My grandfather and father both worked for newspapers in Texas. My dad once told me he’d cut his throat if I ever became a journalist. And after I told him I planned to do just that, he sliced his neck, but he was shaving at the time (ba-dum-dum, cshh). Turns out, neither of them were what I would consider journalists. My grandfather worked in public relations and my father in advertising.
My “Grandpop” started as a legitimate journalist. He was on the scene in 1947 reporting on a story that at the time was considered the deadliest industrial accident in history (the worst accident remains the Union Carbide catastrophe when in 1984 its pesticide plant in Bhopal, India discharged about 40 tons of deadly gas into the air and killed 4,000). Nicknamed the “Texas City disaster,” almost 600 persons were killed and 1,000 buildings destroyed after the SS Grandcamp that was docked at the Galveston Bay caught fire and created a chain-reaction of devastating blasts. The ship carried more than 2,000 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. As a comparison, the Oklahoma City blast in 1995 was a result of about two tons of the volatile material (“1947 Texas City,” 2017).
A few years later Grandpop was named Oil Editor of the Houston newspaper, a prestigious position, especially for a Texas publication at that time. When I was 15 years old, we had a serious talk in his home office. He told me that part of his job for the newspaper was to review new gasoline blends from oil companies. After he received notice of a new formula, he would drive to a refinery and get his car filled up and then write about the fuel as if it were a new entree introduced at a fancy restaurant. Framed on a wall of his office was a column he wrote that concentrated on a new gas from ExxonMobil, known at the time as Enco, Esso, or Humble depending on where you lived. The company already had a tiger as its mascot, but my grandfather wrote that its gasoline was like “putting a tiger in your tank.” Company executives obviously liked the line and used it as their slogan. Grandpop pointed to the column and said with a tinge of frustration, “And would you believe it, they never gave me a dime.” Still, getting your tank filled up with gasoline and joy riding through town so you can give a favorable review of a company’s product is a nice perk, although a gallon of gas in 1959 only cost 18 cents (about $1.50 today), but it is not journalism. It’s akin to writing a restaurant, performance, or movie review. Of course, there are reporting techniques and styles that come to play, but for the most part his columns were simply examples of positive publicity for the oil companies.
My father, with the small scar on his throat, was more firmly anchored in the field of strategic communication. He worked in the advertising department of a Dallas newspaper as a copywriter. As with most publications, it produced special sections on any number of subjects that often looked like journalism, but were in reality cleverly disguised promotional pieces. My dad wrote glowing tributes of products, services, and locations to accompany photographs in 4-to-8-page inserts about motorcycles, restaurants, and cabins on the lake. He once proudly exclaimed to me what he thought was his finest tag line for a product, “What’s brand new and millions of years old?” When I went blank, he laughed loudly, slapped me on the back, and shouted, “Peat moss.” He taught me that with enough passion just about anything could get you excited. Still, I don’t think of peat moss that much today.
Even though I didn’t consider my Grandpop and dad to be journalists, they taught me the importance to define a task and complete it by a deadline and what to look for when evaluating commercials. Early on I remember my father pointing to the television screen and announcing, “That’s a good ad.” He knew from experience. After his newspaper job, he worked for a large advertising agency and then formed his own company that produced both public relations and advertising campaigns – a practice that is de rigueur today.
My ancestors never learned ethical behavior in a college class – in fact, they never went to college. What they learned about their professional role-related responsibilities came from on-the-job experiences, from their workmates, through judgment that comes from common sense, and, perhaps most importantly, from making mistakes. You, on the other hand, have a distinct advantage as you pursue your career. Whether as a separate college class concentrated on mass media ethics, discussions within a general communications course, or through your own interests, readings, and testimonials provided by an organization, you have the opportunity to learn from the errors of others and the praises heaped upon those who do the right thing. A key in knowing the difference when confronted with an ethical dilemma is being clear about the values you should be emulating in order to behave in a morally praiseworthy way.
Values Exemplified: The TARES Test
In 2001 academics Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson (2001) wrote an important article in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, “The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical Persuasion.” For the two researchers, there is a clear difference between professional persuasion in which almost any action is justified that adds to a company’s ledger sheet or improves its image and ethical persuasion that relies on moral development and acceptable ethical behavior. A hedonistic reliance on professional persuasion results in a visual message that is designed to simply grab your attention, promote the sale of a product or a way of thinking, and does so by exploiting cultural values. This type of persuasion does not elevate viewers to be better citizens and discriminate consumers. On the other hand, ethical persuasion may also use the methodologies and technologies common with all modern media practices, but its end result is to create empathy, understanding, and commonness among diverse cultural groups, a veil of ignorance, golden rule, and utilitarian perspective.
To differentiate between professional and ethical persuasion, Baker and Martinson devised a five-part test with the awkward acronym, TARES. The test should not be thought of as only appropriate for the public relations and advertising professionals, but can be employed to evaluate any visual message described in this book. The five principles for evaluation of a presentation are that the message in words, images, and context should be Truthful, the spokesperson or source of the message should be credible or Authentic, the message should Respect its audience by creating work that maximizes the worth and dignity of individual members, the message should also be Equitable, or deemed as fair and impartial as possible, and finally, promote Social responsibility among its citizens to make the world better.
Truthful, authentic, respectful, equitable, and socially responsible are important principles in a professional and a personal life. Imagine being dishonest, false, irreverent, unfair, and indifferent to consequences to someone you work with or a family member or friend. You probably wouldn’t work long at a firm or have a friendship for long if that truth came out. The five TARES principles, or values, are significant, but they are by no means the only ones you should consider.
The authors identify several sources of additional value-evaluating schemes from individuals and organizations. In his writings journalism professor and ethics author Ed Lambeth “identified for the ethical practice of journalism the principles of truth telling, justice, freedom, humaneness, and stewardship” (Baker and Martinson, 2001, p. 158) The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) “discusses the principles of truth, minimizing harm, independence, and accountability.” The Member Code of Ethics of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) “discusses the principles of advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness.” The Credo for Ethical Communication put forth by the National Communication Association (NCA) “lists the principles of human worth and dignity, truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others.” The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) “articulates the principles of human rights, rule of law, sensitivity to cultural norms, truthfulness, accuracy, fairness, respect, and mutual understanding.” They even quote the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and its “proposed three moral principles for the ethical practice of advertising: truthfulness, dignity of the human person, and social responsibility.” You should also review the 24 values newsroom reporters identified in a survey conducted by Patrick Lee Plaisance and Elizabeth A. Skewes in Chapter 3.
In the end, all of these above-mentioned values, as well as the difficult-to-admit negative or opposite values, are internalized in whole or cherry picked individually to help us navigate this so-called life. For Baker and Martinson, each of the five principles deserves further explanations:
Truthfulness: As stated in the article, “People rely on information from others to make their choices in life, large or small. Lies distort this information.” They manipulate the choices of the deceived and lead a viewer to false conclusions.
To persuade others through deceptive messages is harmful and undermines trust. Truthfulness in the TARES Test is a broader standard than literal truth. It is possible to deceive without literally lying. The Principle of Truthfulness requires the persuader’s intention not to deceive. It is an intention to provide others with the truthful information they legitimately need to make good decisions about their lives.
That is the hallmark of this part of the TARES test.
Communication without truthfulness is not persuasion. It is propaganda. If someone is swayed through false claims and deception, the victory over that individual is pyrrhic, short-term, and ultimately, unsatisfying. Why? It’s because truth always finds a way to be told.
Authenticity: The authors offer several values associated with this principle including integrity, personal virtue, sincerity, genuineness, loyalty, and independence.
Once again, a personal and a professional sense of credibility is a major part of authenticity. Ideally, the two personas – your private and public lives – should have consistent values to promote maximum credibility and authenticity.
Respect: This value, according to the authors,
requires that [visual communicators] regard other human beings as worthy of dignity, that they not violate their rights, interests, and well-being for raw self-interest or purely client-serving purposes. It assumes that no professional persuasion effort is justified if it demonstrates disrespect for those to whom it is directed. This principle requires further that people should be treated in such a way that they are able to make autonomous and rational choices about how to conduct and arrange their lives according to their own priorities, and that this autonomy should be respected.
If you have trouble feeling respect for yourself, your peers, your colleagues, your job, your present situation, and so on, you will have a difficult time creating work that is meaningful.
Equity: Creators of visual messages should, according to the academics, “consider if both the content and the execution of the persuasive appeal are fair” and if the persuasive message has been employed without unjust manipulation.
Appeals that are deceptive in any way clearly fall outside of the fairness requirement. Vulnerable audiences must not be unfairly targeted. Persuasive claims should not be made beyond an audience member’s ability to understand both the context and underlying motivations and claims of the persuader.
Being fair and impartial is a direct link to John Rawls’ veil of ignorance philosophy, as the authors rightly note. As noted by Baker and Martinson, “The veil of ignorance requires professional communicators to step conceptually out of their roles as powerful disseminators of persuasive promotional messages and to evaluate the equity of the appeal from the perspective of the weaker parties.” With the use of smartphones and fact-checking websites, it is easier for a media consumer to determine if a message’s content is fair and impartial. The trouble is, most of us either have our minds made up and ignore the appeal (I will never be persuaded to use Crest toothpaste – I am a Colgate man) or don’t have the time or the will to discover if a presentation is equitable or not (I have never had a cavity and I don’t want to take a chance by switching). However, there is another motivation that undermines this principle (and the others for that matter). This condition is summed in three letters, Meh. Most of us simply don’t care.
Social Responsibility: Professional communicators should, according to the authors, be “sensitive to and concerned about the wider public interest or common good.” Media operatives who act in “harmony with this principle would not promote products, causes, or ideas that they know to be harmful to individuals or to society and will consider contributing their time and talents to promoting products, causes, and ideas that clearly will result in a positive contribution to the common good and to the community” of all.
The late great graphic designer Saul Bass, who redefined the art of motion picture title credits, created some of the best known logos for international companies, and was an Academy Award winning filmmaker, refused to work with products that he thought were harmful. His position was admirable as he cared more for the common good than fattening his bank account. However, given his preeminent position in the field and his years of service to the profession, his choice, although admired, should be discounted. A more respected position should be someone working at her first job confronting the dilemma whether to work on an advertising or public relations campaign for a product or service that goes against her moral values and rejects the assignment. It takes courage to risk your new career and adhere to your values while choosing loyalty to your profession over your own or your family’s welfare. And when confronted by your decision to just say no, always try to employ at least one philosophy that clearly articulates the justification behind your negative reaction and the reason for your decision not to participate. If you do, chances are your workmates will admire your position and your boss will give you three weeks’ severance pay instead of only two.
Advertising Stereotypes
In the stylish, yet critically panned film, The Neon Demon directed by Denmark-born Nicolas Winding Refn, Elle Fanning plays Jesse who is caught within the dystopia world of modeling (The Neon Demon, 2016). She’s 16 years old, moves from Georgia to Los Angeles to become famous and admits, “I can’t sing. I can’t dance, I can’t write.” Luckily, she considers herself pretty and says, “I can make money off pretty.” She soon learns that pretty isn’t enough to be successful in a world populated by jealous models, exploitive managers, and, naturally, a scary photographer. However, in the world of commercial advertising, pretty almost always trumps intelligence, integrity, and sincerity.
Unfortunately, given the corporate pressures to always increase the bottom line, older adults, who should know better, have for decades practiced the same hedonistic philosophy. The list of companies that have created campaigns, often called “shock advertising” that produce a firestorm of negative publicity is long, relentless, and a bit depressing. The “shock” experienced by viewers and explained by reporters in news articles and screen reports offer free publicity. If not an ancient proverb, it is at least a commonly held view by perhaps many teenagers who know that they shouldn’t do something, but because of their youth and hormones, can’t resist: It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
The shock is almost always not based on the copy of those ads, but by the art. Shocking images are necessary, it is argued, because of the ubiquitous prevalence of smartphones. In our fast-paced and easily distracted society, companies must compete for our attention. We live in an attention culture where those wanting to see products and ideas must use any trick available to rivet our eyeballs on what is considered new. These attention-inducing visual messages are designed to implant the company’s brand or logo into your long-term memory. However, in truth, using controversy as an attention tactic is not that new.
Consequently, clothing retailers engaged in highly competitive and cutthroat business practices often seek free publicity, even if it is negative, to sell their products. Calvin Klein in the 1980s used the young model Brooke Shields (2017 [1981]) and later teenagers in sexual situations. Candies posed former Playboy model Jennifer McCarthy on a toilet (“The evolution of footwear,” 2015). Christian Dior had multiple Addict cosmetic campaigns that posed women with desperate expressions and poses. Abercrombie & Fitch for its Christmas catalog showed young persons enjoying orgies. The California-based hamburger chain Carl’s Jr. is often criticized for its woman-as-object commercials (Davies, 2013). The list of women using their looks to promote burgers is long: Paris Hilton, Kate Upton, Nina Agdal, Katherine Webb, Emily Ratajkowski, and Charlotte McKinney. Men don’t eat cheeseburgers? The prevalence of sexy, buxom women in print advertisements and on web and television commercials is a common cultural trope used by advertisers to gain attention, increase market share, and target a male demographic that doesn’t mind the overt sexism. Even executives for the conservative company JC Penney were caught red-faced after its ad agency produced a web-based commercial touting the speed in which two young lovers can take off and put on their Penney clothing (“Speed dressing,” 2008).
The Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed three factors that are needed in order to persuade another person to your point of view (“Ethos, pathos & logos,” n.d.). The three, updated for today’s professionals, are: Logos, the argument must make logical sense to the recipient; ethos, the person making the argument or the context in which it is presented must have credibility; and pathos, the argument should be accompanied with emotional stories, testimonials, and images. Persuasion and its much maligned cousin propaganda is either an overt or a covert technique in almost all areas of visual communication. When the persuasion is clear and explicit as with most advertising messages, public relations appeals, graphic design and informational graphics presentations, and documentary works viewed in movie theaters, on television, or through the web, the methods employed are usually considered acceptable. However, when shocking visual messages and digital manipulation techniques are used to grab a viewer’s attention and portray a cultural group in a stereotypical way, the examples can be considered unethical. For example, with names such as “advertorials” and “infomercials,” advertisers mimic the production cues of print and screen journalists to persuade an unsuspecting viewer to purchase a product. With full-page ads in newspapers and magazines that resemble news-editorial pages and 30-minute commercials that look like talk shows, corporate executives rely on the credibility of the media to fool its audience of trusting viewers. Most consumers of the media can easily tell the difference between an advertisement and a news story. But sometimes the distinction is so subtle, only highly observant viewers can tell the difference.
The Italian clothing company, Benetton has often smudged the line between journalism, advertising and public relations in numerous campaigns (“Benetton ad stereotypes,” 2017). Consequently, few companies have had to use the forgiveness defense as often as Benetton. Conceived and produced by art director Oliviero Toscani, early print advertisements showed models from different races all symbolically emphasizing racial harmony and equivalence. Images showed a woman breast-feeds a baby, children look at the camera while their similarly colored tongues stick out, and two children sit side-by-side on matching toilets. But the need for more publicity and sales induced more daring visual messages that replaced feel-good studio shots with horses fucking, and a priest and nun kissing. After much public condemnation, Toscani switched from studio set-ups to using actual news photographs he found printed in the media. Young children working in a brick factory, a car on fire, refugees escaping on an overly crowded ship, and HIV/AIDS patient David Kirby and his family on his deathbed. Originally taken by a student photographer and published in Life magazine, the Kirby photograph unleashed a worldwide critical firestorm aimed at Benetton, but not toward the photojournalist or the Kirby family. But it was a $20 million advertising campaign launched in an issue of Talk magazine in January 2000 that caused Benetton to rethink the philosophy behind shock advertising and using previously published news pictures. Talk contained a 96-page booklet entitled “We, on Death Row.” With the bright green Benetton logo interspersed on several pages, photographer Oliviero Toscani posed 26 death row inmates from across the United States like models. None wore Benetton clothing. Toscani was forced to resign, Sears canceled a lucrative deal, and Benetton officials apologized and vowed never to upset the public again. Riiiight.
Public Relations Manipulations
Perhaps not surprisingly, politicians and their publicity handlers are the most common abusers of unethical visual messaging (Ralph, 2013). Politicians have readily embraced what has been called a photographic opportunity, shortened to “photo op.” Also known as a media event, the photo op is a stage-managed, highly manipulated still or moving image. A successful photo op appears to look real but is actually a contrived fiction in which the source, his or her handlers, and sometimes the photographers themselves orchestrate the timing, location, subject, props (telephone, pen and paper, podium, and so on), lighting, foreground and background elements (banners, signs, supporters, and so on), and sometimes even the selection and placement of the photographers covering the “event.” Although traditionally the photo op is thought of as a way to get positive publicity for a politician, the photographic genre can include all types of so-called media or pseudo-events, from owners celebrating their store openings to portraits of corporate leaders in their offices. As the author and political commentator George F. Will wrote, “A photo opportunity, properly understood, is someone doing something solely for the purpose of being seen to do it. The hope is that those who see the resulting pictures will not see the elements of calculation (not to say cunning) that are behind the artifice” (Lester, 2009).
Northwestern University professor of communications Robert Hariman wrote, “American politics has always been media intensive and defined in part by its visual arts.” As President Herbert Hoover, one of the first politicians to actively use publicity as a tool, once remarked, “Candidates for office cannot escape the ubiquitous photographer.” Consequently, a politician’s public image is a vital commodity similar to a product’s design, logo, and packaging. As such, anyone involved in securing votes from the public must be careful about the pictures the public sees by the media. The photo op was institutionalized by the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt after his press secretary, Stephen Early, a United Press International (UPI) and AP reporter, allowed photographers to take pictures of the president, but asked them not to show that the polio-stricken Roosevelt used a wheelchair. For the most part, that prohibition was honored. In truth, politicians long before Roosevelt used photography to aid themselves and their causes during catastrophes. In addition, ministers, military leaders, and relief workers have also used reporters and their images to their advantage during catastrophic times.
But sometimes the best intentions from publicists go awry. As reported in a previous book I wrote (Lester, 2009), On Floods and Photo Ops: How Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush Exploited Catastrophes, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, President George W. Bush and his image handlers were criticized for several photo ops. The president was persuaded to fly over the stricken region to see the devastation for himself. With the president sitting at a window, Karl Rove, Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, beckoned writers and photographers to come to the front of the aircraft to witness Bush’s concern as the luxury jet flew low over the devastated city of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. After the picture was displayed on newspaper front pages across the country, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote that the photograph “was quite an object lesson in the supreme power of images in today’s visually oriented world.” Douglas Brinkley, author of The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, wrote, “It was obviously intended as a photo op, a depiction of the President as a compassionate man, connecting to the tragic region. It backfired.” Howard Fineman of Newsweek reported, “Republican strategists privately call[ed] the resulting image – Bush as a tourist, seemingly powerless as he peered down at the chaos.” Pollster John Zogby called it “the wrong visual … emblematic of a failing presidency.”
Another goof from the Bush Administration became one of the most infamous photo ops ever devised. On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq, code-named “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” began. Less than two months later, Baghdad had fallen, President Saddam Hussein was in hiding and Osama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, was on the run. In May, President George W. Bush planned to announce on the USS Abraham Lincoln docked outside San Diego that the military effort in Iraq was achieved. “Mission Accomplished” was the visual message printed on a sign hung on the carrier during a speech to the nation. It was a phrase that would not only ironically define the Iraqi War but the historical legacy of the failed Bush administration. And although the line was removed from Bush’s speech, the large sign behind him that used the phrase tarnished his presidential legacy. Bob Bergen, a research fellow for the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute in Calgary, summed up the banner, “Many people look back at that day and declare it a public relations disaster, a major misfiring of the vaunted White House spin machine. The mission in Iraq has not been accomplished, combat operations are far from over.” Of course, in today’s political environment with President Trump (is he still president?) and his administration creating public relations gaffes on an hourly basis, the faults of the Bush Administration seem quaint by comparison (Lester, 2009, p. 62).
Back to TARES
Not surprisingly, most advertisements, including presidential political spots, fail the TARES test while most public service announcements (PSAs) pass. Truthful, authentic, respectful, equitable, and socially responsible presentations unfortunately are not values that correspond with the profit motives of most clothing, cosmetic, and fast food executives. Nevertheless, there are plenty of examples produced by organizations that have no trouble passing the TARES test. The best place to find ethical stand-outs is from organizations that give awards for PSAs. One of the most prestigious prizes given to outstanding advertising work in print and screen media is the CLIO Awards. Cited for outstanding achievement was August Lang & Husak agency’s campaign created for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and devoted to the perils of distracted driving in a heart-breaking reverse film technique that reveals a mother preoccupied by her son’s green frog toy, BBDO’s collaboration with the organization Autism Speaks to promote research on the condition, and J. Walter Thompson’s campaign to help free Burma’s estimated 2,100 political prisoners that teamed with Human Rights Watch to create
an interactive installation at Grand Central Station. Consisting of hundreds of prison cells, a closer look reveals that the cell bars are actually ink pens. Visitors could remove the pens to symbolically free the innocent prisoners and then use the pen to sign a petition calling for their release.
When the best minds from advertising and public relations professionals are charged with the task, they often produce powerful combinations of words and images that help us become aware and care about our health, our fellow citizens, and our planet. In that sense, they are illustrations of the best that John Rawls’ veil of ignorance philosophy has to offer. When an advertisement, whether for commercial or persuasive motivations, makes us empathize with another, we are made more whole, more human.
See Appendix A for a professional’s approach to advertising and public relations.
Case Studies
Case Study One
One of the worst environmental catastrophes ever was the 2010 oil spill that happened in the Gulf of Mexico when a British Petroleum oil rig exploded and then caught on fire. The rig had been drilling for oil about 41 miles off of the Louisiana coastline when the accident happened, killing eleven people and injuring another 17. The ruptured pipe was 10,000 feet below the water’s surface, and was not sealed for nearly three months. It devastated the sea life in the Gulf, wrecking the tourism coastline economies of Alabama, Louisiana and Texas for several years, as “eyeless shrimp and infant dolphins washed ashore, and oil balls appeared along 650 miles” of beach.
As bad as the spill was, most public relations professionals thought the BP response was equally abhorrent. In the spill’s early days, company executives issued evasive and ineffective apologies. Later, the company tried to downplay the scale of the disaster, and seemed to send a message that the problem was an American mistrust of business, rather than a valid concern over environmental catastrophe. For some, this was made all the worse when BP ran an ad campaign a year later showcasing clean beaches and safe-to-eat seafood that made it seem like the effects of the spill were long gone.
Warner, J. (June 18, 2010). “The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is bad, but BP’s PR is even worse.” The Telegraph. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7839136/The-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-is-bad-but-BPs-PR-is-even-worse.html.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Case Study Two
In spring 2017, Pepsi created a public relations nightmare for itself when it released a web-based video advertisement starring Kendall Jenner. In this “short film,” Jenner bids her modeling job adieu as she joins a protest march and creates a bridge of understanding between dissidents and skeptical police by giving a cop a Pepsi. Hugs and cheering ensue all around.
The ad was criticized for making light of real issues – as though social justice could be made easy if only those calling for it had remembered to bring along fizzy soft drinks. One of the final scenes in the commercial compared unfavorably with an actual news photograph taken by Jonathan Bachman of a Baton Rouge protester. Within 48 hours of its posting to the web, the video had already gotten 1.6 million views on YouTube, as it was passed around via both Twitter and Facebook. On YouTube, it got five times as many down votes as up votes. So, in a way, the ad did spur community and a sense of social engagement, perhaps just not in the way Pepsi intended.
Watercutter, A. (April 5, 2017). “Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner ad was so awful it did the impossible: It united the internet.” Wired. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pepsi-ad-internet-response/.
Appelbaum, Y. (July 10, 2016). “A single photo from Baton Rouge that’s hard to forget.” The Atlantic. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/a-single-photo-that-captures-race-and-policing-in-america/490664/.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Case Study Three
Dove’s Real Beauty Campaign has both its champions and its critics. The campaign claims that its goal is to expand the conversation about what makes a woman beautiful or, more specifically, to celebrate all women as beautiful: whatever their age, shape, color, ability, hairstyle, or any other thing. Those who like the campaign say it celebrates “real” women and “diverse” women as they really are, for all that they are. Those who oppose it counter that the very existence of women’s beauty products – which is what Dove is selling – proves there is no way out of the beauty matrix. Moreover, they say, while the ad campaign portends to celebrate all women, there is still only a very small subset represented.
Stampler, L. (April 22, 2013). “Why people hate Dove’s ‘Real Beauty Sketches’ video.” Business Insider. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-hate-doves-real-beauty-ad-2013-4.
Bahadur, N. (January 21, 2014). “Dove ‘Real Beauty’ campaign turns 10: How a brand tried to change the conversation about female beauty.” Huffington Post. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/dove-real-beauty-campaign-turns-10_n_4575940.html.
See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.
Annotated Sources
Fredriksson, M. and Johansson, B. (2014). “The dynamics of professional identity.” Journalism Practice, 8(5), 585–595.
This article explores why journalists view public relations as a threat to journalism. The authors explore this phenomenon from the viewpoint of the professional identity of a journalist and analyze journalistic ideology, organizational belonging and social position. They find that, in general, journalists fear the loss of trustworthiness when a journalist transitions into a public relations position. Other factors such as age, time spent as a journalist and place of employment play a role.
Lee, S.T. and Cheng, I. (2012). “Ethics management in public relations: Practitioner conceptualizations of ethical leadership, knowledge, training and compliance.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27(2), 80–96.
Lee and Cheng explore how ethics plays into job training and job practice for public relations officials. Their study found that there is not much formally presented to public relations staffers, and that while good ethical decisions are not celebrated, poor ethical decision making is punished. For many public relations officials, their ethics were not taught in the workplace but were learned through personal experiences and their upbringing.
Page, J.T. (2006). “Myth & photography in advertising a semiotic analysis.” Visual Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 90–109.
In this study, the author examines several Kohler advertisements. She finds that the advertisements use female models as a singular means to their sexuality in concert with a surrealist depiction of the appliances to sell them as desirable and self-constituting. The author notes that it is acceptable to use women in images in a way that would never be acceptable in writing.
Zayer, L.T. and Coleman, C.A. (2015). “Advertising professionals’ perceptions of the impact of gender portrayals on men and women: A question of ethics?” Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 1–12.
A study on the perceptions of male and female advertising professionals of the influence of different portrayals of men and women in advertising. The authors found that advertisers generally believe their depictions of men and women should follow the “traditional” archetype of men and women. Zayer and Coleman suggest that if a culture wants to move in a direction of being more open and accepting of gender outside the hegemonic definition, that we should look to our advertising as being a prime means to achieve that end.
References
“1947 Texas City disaster.” (2017). Texas City Library. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.texascity-library.org/disaster/first.php.
“Ann Landers.” (2017). Biography. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.biography.com/people/ann-landers-9372525.
Baker, S. and Martinson, D.L. (2001). “The TARES test: Five principles for ethical persuasion.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2&3), 148–175.
“Benetton ad stereotypes.” (2017). Google Images. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.google.com/search?q=benetton+ad+stereotypes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijvc_Dy4zUAhULwVQKHWUeAHoQ_AUICigB&biw=948&bih=748.
“Brooke Shields in the Calvin Klein Jeans commercial 1981.” (2017 [1981]). YouTube. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK2VZgJ4AoM.
Davies, M. (March 13, 2013). “Put it in my mouth: A history of disgusting Carl’s Jr. ads.” Jezebel. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://jezebel.com/5990397/put-it-in-my-mouth-a-history-of-disgusting-carls-jr-ads.
“Ethos, pathos & logos.” (n.d.). European Rhetoric. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.european-rhetoric.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modes-persuasion-aristotle/.
“The evolution of footwear marketing.” (May 10, 2015). Footwear News. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/529524868668777379/.
Lester, P.M. (2009). On floods and photo ops: How Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush exploited catastrophes. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
The Neon Demon. (2016). Rotten Tomatoes. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_neon_demon/.
Ralph, E.F. (November 15, 2013). “Photo oops: History’s worst political photo ops.” Politico Magazine. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2013/11/photo-oops-historys-worst-political-photo-ops-000157?slide=0.
“Speed dressing: The controversial fake ad.” (July 8, 2008). YouTube. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjQzD6mx4g8.