Media & Policy Change

This video is about a high school group trying to raise awareness of students’ view on education funding. They are appearing on a local news segment to share how they are disseminating this information ("Pittsburgh Students Use Media to Advocate for Change," 2012). From this video, it seems like they developed only 2 media campaigns: a commercial and a billboard. The effectiveness of the billboard depends on many factors that were not addressed. The message, “Cutting our funding is cutting our future.” is quite memorable. People generally are not opposed to funding schools.  Voters realize that education is an important public good that the government is supposed to provide. That is why the debate over charter schools and voucher programs are so loud and still ongoing. This billboard alone will not change many minds. In fact, it’s difficult to determine both what action it is trying to encourage and whether the intended audience is politicians or voters. They need a link to a website with more information on the billboard. Just one billboard in one part of town won’t reach very many people. This billboard leaves people with questions, rather than answers, leaving them unmotivated to advocate for the policy change.

One of the students said they went and met with Board of Education members. This is an excellent avenue for advocacy. Politicians can’t ignore you if you are in a private meeting with them. I couldn’t help but notice while watching how much these students need help developing their public speaking skills. Fortunately this is a skill that develops over time and they are clearly getting the practice they need. Despite being in a media advocacy club, they aren’t very verbose yet. Focusing on developing media advocacy skills without developing speaking skills is not effective.

In other context, media can be an excellent way to advocate for policy change. This avenue has been used since President Theodore Roosevelt used the media as a bully pulpit ("American President: A Reference Resource," n.d.). Media should start with a real life event and use the media coverage of that event. I have participated in public advocacy since college. After many many years of failure we successfully updated the New York State bottle bill ("NYPIRG ... Bottle Bill," n.d.) We combined actual events like clean-ups and meeting with representatives with media.

If media didn’t work alongside advocacy, the Koch brothers wouldn't spend so much money working to change public opinion about public lands, or the many other places they dip their hands ("State Efforts ... Koch-fueled ALEC," 2013). Media campaigns to change deeply entrenched public opinion must be larger than one where there is already general support, like we had for the bottle bill. Every big lobby uses the media to advocate for change. That is why there is an entire field of public opinion. People are the voters at the end of the day and they are necessary to see policy change.

Public opinion is heavily influenced by media. What we see in the news influences how we think. What stories they choose to run changes what we talk about with our peers. In order to get traction we need to get people to communicate. Lobbying groups use the media to share their topics. This is a departure from the old gatekeeper role of the media as they are now more of the exploited worker. Living in Washington DC, you can see how directly lobbyists use media. There are billboards for defense companies in the metro stations and the newspapers. You won’t see these ads in your local paper because they are directly targeting a specific audience.

Social media is also an important avenue that can be used to advocate for policy change. Since the audience is so large and so active, you aren't as ‘in control’ of the message as you are with traditional media. However, it can be much less expensive to get the exposure you need for your message. Social media can go viral and have a much larger impact. Using social media, you can get people to go do something that has an actual impact on policy change, like writing to their representatives. The actual link between creating public awareness and support and getting a policy change put into action is not always clear. A recent story from New Hampshire really illustrates this point. A group of 4th grade children worked on their civics lesson by having a bill introduced to name an official state raptor (Stern, 5014). They went to watch as it was voted on by the full House after successfully getting out of committee. There was more intense debate and opposition than the teacher had probably anticipated and the bill ending up failing.

In conclusion, there are many great reasons to use media to advocate for policy change. And there are many different approaches to using media for this end. But the students campaign in Pittsburgh isn’t focused on results enough that it will be very successful in doing anything beyond getting some people to think for a couple of seconds.

Pittsburgh students use media to advocate for change [Television series episode]. (2012). In Our regions business. Pittsburgh, PA: WPXI-TV. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1vyskFWjtI

Leader vs Manager

Explain how a person can be both a leader and manager, why communicating a clear vision is important for communication leaders, and how fear and power are interconnected in leadership communication.

I have learned much from reading Denning (2007) and Black (2007) and considering how what they said related to my personal experience. From this I have developed my own definitions of a leader and a manager. A person can be either a leader or a manager or, rarely and in the best situations, they are both. A leader is someone who inspires their co-workers. A manager is someone who drives coworkers and enforces established rules without question. A leader works for change and believes that it can always be better. A manager just maintains the status quo. A leader seeks approval from coworkers and helps and support them.

A person who is a leader but not yet a manager has to be able to convince a higher up to promote them. This should be easy if you have a clear vision. A clear vision is important because without it you are just a manager. Without clarity, you will not be able to achieve the goal. It is easier to get buy in, or support from your coworkers, if you can articulate why it benefits them (Denning, 2007).

What Cathie Black (2007) implies is that a good leader uses their own personal fear as motivation to reach their vision. A bad leader uses the fear of their co-workers to force them to work towards the leaders vision. Good leadership means inspiring others to use their power toward a shared vision.

Campaign Finance & Ethics

This was my final paper for my COM530 Class at Southern New Hampshire University-

Abstract

Campaign finance laws have been decimated in recent years. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC received a lot of attention in the media. There were previous ruling that signaled that the court had been building toward that type of undermining of FEC rules. This paper explores the history of FEC rules and Court cases since the 1970’s. The effect of these rulings eliminated many disclosure requirements previously set up by Congress. Almost all of the spending limits from people and corporations have been changed. Then it looks at how these rules will change American democracy. It examines the effect of unlimited spending on freedom of speech and our right to privacy. The paper looks at the ethical implications of corporate personhood. Then the paper shifts to talk about the personal ethics of the author and of communication professionals.

Democracy is an idea as much as it is our system of government. Americans imagine our democracy to be based on the will of the people. You can certainly argue that our original democracy was imperfect and has been improving over time. Exclusion of groups, such as blacks and women, does not allow for the participation that we now expect. Democracies value political speech over other speech. It is impossible to be able to make a decision as an electorate without information. The courts have used this to justify many decisions about campaign finance.

Citizens United is truly about corporate personhood. Corporations must have some rights in order to operate. Corporations must be able to hold patents so they can benefit from their investment in research and development. There are different types of corporations that are differentiated by the IRS. Corporations can be publicly traded, closely held or not-for-profit. Nonprofits that are tax exempt hold a 501 (c)(3) designation and are regulated differently from other corporations. The IRS sets up many more restrictions on tax exempt entities because they are supposed to benefit the public. A 501 (c)(4) organization is a social welfare organization. They can participate in political activities unlike a 501(c)(3) (Murphy, 2012). A separate federal agency is in charge of election communication, the Federal Election Commission.

The Federal Election Commission was formed by Congress when it passed the FECA of 1971 (Mutch, 2014). The idea that money equals speech isn’t that old in terms of judicial precedents. It was established in the ruling of Buckey v. Valeo in 1976. The court also heard the case of First National Bank of Boston v. Belotti. This time the court was in even more clear in stating that because of the Buckley finding, spending was speech. They disregarded that the speaker was a corporation, speech can not be limited because of the First Amendment. One case where the court upheld campaign finance restrictions was McConnell v. FEC. At the time we had been relying on the Feingold-McCain Act, also known as the Bipartisan campaign reform act (BRCA) for our election spending cues.  The problem was that there were limits on spending by corporations. The FEC allowed spending on certain commercials up until 30 or 60 days before an election. It was not due to BRCA but rather Buckley that there was a differentiation between issue ads and express-advocacy ads. The FEC allowed issue ads up until the election, as long as they did not name a candidate or use their voice. The Supreme Court upheld this as constitutional in McConnell v. FEC in 2003.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a Supreme Court case that will shape elections for many years to come.  The case was filed by Citizens United, a 501 (c)(4) or nonprofit social welfare group. Since they took money from corporations as well as individuals they were bound by the stricter rules of BRCA. They wanted to show an ad in the regulated period 30 days before an election with the name of a candidate, which they knew would be pulled so they preemptively filed an injunction ("Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," n.d.) The court held arguments in 2009 but asked that the plaintiff, Citizens United, submit an additional brief. They wanted to overturn Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. So instead of a strict interpretation that only applied to this case, the court ruling set a new wide precedent. They voted 5-4 to eliminate all limits on advertising. They said that any group can contribute to an advertisement; it was not constitutional to discriminate against donations from corporations or labor unions. They eliminated the Austin precedent that said that corporate donations had unequal weight and could be considered corruption. This ruling gave corporations free will to spend what they want. Now those social welfare organizations can accept unlimited funds without tracking donors. The rules of  BRCA were eliminated.

It is important to note that the decision does say that corporations with foreign ownership are not allowed the same rights ("Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," n.d.). So even though they say that corporations are they same as people, they retain the right to make distinctions between corporations. The justices recognized that our elections are domestic issues that we do not want to be overburdened by out of country influence.

The major shift in campaign contribution rules is not due solely to the Citizens United ruling. That ruling was used as precedent in a follow-up case in DC district courts, the SpeechNow ruling.  They were fighting as a 527 to eliminate donor limits and disclosure requirements. The court found that disclosure had no effect on speech and ruled that in order to act as a PAC, they expected these organizations to file as PACs. After these decisions, the FEC updates its rules to comply with the court decisions. They opened up the floor for Super PACs to accept unlimited funds for advocacy from individuals or corporations. Super PACs can not coordinate their activity with a candidate. However, as comedian Stephen Colbert humorously pointed out, not coordinating is easy (Ulaby, 2012). There are many ways around the rules, a superPAC can hire from your staff, or you can comment on TV that you disagree with a commercial being run by a superPAC.

Since these rulings, the Supreme Court has heard another election contribution case, but no one was paying attention. McCutcheon v. FEC eliminated almost all limits on personal contributions. You can only donate $2,600 to a federal candidate every election, but primaries are differentiated from general elections ("Citizens' Guide," 2004). Your total annual contributions used to be capped. The Court eliminated that problem, saying that you can contribute to as many campaigns or separate PAC’s as you would like (Barnes, 2014). Your superPAC donations are unlimited, although they are posted online. Your donations to 501 (c)(4) groups are not tracked.

Corporations are not people. This is the rallying cry of those fighting back against the Citizens United ruling. This court case really brought campaign finance back to the front of many peoples minds. No one likes the amount of money in politics, except those spending the money. The 2012 Presidential election was the most expensive election in history (Cillizza, 2014). Corporate rights are tricky. We still haven’t given corporations the right to vote. But opponents of this ruling say that the unlimited cash flow will lead to the same results.

There are several questions that these Supreme Court rulings brought up in regards to communication. Does allowing unlimited corporate speech hurt individuals free speech rights. We will also examine the effect of untraced donations on our access to information, or alternatively our freedom of privacy.

The reasoning behind the Supreme Court decisions was that speech costs money. Unless a newspaper chooses your op-ed, you must pay for placement of an advertisement. The most effective forms of communication, like TV commercials, cost much more than a blog. But Sweet brings up a new form of speech that is much less expensive and able to reach a wide audience- email (2003). Political e-mails have their own ethical questions that haven’t been answered.

Free speech was created and is hugely responsible for political speech. Many rules are based on political speech. The question before the court was whether corporate free speech is on the same level as personal speech. “Free speech is a precious freedom, though, and public consciousness of political issues is vital to a healthy democracy” (Sweet, 2003).

Using the utilitarian approach, we must consider if allowing corporate donations, without disclosure, does more harm or good (Velasquez et al., 2009). The elimination of disclosure requirements is a double edged sword ethically. You can argue that eliminating disclosure would lessen the risk of quid pro quo. If your donations are anonymous, you can not ask for favors in return. Donors cite their right to privacy; they should not have to tell the whole world of their wealth if they do not want to.

The other side argues that we have a right to information. Especially with publicly traded companies, stockholders want accountability for where their money is going. The reason this part of the law was even challenged was because of Target. The company faced backlash from consumers and shareholders after it was revealed that they had been donating to anti-marriage equality groups (Middleton & Lee, 2014). It is this type of revelation that corporations are trying to avoid. There is no private equivalent of the freedom of information act.

These court cases that shifted the precedent so far on campaign finance are almost entirely due to a shift in the majority in the Supreme Court. The Citizens United ruling almost entirely reversed the thinking from McConnell from 10 years earlier, when the liberals had an edge in votes. It is concerning that the party of the judges can lead to drastic interpretations of the Constitution. The opinion by the liberal justices disagreed with the very basic premise that the majority opinion was using (Mutch, 2014). Courts do need to weigh in on campaign finance laws with more consideration because they are written by those they will benefit. Congress is now allowed to vote on pay raises that go into effect immediately because they realise the corruption. The passage of BRCA was quite historical, both sides of the aisle didn’t work together much then. It would be unlikely that our current Congress would be able to pass a campaign finance bill that the President would sign.

Ethically, the effects this ruling could have on our democracy were well examined by Heresco who said  “Even if large donations do not lead directly to political

corruption, the appearance of quid pro quo itself has deleterious effects on public trust

and political engagement” (2012). For years, the role of lobbyists in Washington has been questioned as much as campaign contributions. We expect our elected representatives to pay attention to what their constituents think, not what corporations think. This can be muddled when a corporation is the main supplier of jobs in a district. Those who represent coal country do not vote for stricter standards for coal.

He is not alone in this assessment. The book by Roosevelt explained the reasoning the court used in upholding campaign contribution limits (2006). He said that unlimited speech is not the same as free speech. The reasoning behind the McConnell decision was to inject fairness. Limits on advertising simply even the playing field so that all speech can be heard, not just that of the rich. This assessment of ethical standards is not shared by all. Levy and Mellor argued that the courts are wrong to limit spending (2008). As libertarians, they believe that the government should interject itself as little as possible into our lives. They believe that if a candidate has more money, like Linda McMahon, there should not be limits on what they can do with it.

The question is: does any of this matter? Does campaign spending even influence elections? We can look at how much was spent per vote. We can also examine voter turnout to see if the massive injection of funds into the 2012 Presidential election after Citizens United changed turnout.

The Pew center research by Desilver notes the official voter turnout in 2008 at 57.1% and in 2012 it was down to 53.7% (2014). Voter turnout has never been higher. Shouldn’t we thank corporate spending for getting more people out to vote, which strengthens democracy?

Spending more money does not guarantee a victory in politics. One example was the Connecticut senate race. Linda McMahon took on established political veteran Representative Chris Murphy, and then later Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. She used her personal funds to run her campaign and in both race spent nearly $100 million (Applebome, 2012). She won neither race. In order to fend off her attacks, both candidates took money from the Democratic National Committee, but found much of their donations from individual donors.

The book by Kenneth Vogel started with a description of a meeting with President Obama and his ultra-wealthy group of donors (2014). If you can not afford the enormous price to get into these types of fundraisers, then how do you get access to your candidates. People have long dealt with corporate influence of politics. Americans expect that this influence starts after an election.

This ruling has a huge implication on my personal ethics. Because of this ruling, I find it more important to donate my time to campaigns. I will not personally be able to match the financial donations of a corporation. However, I can give things that a corporation can not. I have previously done door-to-door campaigning for candidates. I have yet to help in a campaign that actually feels contested. My time can be bought but I would not do it for money. I actually distrust campaigns that pay people to go door-to-door. You need a personal touch. My personal take is that this ruling is bad for democracy. I believe that advertising of candidates should be funded by individuals. Individuals are the ones that vote. I disagree with the court’s ruling on the importance of political speech. Advertising during elections is not informative. No one enjoys attack ads. “Laura Randall, of Fairfield, said that she had planned to vote for Ms. McMahon but that the campaign’s barrage of advertising had turned her off”(Applebome, 2012). There is a certain point where spending more money on campaigns will have no return on investment.

The reason Americans are so sensitive to this topic right now is the rising awareness of income inequality. Most of us will never be in the 1% that have exclusive access to the President and Presidential candidates.

Communications professionals are a diverse group. Some such as Susman are ethicists for lobbyists (2008). He pointed out that lobbyists have long Some are working for groups just like Citizens United and they benefit greatly from the ruling. Democratic groups may despise Citizens United but it is giving them a talking and rallying point. Neither side is going to back down on spending. Even President Obama who wanted to avoid using a Super-PAC had to give in and accept the help. Democrats are actually the ones who initially started exploiting holes created in FEC rules. Now they are blaming the Republican Supreme Court for Citizens United. Moyer (2011) wrote about ethical studies of public relations professionals. She discussed how organizations have to encourage an environment that promotes ethical behavior. There is no overall code established that communication professionals are bound to.

So as a communications professional, I will ignore this ruling. I would enjoy working in a position where I am in charge of political advertising. I think that political fundraising for the underdog organizations I support to be of vital importance after this ruling. Mayer noted that rules for nonprofit 501 (c)(3)’s are still being figured out (2011). I live in the reality that these decisions will not be overturned. The flow of money into politics is just starting.

References

Applebome, P. (2012, November 02). Personal cost for 2 Senate bids: $100 Million. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nyregion/linda-e-mcmahon-has-spent-nearly-100-million-in-senate-races.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Barnes, R. (2014, April 2). Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

Cillizza, C. (2014, January 22). How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/

Citizens' guide. (2004, February). Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/

DeSilver, D. (2014, July 24). Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why? Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

Heresco, A. (2012). Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform, Deliberative Democracy, and Citizens United. Democratic Communiqué, 25(2), 22-37. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com.

Kahn, B. S. (2013). The facts on Super PACS: Examining the impact of Citizens United v. FEC on the 2012 election cycle (Unpublished master's thesis). University at Oregon. Retrieved from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~polisci/undergraduate/Honors/Kahn.pdf

Levy, R. A., & Mellor, W. H. (2008). Campaign finance reform and free speech. In The dirty dozen: How twelve Supreme Court cases radically expanded government and eroded freedom (pp. 90-106). New York: Sentinel.

Mayer, L. H. (2011). Charities and Lobbying: Institutional Rights in the Wake of Citizens United. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 10(4), 407-426. doi: 10.1089

Middleton, K. R., & Lee, W. E. (2014). Political speech. In The law of public communication (9th ed., pp. 281-320). Pearson.

Moyer, J. (2011, January 7). Ethics and public relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/ethics-and-public-relations/

Murphy, P. J. (2012). Political campaign activity under section 501(c)(4). Taxation of Exempts, 23(4).

Mutch, R. E. (2014). Buying the vote. A history of campaign finance reform. Corby: Oxford University Press.

Roosevelt, K. (2006). The myth of judicial activism: Making sense of Supreme Court decisions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sullivan, S. (2013, May 13). What is a 501(c)(4), anyway? Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/13/what-is-a-501c4-anyway/

Susman, T. M. (2008). Private ethics, public conduct: An essay on ethical lobbying, campaign contributions, reciprocity, and the public good. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 19(1), 10-22. Retrieved from www.jstor.com.

Sweet, M. (2003). Political e-mail: Protected speech or unwelcome spam? Duke Law & Technology Review, 1, 1-9.

Ulaby, N. (2012, January 20). Stephen Colbert wants you to know: That's definitely not his SuperPAC. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/01/20/145475089/stephen-colbert-wants-you-to-know-thats-definitely-not-his-superpac

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M. J., Shanks, T., McLean, M. R., DeCosse, D., . . . Hanson, K. O. (2009, May). A framework for thinking ethically. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

Vogel, K. P. (2014). Big money: 2.5 billion dollars, one suspicious vehicle, and a pimp-on the trail of the ultra-rich hijacking American politics.

Online Networking Do's and Don'ts

Two online networks that I would use for my brand are Linkedin and Twitter. Two social networks that I wouldn’t use for my brand but can be helpful for others are Pinterest and Tumblr. I strongly believe that the most popular social networking site in the world, Facebook, should not be used for personal branding ("Top 15 Most Popular Social Networking Sites," 2014).

I do not think that Twitter is useful for networking in the traditional sense. Twitter’s character limit makes it hard to hold conversations with people. However it is useful to demonstrate your knowledge of a topic. I use twitter to keep up with the world. It is helpful to follow relevant organizations, such as planned parenthood or the UN. I can retweet their tweets. If someone else shares content I shared I know it is popular. Schawbel agrees that Twitter should not be used in isolation (2009). The chapter by Deckers and Lacy encourages networkers to share news stories with the contacts they build (2011). Twitter is one way to reach many people at once to do this. Also, Twitter is a great way to keep up with what organizations are currently bragging out.

Linkedin is the most obvious choice to use for professional branding. The first step for success on Linkedin is to fill in your profile with your full employment history. I have been contacted because of my profile for sales jobs. It is helpful to join relevant groups on Linkedin. This gives you the opportunity to network with people in your field of interest. I am in such groups but not participate enough. It is also encouraged to connect to places you would be interested in working. Some employers post their job opportunities directly on linkedin and you can receive an email when the are put up.

I do not advocate using Facebook for professional branding if you do not need to. In my line of work it is no longer necessary. I believe that everyone should have somewhere to be themselves. Having to be fake, putting up a veneer, or representing your brand always has a bit of fakeness, takes a toll on personal relationships. Thus it is good to maintain a place to be your authentic, unedited self. This presents a different problem then for maintaining your brand, keeping out of the public eye. It is so important to keep up to date on Facebook’s changes of their privacy policy. You do not want information to be shared accidently. Sometimes I participate in contests that require me to post publicly on Facebook so that a page can see it. After I post publicly, I have to change my posting settings back to friends only. I try to delete my public post after the contest is over. Pictures shared by others are another area of concern. You should always check what the sharing settings are of photos you are tagged in. Obvious things that should be removed are anything public of you drinking, doing drugs, mostly naked or being racist. “A third (34%) of employers who scan social media profiles said they have found content that has caused them not to hire the candidate”  (Smith, 2014).

Even websites that are not traditional social networking sites have features that enable their use for job networking. For example Indeed and Monster both allow individuals to post their resumes so that recruiters can contact them. This is a form of networking. Another social network that is specific to job hunting is idealist.org. They focus on non-profit jobs. They have profiles of over 100,000 organizations. I have a profile on this site but I need to update my profile.

The type of jobs individuals are applying for should influence their level of use of online networking opportunities.  For example if your brand is that of a creative, marketing type you should be using more online networks than a scientist. If you are a media type then you should be using Pinterest and Tumblr. I do not think that these are important for the average brand because this is more for fun than work. Pinterest could host your resume in a creative format but it is better to have a webpage. Tumblr is full of photos mostly but some major organizations have profiles that they maintain such as Planned Parenthood. Both sites are used to share infographs, which are pretty ways of displaying data. It makes sense for major brands to be interspersed with personal posts. They want to be relevant in people’s lives so they present their brand everywhere. Serious media networkers want the same thing. They want hiring managers to be seeing their brand everywhere so they can not forget it.

In summary, online networking is only a piece of the networking professionals should be participating in. Linkedin and Twitter are two sites that all people working on building their brand should be using. Most everything else should be saved for fun, non-networking purposes.

References

Deckers, E., & Lacy, K. (2011). Branding yourself: How to use social media to invent or reinvent yourself. Indianapolis, IN: Que Pub.

Schawbel, D. (2009, February 24). Top 10 social sites for finding a job. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2009/02/24/top-10-social-sites-for-finding-a-job/

Smith, J. (2014, April 16). How social media can help (or hurt) you in your job search. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/04/16/how-social-media-can-help-or-hurt-your-job-search/

Top 15 most popular social networking sites. (2014, December). Retrieved from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites

Personal ethics

Write a journal post that examines your personal ethical outlook using the ethical frameworks you have read about this week. Evaluate your personal ethical framework by examining it from a meta-ethical perspective. Note that you may draw on more than one type of ethical framework in your own decision making. Why might this be a good idea? What are the sources of your personal ethical framework? 

This weeks reading were not about ethical frameworks for non-communication professionals. The only article about basic ethics was the article from Santa Clara University. I have a basic disagreement about the meaning of ethics vs morals. I believe that ethics are a group mentality and our morals are our personal decisions, but I will use your wording for this assignment. 
My ethical framework is highly personalized. Because I do not follow a recognized religion, my ethical basis does not start on that level as many people's do. I do have and enjoy having deep conversations about my own ethics and their basis. Really this means that my ethics are not easily described and more open to interpretation and change. I agree with most basic human ethics- murder is wrong, helping others is good and such. Thus the source of my personal ethical framework is conversations that I have with others and reading. My ethics are still being formed and reinforced by my interactions with society. 
I would say I align more with the rights approach mentioned by Velasquez et al. (2009). I also believe in working for the common good, and I am a Democrat because of my alignment with these ideals.  According to Gallup polls, I am currently in the third lowest rated ethical profession- car sales and hope to move down to a even worse ranked profession: lobbying ("Honesty/ethics in Professions," 2013). I am not beholden to any ethics laid out by an ad agency group since I am not a member (Neff, 2011). My employer expects me to not follow my own ethical guidelines. 

References

Honesty/ethics in professions. (2013, December 5). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx

Moyer, J. (2011, January 7). Ethics and public relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/ethics-and-public-relations/
Neff, J. (2011, March 17). Advertisers, agencies get new ethics code for review. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/news/advertisers-agencies-ethics-code-review/149464/

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M. J., Shanks, T., McLean, M. R., DeCosse, D., ... Hanson, K. O. (2009, May). A framework for thinking ethically. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

Final Paper

 analyzes the legal and ethical issues related to digital media surrounding a current event. The paper will also include a self-reflection on how the implications of the current event affect one’s personal ethical framework and role as a communications professional.

I am not excited for this paper. I am not a long, drawn out writer. I am not sure I will be able to write 15 pages about anything. 



Internet neutrality is currently under threat. How this issue plays out greatly effects digital media future. Legally, companies are fighting it under freedom of speech. As with many internet issues, there is not precedent in this new area of speech. So far the laws they have written have failed after much public involvement.  Ethically, organizations are fighting these new rules from internet providers because it violates their codes. This issue will not affect my personal ethical framework as much as it affects my internet freedom. As a communications professional I may be affected when trying to get views and get content published. 

People change, laws change.

Hi audience- I am on to my next class which has journals instead of blogs but I will keep sharing with you because I love you soooo much. 


What are the sources of law? What is the meaning of law as it has evolved in the United States? What has caused these laws to evolve? Are there situations when breaking a law is acceptable? Provide examples to support your answers.

Laws are created by our government. The US government as we see it now was formed by the signing of the Constitution in 1787. The three branches of government, executive, judicial and legislative, all create laws in different ways. Technically, the whole purpose of the legislative branch is to create laws. Laws are then amended by the judicial branch or executive. Laws are created to protect people from each other and from the government, and to ensure efficiency of government bodies. Government has grown with our country and thus our laws have changed. When America was first formed our population was all of 3,929,214 and there are now about 318,679,000  Americans ("Demographic History of the United States," 2014). The size of land governed by our laws and the cultures protected have changed and grown. Early America was not the melting pot it is today. Our nation's religious morals have changed. Technology's growth has changed how laws and crimes can be carried out.  Our most basic government structure and inalienable rights have not changed since we signed the Constitution. But the laws pertaining to our rights and how they are limited have changed. Some of us that were not granted equal rights in the Constitution had to fight to get them much later. It only makes sense with how much change the world has seen that our laws have also evolved.

Of course there are times when you should break laws. If our laws were perfect they would never have to change. Sometimes breaking the law illuminates that is it not just and proper. Some laws have been abandoned over time, such as sodomy laws, which shows that sometimes laws are not correct. Through out prohibition people everywhere were breaking that law and it lead to that laws repeal. Before Roe v Wade illegal abortions were commonplace. This was unfortunate because it lead to unnecessary deaths but sometimes saved lives of women that would have had to resort to other options. The deaths highlighted the public health implications of keeping this otherwise safe and normal procedure out of the realm of regulation. Civil disobedience can be acceptable when carried out the right way. Some people would argue that the large amount of protest helped bring an earlier withdrawal from Vietnam. Although we have a right to protest, many people look extraordinary measures. Everyone today would say that civil disobedience in the civil rights demonstrations was acceptable, even if they didn't agree at the time.

Demographic history of the United States. (2014, August 30). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States