It's one thing to write it but a whole other to take action

Codes of ethics, mission statements and other documents that list out values and principles serve as a guide for professionals and organizations in their strive to behave ethically in their work atmosphere. "Strive" is the key word though. A look at the business section of any news outlet reveals that unethical behavior is alive in America's business world. In recent news the Wal-Mart bribery or unfavorable labor conditions at Foxconn Technology (a big supplier to major U.S. technology companies) factories comes to mind, but the list can continue endlessly. All of these businesses usually have a mission statement or set of values and principles that guide their company, but these are just words on a paper. The true value in these written words comes when they are turned into action.

Truth vs. Harmony

Should truth always prevail or is harmony something to strive for sometimes? As a journalist I would say truth, but I also see the need for harmony in the profession. In the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, a section entitled "Minimize Harm," makes me think of how harmony is manifested in our work. It states that "ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect." This means in times when people are struck by peril and grief, the pursuit for the truth is handled more delicately. Journalists should treat people with compassion and sensitivity. Not to say this treatment should not be used all the time, but especially in a time of great tragedy. Journalists should also remember that private citizens have "a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power." In other words, it may not be necessary for every detail of truth to come out if there is not "an overriding public need [that can] justify intrusion into anyone's privacy." In this moment of great tragedy, perhaps understanding the pieces that will bring things back closer to harmony are more relevant.

Ethics in Journalism

"It's not black and white," this is what Peter Elkind said in his visit to campus Tuesday. No matter how much people like to simplify and think about issues as being wrapped within these neatly separated boxes, the truth is most things are complicated and full of grey areas.

Using the various ethical frameworks to approach decision-making confirms Elkind's assertion--there is never one clear solution to a problem. One can find a number of solutions based on what is good for the greatest amount of people (utilitarianism), what is the best for every person (cosmopolitanism), what will be the most just and equitable (veil of ignorance) and what is a balance between the two extreme views (Aristotle's mean). The main premise is people must take the time to think through problems with the key stipulation of thinking about all the stakeholders.

For journalists, this means doing their best to represent all sides of a story or getting sources from the different types of stakeholders.

Palaver Tree

When thinking about the values of the Palaver Tree: harmony over truth, no urgency, consensus, hearing from all parties...I thought about a current process that is unfolding.

The restructuring of American Airlines and other companies' bankruptcy proceedings require a process that utilizes, at least ideally, these values. The point of the litigation process, which in itself can be considered ritualistic, is that all parties are given a say and the restructuring plan put forth will be the best for all. In this sense, it is about reaching that consensus or a level of harmony between the management, employees, the suppliers and others involved.

It can be argued that American Airlines was not thinking about these values before in their decision-making. Truly hearing from all parties would mean there is a well-established line of communication, which many people have pointed out that the airlines has not had the best communication between management and its employees.

Ethics of Meat

Eating meat is so much a part of my daily life that I have never stopped to question whether or not it is ethical behavior. When I am hungry...I eat. And since I have become accustomed to ingesting meat at almost every meal, it does not seem complete without it.

Those who are non-meat-eaters would say that this practice is essentially taking part in the killing of another living thing, but if we want to get technical, I do not "kill" any of the meat I eat. When it arrives in my home, it is already packaged and pre-portioned for easy cooking. Also, taking the term "living thing," into consideration, would also place all those vegetables under that umbrella term. When you pick all those peas or tomatoes off a plant nobody calls that "killing," but you are stopping the growth process. So if one looked at eating through the lens of cosmpolitanism, than humans could not eat anything at all. We have to eat living things to recieve the nutrients we need to survive. But if we took the well being of every living thing out there than nutrients could not be found.

Ethical Decision making....or not?

As I match up all the ethical theories we have learned thus far with the business practices and labor conditions of Apple (that I have learned from recent news articles), I am horrified to see that the company has in some way gone against all of them. So that got me to thinking...what is the ethical theory that guides its decision making? What morals and values drive its behavior?

• Maximization at any cost- more products, more revenue....even if it means exploiting the workers that make the materials that ultimately make up the Iphones, Ipods and Ipads so common among us. What seems to be a contradiction to this belief can be seen in its stores, where a minimalist approach is clearly at work. Exploit the few for the benefit of many...what a second this does sound familiar. Utilitarianism.

• Innovation- This comes straight from the Apple website (in the Investor Relations section):

         What is Apple's mission statement? Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad.

As I read this mission statement words like power, superior, domination, cockiness are coming to mind. I also realize that similar adjectives have been used to describe the former CEO Steve Jobs. Hmmm...is this a coincidence? I do not think so. I think that the atmosphere and mindset and of every company probably has some and most likely everything to do with the character and mindset of its leader. 

This mission statement also carries a tone that seems to be trying to convince the consumers its products are superior and taking a shot at competitors inadvertently saying those company's products fail miserably in comparison.

A fellow technology company, HP has a whole section titled "shared values" on their website. The overall themes in this text are teamwork, cooperation, consideration and openness. 

This sounds safe, but in reading Apple's mission statement I almost get a feeling of intimidation.

The Taliban announced that it was suspending peace talks with Americans....no surprise there. President Hamid Karzai declared U.S. should confine troops to major bases next year in reaction to an American soldier's killing of 16 civilians in Kandahar Sunday.

Obama responded to the Sunday's killings saying a "thorough investigation," would be conducted into the incident and would not alter the policy or timetable for war in Afghanistan. No details about the circumstances about the attack have been released. At this point, I am ok with this because I do not think it is smart to rush to judgment, but the truth is the whole world has already made their judgments and maybe having the facts out there would help refute any incorrect thoughts.

The first thought I have is what will happen to this soldier, the second what is the best approach for America in terms of handling the situation from a public relations standpoint because right now this incident has definitely shot some holes in the country's trust and credibility. Probably the best thing to do is publicly acknowledge there was wrong-doing and provide some small explanation of how this happened. This would provide some resolution and show others the country is not just going to push this issue under the rug. I think it is in the best interest of the public as a whole to be upfront with this situation, as long as it does not endanger any troops.