By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

1. My friend and colleague Denise O’Berry, down in Floria, was born to blog. She’s a natural-born connector and networker. I stopped counting the times I got mentioned in some relatively obscure publication and got a clip of the article postally mailed to me with a personal note and Denise’s business card–and this was loooong before I met her in person two years ago. So it shouldn’t surprise me that Denise has put together a wonderful directory of business blogs. Now I just need her to set up an ethics category so I don’t have to try to shoehorn my own blog into one of the existing categories, none of which are quite right for this hybrid beast I’ve created.

2. More and more bloggers are functioning as journalists–but unlike professional journos, we are self-directed, in most cases have no direct supervision (e.g., a boss), and aren’t necessarily schooled in getting the story behind the story, knowing what’s true and what’s rumor, and how to behave responsibly. (Of course many bloggers do have journalism training and experience, including me–but many do not, and there have been consequences).

Cyberjournalist.net has jumped into the breach with a Blogger’s Code of Ethics. I quote it in full here:

Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:
• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

As the moving force behind the Business Ethics Pledge, I welcome this, of course. Maybe some of the ethical bloggers will find their way to the Pledge.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, General Commentary, Uncategorized

A few quotes from Robert J. Shillman, Chairman and CEO of a phenomenally successful company, Cognex Corp. of Natick, Massachusetts–as interviewed in the April 10 Wall Street Journal by Joann S. Lublin.

We never paid starting bonuses. It’s morally corrupt.

The most important thing the package includes is a great place to work. [And] I am going to give you a bonus and options package that will hopefully make you a multimillionaire someday. If you are coming for the short term, I don’t want you here.

The 15-year perseverance award is a trip for you and your spouse to one of the wonders of the world, like the Great Wall of China. All you do is show up. You get $1,000 in spending money and an extra week vacation.

For 25 years’ service, we set up a charitable-gift account and make the employee the trustee. We put $25,000 in, and they can contribute it to any IRS-approved charity anytime in any amount. I want them to feel the joy of giving…How many people get to be a philanthropist? Most people never give away $25,000 in a lifetime. I care more about morale below the top.

Remarkable from anyone. Particularly remarkable from the CEO of a very profitable technology company. The whole article is full of wonderful stuff about his attitude toward employee and executive compensation, and how his goal in starting the company was to make a difference in the world. It’s not just rhetoric, either. When he felt he had enough “toys” in his life–“So I’ve been able to go out and buy a big house, fast cars and some pieces of art. I also have donated more than $17.5 million worth of shares to charitable causes”–he stopped taking compensation and has his substantial package donated to charity.

All I can say is “Wow!” and “Bravo!” Somehow I don’t think we’ll see him in court facing ethics violations changes any time soon.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Uncategorized

How much more evidence to we need? Every time I turn around, it seems there’s another revelation about lies told to the American public by this corrupt and incompetent administration. Now, the Washington Post reports that the government knew all along that those two trailers it found in Iraq, and used to belatedly justify the invasion, had nothing to do with biological weapons production.

If ever there was an argument to be made for a parliamentary style of government, where a crisis forces new elections, it would be this administration. With its lies, its finger pointing, its illegal and thuggish tactics (can you say “Valerie Plame”? It seems that GWB can and did when he gave the authorization to blow her cover, according to Scooter Libby), and its very scary politics, this administration has been an ethical and moral disgrace from the get-go.

What kind of scary politics?

  • Going to war without justification
  • Stonewalling the 9/11 Commission
  • Rushing through legislation, like the Patriot Act, that is a direct threat to freedom and democracy
  • Illegally spying on its own citizens, and then trying to make it legal after the fact when it got caught
  • Overturning so much of the progress made on environmental and social issues over the past fifty years
  • Oh, and let’s not forget the deliberate decisions to let New Orleaneans face their flooding city without meaningful assistance, and then to repeatedly deny that they had days of warning and chose to do nothing

    • And we won’t even discuss the whole passel of personal enrichment scandals that taint so many Bush allies

    Enough is enough, already. We don’t have a parliamentary democracy here–but we do have an impeachment process. It is time to impeach both GWB and Cheney.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Uncategorized

    I do find it interesting that there’s so much attention to Bird Flu these days on the part of the government. Especially with all the news stories breaking out (82,600 of them) about Donald Rumsfeld’s extremely lucrative connection with the company that developed it. Rumsfeld has never impressed me as being particularly concerned about human life–certainly not in Iraq–or about doing the right thing (he seems remarkably unconcerned about the torture of prisoners that has occurred on his watch).

    But he took quite a bit of stock in Tamiflu developer Gilead Sciences when he left his position as Board Chairman to take his current job in the Bush cabinet. The stock had appreciated to $30 million worth, so he sold off some shares and took a $5 million capital gain.

    In this administration, one does have to ask if it’s a coincidence that this firm gets to develop the virus drug and sell it to the government.

    And I further submit that this gang of rich rogues is completely out of touch with the needs of working Americans who don’t have a few extra million around with which to wheel and deal.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Uncategorized

    Why do these people think for a moment that they can pull this crap and not get caught? Once again, we see proof that unethical behavior not only gives you a guilty conscience, but when (not if) you get caught, it’ll blow up in your face. Even if it doesn’t seem to be working in the scandal-ridden US government at the moment, it will. Meanwhile, Japan’s opposition party has just shot itself in the foot, big time, by faking an e-mail alleging connection to a corporation under investigation.

    Party leader Seiji Maehara and his lieutenants stepped down after the party’s credibility was torpedoed by one of its own lawmakers, who used a fraudulent e-mail in an apparent attempt to discredit Koizumi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

    The funny thing is I’m sure they could have found some real dirt–no need to make any up. then the scandal would have played their way.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Arts & Entertainment, Business Ethics, Uncategorized

    Business Ethics magazine’s e-mail edition reports that the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre is doing three plays on business ethics this year!

    The trilogy features Garson Kanin’s 1946 comedy “Born Yesterday,” about an uncouth business tycoon going to Washington, D.C., to buy political favors; David Mamet’s comedy “Glengarry Glen Ross,” about a “shark tank that masquerades as a real estate sales office”; and “The Voysey Inheritance,” a 1905 drama that looks at a family’s lucrative business and the attempts by a member of the younger generation to reform the company’s dishonest practices.

    I couldn’t find this on the magazine’s site, so far.

    But is that cool, or what?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government

    I’m not used to nodding yes when US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speaks. But his remarks to a business group in Portland, Oregon definitely resonate:

    But our dream can also be tarnished and diminished by government and corporate scandal.

    I’ve told Department prosecutors to operate with one principle in mind: No one is above the law-not a city councilman, a CEO, or a Member of Congress.

    The role of the Department is not to discourage business risks that are rewarded or punished in the marketplace. Rather, we seek to prosecute those who engage in lawless practices. In this same spirit, we will protect intellectual property rights as well against domestic and international piracy.

    The protection of the civil rights of all Americans is an historic mission of the Department of Justice and an essential element of realizing the American Dream.

    We will continue to aggressively combat discrimination wherever it is found. For example, we recently announced Operation Home Sweet Home, an expansion of our Fair Housing Act testing program.

    This mission includes protecting the rights of those with disabilities and institutionalized persons. We’re also vigorously working to end the modern-day slavery of human trafficking.

    Let me reflect for a moment on one major right, the key political right, the right to vote. Three years ago, when I was White House Counsel to President Bush, my then 72-year-old mother visited Washington, DC and the Oval Office for the first time. My mom never voted until she was 50. She explained that it had become a different time for people of color in America.

    Laudable sentiments, all. I hope this means we can count on Mr. Gonzales to support and vigorously enforce laws that provide consequences for business ethics violations, as well as for HR 550 — The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by a number of Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

    This would provide for voter-verifiable, auditable paper trails in conjunction with the electronic voting screens so common these days–and thus would prevent the scandalously unverifiable questionable results we’ve seen in the last few elections.

    The e-mail I received about it (from TrueMajority.org) notes,

    It already has the bipartisan support of 1/3 of the House of Representatives, and has been endorsed by VoteTrustUSA and VerifiedVoting.org as the “gold standard” in verifiability legislation. Not only would it mandate a voter verified paper record for every vote cast, it would also:

    (1) establish a mandatory uniform national standard that states that the voter verified paper ballot — the only record verified by the voter rather than the voting machine — is the vote of record in the case of any inconsistency with electronic records;

    (2) provide Federal funding to pay for implementation of voter verified paper balloting;

    (3) require a percentage of mandatory manual (by hand count) random audits of actual election results in every state, and in each county, for every Federal election;

    (4) prohibit the use at any time of undisclosed software, wireless communication devices, and Internet connections in voting machines;

    (5) require full implementation by 2006; and

    (6) protect the accessibility mandates of the Help America Vote Act.

    The language in this bill was carefully written with input from computer scientists, disabilities organizations, and election reform advocates. It should be passed as written and in time to protect the 2006 elections.

    There are many politically contentious election reform issues mentioned in the report but making sure that votes are counted accurately is not one of them. Elections are the foundation of a representative democracy, and representative democracy lives or dies based on the integrity of its elections. HR 550 will help restore voters’ confidence and ensure the accuracy and integrity of America’s elections.

    Attorney General Gonzales, I look forward to your public support o this important legislation.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics

    Unbelievable! The goon squad is going after veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, one of the few people in the White House Press Corps who actually still remembers how to ask an intelligent question or engage in critical thought.

    Earth to Planet Bill O’Reilly: do you and your “colleagues” need a refresher course in the First Amendment?

    It goes like this:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    You say we’re in Iraq to to fight for democracy–well, how about a little democracy at home?

    Thomas was absolutely in line to ask why GWB took us to war in Iraq. After all, nobody’s found any weapons of mass destruction, Al Queda had no significant presence there until after the US attacked (though it certainly has one now, thanks to the predictably myopic policies of the Bush administration), and the enemy that had attacked us was thousands of miles away in Afghanistan.

    Bush, who almost never calls on Thomas and rarely calls on other reporters he can expect to ask hard questions (such as NPR’s Don Gonyea), gave a rambling, unfocused, and materially incorrect answer, and then patted himself on the back for taking a question from Thomas. Did he get attacked for this shameful, embarrassing performance? No–the attacks were against Helen Thomas.

    O’Reilly:”I would have laid into that woman, and I don’t care how old she is,”
    Don Imus: “The old bag should shut up and get out. I’m sick of her.”
    Ticker Carlson: “Propagandist.”

    Hey, pundits–the reason we have a First Amendment is that our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of an open press wiling to examine critically the actions of those in power whether in government or in the private sector. Questioning a policy based on lies and foggy vision is a high act of patriotism, IMHO.

    Or perhaps the O’Reillys and Imuses of the world think that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were unpatriotic scum. King George would have agreed with them, but he had some reasons. the ability to criticize was written into the Constitution by these true American heroes over 200 years ago, and thank goodness for their foresight.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Uncategorized

    We all thought this was going to change in the fall. That’s when a spate of stories hit the news about the no-bid contracts on Katrina reconstruction, mostly awarded to large enterprises with close ties to the Bush administration and the military establishment, such as Halliburton and Bechtel.

    Here, among many examples, is a Washington Post story from September 29, in which…

    The officials responsible for monitoring more than $60 billion in federal Hurricane Katrina spending promised yesterday to take a hard look at every no-bid contract awarded since the storm and to investigate the adequacy of contracts the government had in place before disaster struck.

    Yet, here we are, six months later. And the government has reneged. Today’s Associated Press wire story shows FEMA’s dismal failure to keep its word.

    And not only that, but the usual percentages set aside for small (as the government laughably defines them–far bigger than most of the businesses I deal with) and minority-owned businesses aren’t even close to being achieved.

    Whether it’s incompetence or malfeasance, it looks might funky from here.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

    Here’s some good news to start the weekend: The Austin Business Journal reports on surveys conducted among 5000 business leaders in 1985, 1993 and 2001. Looking at 16 different ethics scenarios, both the 1985 and 2001 surveys showed “increasingly positive” reactions.

    There was a negative blip in 1993, interestingly enough. And that was before the big run up on dotcoms, and before the advent of the ethically challenged GWB administration.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail