyn and Manhattan. All they would have had to do was call him and ask him to take down the logo and not quote the offer. The first would take about 20 seconds, the second, a few minutes of changing quotes into paraphrases.

Wearing my journalist hat, I went and had a look at the rest of Brooks’s blog. Not surprisingly, he frequently lifts logos and other materials, as he comments on them—so the paper does not have any plausible excuse about not knowing he would use the logo. This is very common occurrence in the blogosphere; many bloggers comment on other news stories, and using a graphic element from the original story happens constantly. As a blogger (‘scuse me while I switch hats), I’m commenting on a story right now. It’s not my style to borrow the masthead where the story appeared, but really, is there a qualitative difference? In the blogosphere, use of a logo does not imply endorsement by the owner of the logo, so what’s the big deal?

Brooks also blogs frequently on the stories he covers as a journalist, and his role in them. Gannett cannot use the excuse of ignorance. Any competent hiring committee would have looked at the blog during the evaluation process.

Want more on blogs vs. traditional journalism? In my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet, I discuss business ethics, out-of-the-box public relations, blogs, and the new journalism climate ion some detail.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, National Conference on Media Reform, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Publishing, Social and Economic Justice, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Oregon judge ruled that blogging is not protected as journalism under the state’s journalism shield law. If allowed to stand, this sets a truly terrible precedent.

Here’s what the law says:

No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by … a judicial officer … to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

Notice—there is nothing here about working for a recognized mainstream media outlet. By my reading, a guy in a clown suit standing on a milk crate in the park and haranguing a crowd of random passers-by would not have to disclose sources.

Yet here’s what U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez wrote:

. . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law

Hello! Since when does being a journalist require working for mainstream media? This country has a history of independent writers serving a journalistic role going back to those 18th-century “bloggers” Tom Paine and Ben Franklin—those guys didn’t write for the London Times, but started their own publications. Are you going to tell me that Daily Kos, Huffington Post, RedState, Drudge Report, Washington Spectator, and even the legendary I.F. Stone’s Weekly of the 1950s and 1960s have no place in the world of journalism? That the thousands of indy-media-istas who attend the National Conference for Media Reform are spitting in the wind?

And meanwhile, investigative blogger Crystal Cox is facing a $2.5 million judgment because she would not disclose her sources. Out-bloody-rageous!

Shame on you, Judge Hernandez!

Abraham Lincoln said, “It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest.” I am protesting. And I hope voices with more clout than mine, such as FreePress.net, the National Writers Union, Authors Guild, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, National Coalition Against Censorship, and opinion journalists working for mainstream media (like Rachel Maddow) jump in and protest as well—with amicus briefs filed for the appeal.

 

Kris Miller Law is a respected and trusted  criminal defense attorney ready to help you with your legal needs.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Right-wing bloviators spewing bile and calling it “news” have been a fixture on the political scene for quite a few years now. And they’ve had influence far beyond the numbers of “true believers.”

While it’s hard to understand why anyone would pay attention to these mouthy masters of misrepresentation (take that, Spiro Agnew!), we see their influence in the raucous but marginal Tea Party gatherings, in the intransigence of the “Party of NO” in moving any policy agenda forward, and in such incidents as the forcing out of the amazing Van Jones as Obama’s Green Jobs advisor and the defunding of a national community organizing group based on the actions of a couple of idiots (even though most of those approached in the sting refused to go along)–by that logic, we could have defunded Congress centuries ago.

So it’s with gladness that I report that as soon as it became obvious that the widely circulated video of black official Shirley Sherrod making what sounded out of context to be racist remarks–and which forced her unwilling resignation–turned out to be just the opposite–a story of how she overcame her internal racism and did the right thing to help a white family–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made a public apology and offered her a job again.

The hatemongers lose this round. Now…how aobut revisiting the Van Jones incident.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

It’s really hard to imagine that anyone could take seriously the nonsense—make that the total falsehoods—spewed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It would make for good humor, except that people believe these shameless harlots who have dedicated their lives to the service of corporate greed and gratuitous attacks on progressives (or even liberals).

Limbaugh has crammed his foot even farther down his mouth than usual a few times lately. Two examples: He blamed environmentalists for the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and he blamed the United Mine Workers of America for failing to head off the 29-fatality disaster at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia.

Let’s look at the Massey case. Talk about blaming the victim: Early in his career as CEO of Massey, Don Blankenship broke the back of the UMWA by refusing to honor the industry agreement and demanding that the union bargain individually with Massey’s 14 subsidiaries. This was 1984, during the notoriously anti-union presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Thus, Upper Big Branch, like many Massey mines, is non-union. The union has tried to organize there repeatedly. And the government has repeatedly cited the mine for safety violations, closing it 61 times in the 15 months preceding the explosion.

Now, the really interesting part: According to “How King Coal Killed the Union Man,” by Lauri Lebo, published in the May 15 issue of the Washington Spectator union mines are far, far safer than nonunion You need to be a subscriber to read the article, so let me summarize some of the findings:

  • 254 of the 284 miners killed in the US since 2002 were in non-union mines
  • 25 percent of American miners belong to the UMWA, but union members accounted for only 11 percent of fatalities
  • Safety inspectors at union mines have the power to shut down mines operating unsafely; in non-union mines, the inspectors are absent, and workers can be fired for calling for inspection
  • Even without an on-site inspector, Upper Big Branch was cited by the Mine safety and Health Administration for safety violations 639 times from january1 2009 to April1 2010, but Massey uses a funky procedural maneuver to block meaningful sanctions

    How does Limbaugh sleep at night? He is a propagandist, not a journalist

    • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Media Ethics, media-general, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with ,

    My friend Peter Shankman solicited comments from PR practitioners about Tiger Woods’ apology scheduled for later today, and the fact that reporters will not have access to him during the event; they’ll actually be in another building.

    This drew lots of comments on Tiger but basically none other than Peter about how the media will play this. The media, by accepting the unacceptable terms of Tiger’s event-scripting, becomes complicit. If they said, “Hey, Tiger, it’s great that you want to apologize—and if you want us to cover the apology, you have to take questions, or else we’ll sit this one out,” you might have some real give-and-take. But the media has been awed by celebrities and cowed by the access question for too long (look at the unquestioning coverage of GW Bush and the run-up to the Iraq war as another example)—and they’ve forgotten that their mandate is not to unquestioningly amplify PR flacks’ scripts, but to dig deep and find the real story.

    I’ve written two books on business ethics and blog frequently on media ethics, and I think that if the media is going to play the role of enabler of bad behavior, the media must share the blame that the real story doesn’t get told. It is the media that certified Tiger as someone worth paying attention to, rather than, say, someone who’s curing cancer or solving the energy crisis (like the amazing Amory Lovins).

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail