Privacy vs. Entertainment

There's no doubt that the People of Walmart and People of the CTA pages are funny and entertaining. Some of the posts on them are just so out there and ridiculous, you almost feel as if they need to be shared. But as we scroll through the various hilarious images, we often forget that these are actual people that are being made fun of, not some distant fictional characters. So that raises the question of whether sites like this are ethical or not. On pure instinct, you want to say "Yeah, it's totally fine because it's funny. This is for entertainment; it's not hurting anyone directly." However, if any one of those people found themselves on there, there's a very big chance they might not see it that way. They'd essentially feel hurt or embarrassed, and if their name somehow got connected to the image, it would haunt them for what seems like forever, considering the Internet doesn't really "forget" things. And taking their picture and posting it online without their consent is on some level a breach of their privacy. Yes, they were out in public and agreed to display themselves like that, yet, they really only gave consent to the patrons around them to view them like that. It would seem wise to ask people for their consent before posting their image on the Internet, but that would completely dismantle sites like People of Walmart or the CTA since I highly doubt many of those people would agree to it. It's alarming to see our willingness to forgo privacy for the sake of entertainment.

Another example of disregarding privacy for entertainment is the scenario of the guy live-tweeting his neighbors' breakup. While hilarious and fun to read, that's definitely an invasion of privacy. Yes, they were on the roof and out in the open, but they never expected to have their entire conversation broadcasted to the world. Had they found the tweets, I doubt they'd be happy about it. Live-tweeting normal, everyday interactions has become a bit of an Internet phenomenon. Here is another example of this fad. Colton Haynes, an actor and model, live-tweets a date gone awry:

While entertaining, this act of publicizing people's conversations leaves a bit of a sour taste in people's mouths. Haynes even writes "I'm a terrible person but..." signifying that he knows that on some level this isn't right, but for the sake of entertainment, he's going to ignore that pesky little thought. I'll admit I've done similar things—tweeting about the random people I see out and about or things I hear while in public. I've done it and other people do it for the sake of entertainment. We forget that there are real people behind the ridiculousness, and we disregard it because "it's funny" or "it'll get retweets/favorites." It's not a good thing, but it's not something that's going to go away. We're distancing ourselves more and more from humanistic qualities for a few good laughs.

Documenting War

Both of the articles about Louie Palu presented interesting perspectives about the role of journalists in war coverage. In the Q&A style article from the Globe and Mail, Palu describes war as being personal. He states, "I cover wars that are in some way personally connected to me." While most people would assume that war correspondents choose that path for the edgy and exciting stories they cover, the danger is very real, thus the motivation to put themselves in harms way stems from somewhere else for these men and women. It's a desire to unveil the truth. 

For the average civilian, war is relatively distant from our lives, and we take in news about it with a sort of desensitized disconnect. Most of us know of the atrocities of war, but we don't really understand them completely. War correspondents strive to convey that understanding to us. They've been there, they've lived it, and they want to make the public aware. Palu says, "All the issues that surround war aren’t going to go away. Until we deal with that collective memory, it’s going to sit there. It’s going to be a problem, and it’s going to rear its head again." 

It's important to remember that these journalists are in just as much danger as many of the men and women serving in war zones. The risk of injury and even death is very real. Take Bob Woodruff for example. On January 29th, 2006, the tank he was traveling in was bombed, and Woodruff suffered extensive brain injuries. Luckily, he survived and went on to start the Bob Woodruff Foundation to help veterans who also have suffered injuries across seas. Since he was "embedded" into the military in order to obtain coverage, his life was constantly on the line. In an interview, Woodruff explains that this integration of war and journalism, though not new, is becoming more of the standard for war journalism. "I think, like most reporters," says Woodruff, "Embedding is something that became much more prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan than it ever had before."

While journalists can cover the war extensively, it's nearly impossible for them to stay there for the entire duration and capture every moment. It eventually takes its toll on them. Palu describes his thought process in the article from VQR: "I couldn’t see an end to what I’d been covering, and the risks no longer made sense. Afghanistan is like a balloon. If you squeeze one end, it just swells on the other." 

Giving Up Privacy

In the chapter on privacy, Plaissance discusses several examples of situations where people's right to privacy was questioned. Becky Lynn Gritzke's situation was especially unsettling. The then college student was caught on tape in 2000 drunkenly flashing her breasts at Mardi Gras by the show Girls Gone Wild. The show then used that footage without Gritzke's consent for the company's videos, cover, website, and advertisements. Gritzke sued on the basis of "embarrassment, humiliation, mental pain and suffering and the invasion of privacy" (Media Ethics, 175). The lawsuit was settled in 2002 when the company agreed to stop using Gritzke's image. 

However, the company's defense was "that Mardi Gras was a newsworthy event and that people who removed their clothes in public there forfeited their right to privacy." That's what strikes me as particularly unsettling, especially since Plaissance seems to take a similar stance. He explains that "Gritzke's claim that her privacy was somehow violated is a far cry from the true meaning of privacy" and that "Gritzke chose to 'vacate' her privacy" (Media Ethics, 175). 

While I agree that to some extent Gritzke relinquished some of her privacy by baring it all, there is a line that should not have been crossed. The fact that her stunt was then publicized and distributed without her consent is where I think her privacy was indeed violated. She knowingly flashed her breasts to the people on the street and consented to that "breach" of privacy. However, she did not agree to have that footage widely distributed and forever associated to her name. 

Subsequently, the damage was relatively lasting. If you Google Becky Lynn Gritzke's name, many search results are about the lawsuit, and the remainder are pictures or videos that are linked in some way to her involuntary stint on Girls Gone Wild. 

The very first result is a link to her IMDB page that names her an actress in two episodes of Girls Gone Wild. It isn't until the sixth link that her LinkedIn profile comes up. As a business professional, you'd most likely want that to be the first thing to pop up on a search of your name as opposed to articles and pictures regarding a one-time "wild" incident. 

Essentially, I believe that Gritzke did not entirely give up her right to privacy. The key to privacy, in my opinion, is consent. While we may not know what that information may do or where it may go, at least we can attest that it was our decision to have it released. 

Voting and Journalism

Plaissance's chapter on autonomy discusses several interesting questions regarding the extent to which individuals involved in media and communications can exercise various freedoms and rights. I thought it was particularly interesting when Plaissance brought up the idea that some journalists will forgo registering to vote in order to avoid "being suspected of advocating an agenda in their work" (Media Ethics, 154). It's a peculiar paradox—in order to uphold their credibility and dispel any suspicions of acting like an autonomous force, some journalists will relinquish this essentially fundamental right. The right to vote has attached to it the connotation of representing freedom to the ultimate degree, and I find it fascinating that there are journalists out there that are so dedicated to providing unbiased and objective coverage, that they will bring their work into their personal life to that extent. They're not just working as journalists—they're living as journalists.

In this collaborative article, three journalists express their reasons for voting or not voting while covering elections. Mike Allen explains why he decides not to vote: "The candidates I’d been covering — and the readers who trusted me — could see me and know that I wasn't neutral in my heart." Jim VandeHei takes a similar approach stating, "It is our job to do everything plausible to divorce ourselves from political bias as we try to earn the trust of readers and report as evenhandedly as humanly possible." However, John F. Harris disagrees with both men. He says, "Being a journalist for an ideologically neutral publication like Politico, or the Washington Post, where I used to work, does not mean having no opinions. It means exercising self-discipline in the public expression of those opinions so as not to give sources and readers cause to question someone’s commitment to fairness." He essentially claims that a journalist should be capable of distancing himself from his opinions when necessary, but relinquishing the right to vote isn't going to necessarily guarantee that.

I sympathize more with Harris in this argument, although I do understand why Allen and VandeHei choose to refrain from voting. I think the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics creates some ambiguity on this topic when it states that journalists should "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" (Media Ethics, 144). This idea of "perceived conflicts of interests" makes journalists wary of disclosing their opinions, even outside of their work. How do you define the perception of a conflict of interest? It's a bit of a grey area and very subjective, thus I can see why many journalists prefer to avoid it altogether rather than risk their credibility. 

Unnecessary Assignment of Gender Roles

Plaissance brings up the notion that advertisements can have potentially detrimental effects on children due to the perpetuation of gender specific products and advertisements. He claims that "children internalize these roles and are not encouraged to explore roles—or even emotions—that are associated with the opposite gender" (Plaissance, 119). I wholeheartedly agree with this argument. From a young age boys are taught to like monster trucks and superheroes while girls are taught to like princesses and Barbie dolls. While little girls have a tendency to play with dolls and little boys have a tendency to play with action figures, the present way advertisers sell these products makes it seem like an expectation and a norm. 

This video from The Representation Project touches on this idea:

It introduces the notion that telling girls they have to be feminine and telling boys they have to be masculine will result in women succumbing to objectification and men believing that power means domination. Boys that are told they have to "act like a man" and are forbidden from playing with dolls will associate this concept of femininity as something bad or wrong, thus perpetuating the stereotype of the "manly-man." As for girls, when they are told they should "act more ladylike" and are discouraged from rough-housing, they learn to assume that they are weaker because they are feminine.

The Representation Project's mission is to "challenge and overcome limiting gender stereotypes so that everyone, regardless of gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation or circumstance can fulfill their potential." If applied to advertising, this mindset could help reverse some of the harm that commercialized gender roles continuously perpetuate. This ad from GoldieBlox does a phenomenal job of destroying the idea of "girly toys":

Luckily, major brands are starting to take action. According to an article from the Huffington Post, Toys 'R' Us U.K. has agreed to stop gender marketing its toys. The stores will include signs with children of both genders playing with the toys and will stop labelling toys as "for boys" or "for girls."

This is both a monumental and a simple change. If more companies would take similar action, maybe, just maybe, we could come one step closer to disparaging harmful gender inequalities.

Product Placement

Plaissance addresses product placement as a relatively unethical phenomenon in media. In his chapter on transparency in Media Ethics, Plaissance describes product placement as a result of producers "not being fully honest about the nature of the content they're presenting to audiences" (Media Ethics, 66). While I can agree to some extent that product placement has an element of deception attached to it, I sympathize more with Samuel Turcotte's point of view that "there's a difference between reality and whoring to commercialism" (Media Ethics, 66).

In film and television, for the most part, the use of real commercial products is geared more towards maintaining authenticity rather than shameless advertising. It's very easy to tell when a product is being blatantly advertised and when it acts as a prop. The following scene from the movie Wayne's World perfectly satirizes the sort of point-blank product placement that serious filmmakers would never employ.

Plaissance makes it seem like consumers are helpless and unable to defend themselves from the grasp of advertisers. Like I mentioned before, most people can tell when something is being sold to them, and considering the heavily commercialized world we live in, I think it's become sort of an expectation that someone somewhere is trying to sell us something. Seeing E.T. eat a bag of Reese's Pieces isn't deception; it's replication of reality.

Media critic Edward Wasserman is cited by Plaissance as explaining that "the types of products written into a show really ought to be up to the writer" (Media Ethics, 66). The problem with that is that a lot of times it comes off as overly cheesy. Shows on Nickelodeon are notorious for creating parody products in order to avoid product placement. The Pear Company (a parody of Apple) and the Game Sphere (a parody of the Game Cube) are just two examples.

But while that may work in a sitcom or kid's show, it wouldn't feel right in more serious works of film and television. I don't necessarily see the harm in including a bag of Doritos in an episode of Orange is the New Black as opposed to a made-up brand. If it interferes with artistic integrity in terms of how the product can be used, then it's probably better to use a fictional product. However, if the commercial product will get the point across just the same, I don't see it as something to get too upset over.

What happened to Charlie?

It's an undeniable fact that the attack on French satire newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, is a tragedy. However unwarranted and tragic this massacre was, it nonetheless raises the question of how far journalists can and are willing to go in the realm of satire. Are there things that should be off-limits? Religion has always seemed to be a taboo topic in American satire, but the French appear to have no qualms with making fun of prominent religious leaders and the religions themselves. The provocative cartoons that are a staple of Charlie Hebdo's pages are no doubt offensive to the groups they target, yet under the premise of freedom of speech, these jabs shouldn't be punishable by death.

Many have criticized the newspaper for attacking faith and religion so freely, claiming that, although violence is by no means an appropriate response, people are going to always react strongly to their faith under attack. In an interview, Pope Francis spoke out on this stating, "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

That being said, I think it's also interesting to look at the politics that are at play in relation to journalism in France. According to the article from Vox, there are a lot of anti-Muslim sentiments circulating in France, with the government going so far as making it illegal to cover one's face in public. This sort of outright intolerance sets the stage for tension between Muslims and France. Provocative cartoons from a small satirical newspaper shouldn't fuel that tension as much as it has, yet recent attacks prove that extremists are willing to capitalize on it. It's important to distinguish that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was by Islamic EXTREMISTS, not average civilians. However, that distinction often gets muddled, thus painting Muslims in an unfavorable light and fueling Islamophobia even further.

I don't think censoring or even refraining from covering certain topics is the answer to combatting this kind of violence. Freedom of speech is by far one of the most important aspects of Western culture, and it shouldn't be compromised at the will of extremists. However, I do believe that there is a way to express free speech without being overtly offensive. I may not completely agree with all the moves Charlie Hebdo has made, but I will stand in solidarity with fellow content-creators to defend freedom of speech and honor those who died while expressing it.