The Truth Will Set You Free...If You Can Prove It...

By Amanda Southern
as600718@ohio.edu
May 31, 2019


It used to be that if someone accused you of lying about something you allegedly said or did, you would be able to prove your innocence without a shadow of a doubt by whipping out a document or maybe even a video clip.

Now, it's not that simple.

In today's climate of "fake news" and "deep fakes," it's is nearly impossible to prove that something did or did not happen without a shadow of a doubt. The same technology that once helped us prove the facts, has started to become a tool used to create new truths -- and it's terrifying.

Image retrieved from http://suindependent.com/gwen-ifill-bullshit-news-political-cartoon/ 

It is so sad to see people who were once friends cut each other out of each other's lives over what they share on Facebook about the president or their political party when what they're sharing isn't actually real most of the time. It doesn't even have to be a true deep fake, where a brand new video is created using software that splices previous facial expressions and words together to create a new message, there are plenty of videos and photos floating around that are so extremely edited that the original message gets changed entirely. There are also writers that purposely make their websites look nearly identical to that of legitimate news sources and write articles full of made up facts and quotes that push their own agenda. 

It's this extreme editing and sharing of these types of articles, videos and photos that are causing so many people to wonder what we will do in the not-so-distant future when technology advances even more and we won't be able to tell whether or not an article is real. 

What will the future hold for news in our world?

Legitimate news sources have to find a way to show that their journalists are doing their research and providing all of the facts. Maybe it will require more live video streaming where it shows the reporters conducting their interviews in real time. Maybe it will take mainstream media taking the time to report on both sides of an issue instead of just one, so as to show that they are not pushing a political agenda like the fake news sites seem to be. 

The bottom line is that someone is going to have to figure something out to get the public to be able to differentiate between real and fake news -- and soon -- before we all end up friendless and despising the world we live in. 

Official Washington's “Weapons of Mass Deception”

Rossen Vassilev Jr.
rv727716@ohio.edu

In their deceptive campaign to sell the Iraq War to a reluctant American public and a skeptical international community, top officials of President George W. Bush's Administration claimed that Baghdad was actively developing nuclear arms, stockpiling a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and posing an immediate and grave threat to U.S. national security.

They falsely accused the Iraqi regime of being behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, even though nearly all of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers directly involved in these attacks were Sunni citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration even accused Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of having ties with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, even though the jihadist terrorist group (created by the U.S. in the 1980s to battle Soviet troops in Afghanistan) and Baghdad were known to be sworn enemies.

A major obstacle for the White House in early 2003 was that a lot of U.N. weapons inspectors, including active U.S. military personnel like Marine Captain Scott Ritter, had been rummaging around Iraq for months yet had found no trace of any Iraqi nuclear, chemical or biological arms. But President Bush ignored and disparaged the U.N., while his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice darkly warned the American public on the eve of the U.S. military invasion of Iraq: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Administration officials used fake photographs, photo/video manipulations and outright forgeries, and even deepfake videos (mostly of Saddam Hussein), as well as a mix of official propaganda, fake news and covert disinformation (such as false testimony from Iraqi defectors like the infamous “Curveball”) to convince Americans and a suspicious world public that Washington's only goal was to disarm Iraq of its existing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and save world peace.

Our mainstream news media quickly fell in line and wholeheartedly supported the White House's pitch to sell its latest snake oil (“Iraqi WMD”) to unsuspecting Americans and the rest of the world. Hardly any American journalist ever bothered to ask if the Bush Administration would dare invade Iraq if the latter indeed had WMD in early 2003. (The White House must have been absolutely certain that the Iraqis did not have any WMD by the time American troops invaded Iraq in March-April 2003).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell even flaunted a vial of supposedly Iraqi-made anthrax, a deadly chemical weapon, in front of the assembled members of the U.N. Security Council in New York City on April 5, 2003. He also presented to the rather skeptical Security Council members doctored or manipulated photos and videos as well as other phony images which purported to represent various Iraqi WMD in use.

Below is a computer-drawn illustration of an alleged Iraqi mobile biological-weapons lab, exactly as it was presented by Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council on April 5, 2003:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)#/media/File:Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation,_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg

Years later General Powell admitted that he had been himself hoodwinked and drawn into a hoax designed to manipulate skeptical Americans and the top U.N. diplomats into endorsing the long planned U.S. attack on Iraq. Absolutely no WMD were ever found anywhere in U.S.-occupied Iraq—not even the purported Iraqi biological-weapons lab trucks shown in Powell's deceitful misrepresentations. Early critics of the Iraq War like former U.S. Marine Captain Scott Ritter began to talk mockingly of official Washington's “weapons of mass deception.”

Still, to this very day the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, which is located in Dallas, TX, and is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, continues to display for the visiting public the same old doctored and misleading photographs and counterfeit illustrations, photo/video manipulations and faked-image forgeries as “proof” that Iraq was indeed in possession of WMD in 2003 and thus posed a direct threat to U.S. national security and American lives. Are these fakeries still needed?

Distortion of Photography Destruction

Sammy Hamilton
sh548815@ohio.edu

Distortion of photography is becoming a bigger problem than it’s ever been. There have been many cases in the media world where photographers or freelancers have gotten backlash from the pictures they are manipulating and publishing. 

I had not understood the reality and the huge threat to photojournalism credibility until researching more about it. "The public is losing faith in us. Without credibility, we have nothing; we cannot survive," says John Long, chairman of the ethics and standards committee of the National Press Photographers Association.” Was posted in an article by an AJR writer. (AJR) 

This is becoming more of an issue than we can even understand. It is even apparent in known publications. “Among the dozens he highlights are Time and Newsweek covers, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, images in the Charlotte Observer and Newsday, and a famous portrait of Abraham Lincoln that was discovered to be less than accurate” (AJR).

I think that the manipulation of photography goes even further in destruction in society in other ways such as body image for women. Not only is image manipulation an issue for newspapers but also for magazines. Mostly every picture you see in a magazine is photoshopped in some way. There is no truth behind the photo anymore. A huge topic over the past couple years has been the way women view there. Body image.

Looking at a magazine of women in bikinis they are looking skinnier than the average women. Thus, making women more self-conscious about their bodies and the pictures coming off very unrealistic. There are specific ways and examples of how even famous actresses have been affected by magazine distortions in this link below. 

Image courtesy: Instagram Protest Petition 

People are starting to notice everywhere and realize what our society is looking at in these pictures. Many celebrities have spoken out even Kate Winslet and Brad Pitt. The American Medical Association (AMA) even took a stance in supporting them. They also felt that pictures looking very unrealistic could cause issues like eating disorders. Yet, still the photographers are still standing up for their art of pictures that they are editing. I think that this issue will keep arising if people don’t start speaking up. 

Worth a Thousand Words (Give or Take)

Gregory Petersen

gp420718@ohio.edu   

Yes, I know, I should have known better than to trust a viral image. Let me start this blog with a plea for forgiveness.

I live in Cincinnati, so I am not far from Covington Catholic High School. I am familiar with the school, and I have been there to play basketball. I know people who claim the school as their alma mater, and I know people who choose not to. I know former teachers as well.

I am familiar with the reputation of the school, and I certainly have an opinion of it. The recent events at the Lincoln Memorial certainly are not the way I like to see the Cincinnati area represented in the international media.

That said, when I first saw the inflammatory image of Nick Sandmann, a Covington Catholic student, making a smug face at Nathan Phillips, a Native American elder, it quickly confirmed the negative feelings I have harbored throughout the years. There was nothing in the initial images that I found surprising.

While I held the negativity, I also held my tongue. That is one of the few areas where I can take pride.

More of the incident was released. More video was made public by the media, and then there were multiple people, all with deeply-held beliefs, feeling they had the real story.

There are many takeaways here, but none of them feel good. My first thought here is especially discouraging, and that is that there are no good guys. A group called the Black Hebrew Israelites was near the Lincoln Memorial, and exchanged in hateful rhetoric with the Covington Catholic youth, who were quick to return the hostility.

Here is the underlying problem: a picture says more than a thousand words, especially when it can be so easily distributed. The above picture and video were seen all over social media, and the president, who is no stranger to social media, weighed in.

What does this picture show? I do not think it is possible to look at it and not have some sort of emotional response. Is it a picture of a group of kids who were bullied and overwhelmed by the approaching Nathan Phillips? Is this a group of kids going out of their way to disrespect someone? It can be hard to be objective here, and this picture does not make it any easier.

Are these students victims or aggressors? Are they both? So, with that, there will be more videos revealed, and it is hard not to condemn the actions of Covington Catholic when one of them is seen mocking rape at the Lincoln Memorial.

Ultimately, the truth will come out, but that is completely secondary to the opinions that divide us. The real truth, sadly, is that there will be more instances like this. Hopefully we can keep from the next time being sensationalized.

I just hope I can learn a lesson here. Negative feelings toward a school can lead to prejudiced feelings, and I want to be better than that. While I still do not condone the actions of the students, there were levels of provocation. That, and they are young. People can do stupid things when they are young, and this is something I know all too well. Fortunately, my youth came before You Tube.

What is the greatest problem here? There are so many emotions and thoughts encapsulated in the image that something is bound to explode. So it is important to look at all elements, and not draw too many early conclusions, no matter how difficult that may be.  

Video Manipulation - Brought To You By An American President

By Zac Wenzel
zw022118@ohio.edu

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/24/18637771/nancy-pelosi-congress-deepfake-video-facebook-twitter-youtube

This past week saw news stations, websites, and even our President distributing an edited video of House of Representatives leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi at a news conference was critical of President Trump's recent actions as well as his potential mental unfitness for office. While it did not raise to the level of a deep fake, which tend to be more technically proficient, it still represents a dangerous world of reality manipulation. Not to mention that the video was shared by rightwing television stations, online news outlets, and even by President trump.

What makes the sharing of this video by news outlets and President Trump so unethical is that you don't need to be technically smart to know something doesn't seem right about the video. It is essentially slowed down to make it seem like Pelosi is either drunk or not in her right mind. Even if the majority of those people that watched the video deemed that it was fake, it still dominated the news cycle as well as people's minds for a few days. " Whether repeating the lie or attempting to knock it down, the dominant political narrative of the past two days has focused squarely on Speaker Polosi's health", Charles Warzel points out in his New York Times opinion piece.

The video can still be found online on many sites, including Facebook, which defends the video being on their platform by stating that the video is satire and falls under the humor category, even though the video is clearly a fake piece of media meant to fool people, as stated in this New Yorker article written by Sue Halpern. What makes Facebook's defense all the more shocking, is the websites  lack of monitoring fake accounts and fake news that appeared on it's platform during the 2016 election.

The fake Pelosi video may seem trivial and humorous to some, but it is without question a dangerous step towards fake news and falsehoods becoming normalized in America. If we can't believe what's right in front of our eyes, how can we believe anything?

Some Things You Can't Unsee

Valeria Santizo

vs178718@ohio.edu

Have you ever looked at a graphic image and told yourself, “I wish I hadn’t seen that,”? I get it, sometimes the graphic images the media shows have a way of making us see a reality we are foreign to. Setting boundaries for graphic images and what the public should or should not see is a debatable topic. However, sometimes to get your point across people need to see the truth regardless if it is too graphic or not. I believe the media should be free to publish graphic images if an only if they are not altered or photo-shopped to appear different than the original image.

https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?catref=lhan196

I believe the media should be able to publish graphic images because sometimes it is the only way to get people to react. Take for example the story of Emmitt Till. Emmitt was a 14-year-old African-American boy from Chicago who went to visit family in Money, Mississippi.  While he was there, he was tortured, murdered, and thrown into the Tallahatchie river for allegedly whistling at a white woman who was married to one of the murderers. When authorities found Emmitt’s body it was badly disfigured and unrecognizable. His body was sent back to Chicago where his mother, Mamie Till, held an open casket funeral. She decided she wanted to show the world the results of this hate crime. Mamie was quoted saying, "let the world see what has happened, because there is no way I could describe this. And I needed somebody to help me tell what it was like." The casket was open for 5 days at Roberts Temple Church of God and thousands of people came to see the body including journalists. When Emmitt Till’s picture was shown all over newspapers, people were outraged especially after the two men who murdered Till were set free. One woman in particular was so outraged that when she was asked to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, she refused galvanizing the Civil Rights Movement in 1955. Her name was Rosa Parks, and this is what started the Montgomery Bus Boycott. When asked why she refused to give up her seat Parks stated, "I thought about Emmett Till, and I couldn't go back to the back of the bus.” Because of stories like this I think it is important to show the world what people are capable of even if it makes us uncomfortable.

In today’s world people debate that viewers are desensitized by graphic images in the media, I beg to differ. People still get offended when graphic images from war are shown in the news. One specific event was the bombing in Gaza in 2014. Images circulated the internet of dead children lying face down on the sandy beaches of Gaza. There is a fear reporters have of offending people or crossing the line with these images. However, I think imagery like this is important and to best describe why I have to quote war photographer, Christoph Bangert, “How can we refuse to acknowledge a mere representation—a picture—of a horrific event, while other people are forced to live through the horrific event itself?” (Bangert, 2014). I completely agree with Bangert, we need to see what is happening in the world around us and be aware of the consequences that come with decisions people make.

It's on Facebook, so it must be true

Paige Zsebik
pz862718@ohio.edu


     Today's generation is in love with their social media accounts. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat, I can promise more than half the population have at least one account. Unfortunately, with the growth of real people's accounts, there also seems to be a growth of "fake" accounts, sometimes considered ghost accounts. These ghost accounts are typically the contributors to the tons of spam a person gets popping up on their homepages, or the ones who generate and start the share of falsified news stories.

     It seems like it has become a more recent trend that while scrolling down my Facebook account that I have myself, I am seeing tons of stories from websites I have never heard of, and thousands of shares! What is funny, is some of these articles have spelling errors, format issues, and have no traceability from any credible sources. Yet, people are still sharing and believing them!

    So what would it take for all of it to stop? No more twisting the details of a story, no more photo video manipulation, and no more deep fakes. The most important thing a consumer can do is fact check, fact check, and then fact check again. The BBC actually says the number 1 rule to fact check these false stories, is to type it into Google and see what comes up! The BBC

   Another way consumers can stop the fake news from gaining popularity across social media, is to stop reacting to it and stop sharing it. Even by reacting to a Facebook fake story with an angry face, or commenting, "This is not real", is showing Facebook that story is getting attention. Any type of feedback, Facebook sees it as positive feedback. We also need to make sure to read the entire story and check it for any spelling errors. Multiple spelling and format errors should throw consumers a big red flag as to the realness of the article.

     So how easy is it for people to come up with these fake articles? Easier than you would think. By simply googling, "fake news", this website was one of the first few to come up. The Fake News Generator . This website gives users the ability to create their own articles! It took me not even 5 minutes to find out how these fake news stories are being created. And there is no censoring these websites and what its users are writing in them.

source: https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/363350/how-do-you-fight-fake-news-ask-the-kids

“What’s over there?” ”-Don’t worry about it”

Juan Guevara
jg808618@ohio.edu

Censorship: I, kind of, get it. There are many stories which cover acts which are so heinous and so brutal that the mere description of the event can shock the reader's conscience. So, in order to protect the readers and viewers, those responsible sometimes do a little wiping first, or, simply leave it out. They change the wording, they describe in a way that the information is manageable. At first, I understood, I admired the effort, however, I started thinking about it more and I cannot in good faith support these tactics and I suppose, this entire approach. I’ll explain what I mean later.

There was a reporter in the Iraq War which pointed the obvious. Wherever he went there were bodies on the ground, and it didn't sound like they went peacefully. How could they? These poor souls passed on the ground. No funeral, no bedside manner, no pain management medication. The reporter asked why were they not showing these bodies? To protect readers? To protect viewers? My personal opinion is how are you protecting people from withholding pieces of information? If you told me a missile landed on a school and said 10 children died. I would be hurt and I would follow the news and read articles and attempt to understand how I can make a difference. Who do I vote for, or not vote for, for this not to happen again. Now, if there were photographs of the scene, of children’s bodies, hurt could not begin to describe my reaction. I would be shocked, and appropriately so. 

No one is protecting anyone’s feelings by withholding information. Do not worry about our feelings, we brought our big boys' and girl's pants today, we can handle it. I do not believe we can react appropriately to situations if they are “padded.” There are several circumstances which were made to seem lighter than they were (Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer). The reaction would be different. The climate would be different if things were exposed for what they were. And that goes for most things especially political ones, there's the saying “let the chips fall where they may.”

I understand not showing content which promotes terrorism. Terrorists such as ISIS want graphic material to be aired in order to spread fear and their influence. Those instances require special handling. The thing about reporting of war, tragedies, natural disasters, I say, let us have it. My point, what I am trying to say is; don’t withhold information from someone and then tell them it is for their own good. Let the people decide what is good for them and what is not. Sometimes we need to hear or see bad news to really get it. 

The Real Problem with our Ethics Codes

Brandon Goddard

bg468718@ohio.edu

Trust in media has begun to reach its lowest point. This is not anything surprising. With only “32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. That was in 2016. In the years to 2019 the American public’s trust has slowly continued to decline.

There is many reasons that have been brought up and argued for time and time again over the course of this consistent gain of distrust among Americans and the media. The national conversation has focused on accusations of a lack of fact checking, propaganda, and just straight out lies. The range of possible factors never stops growing, with ideas from individuals such as media becoming more liberal, Republicans moving even further right, or quality of journalism has declined due to a lack of regulation. And that last factor brings up an important question: Are our ethics codes such as the AAF and PRSA outdated or lacking more specific outlines?

The real answer is actually surprisingly clear: there is no absolute answer. But there are many factors that don’t receive as much credit as they should. This includes the rise of technology.

image source: https://gq-images.condecdn.net/image/BrZl42xKXXY/crop/1620/f/hot-letter_media-gq-15feb19_b.jpg

The problem isn’t the ethics. It’s that the codes aren’t being updated for new technology or new media. Anyone and everyone has the tools to create a website or make a social media account and become a reporter. There is no one teaching or showing them the codes of ethics. They are looking to reach the largest audience possible through their smaller means. The common ethics are things that are easily understood by most people. The rising presence of sources who can’t and don’t have to be credible for even a one-off story has led to an attention economy. People want clicks and attention, on an individual level and outlet level. The declining trust in media and rise in social media has led to unhealthy competition for reportings and news. News outlets have to compete for readship to survive not only with other official news outlets but also everything else online.

In fact, among all of the somewhat official outlets, the least trust are always internet-based outlets. They are all explicitly partisan sites without a non-internet legacy to capture people’s trust. The openness and ease of use of the internet is definitely a massive factor in the battle of keeping trust in news and reporting, but it’s definitely not the code of ethics we have come to rely on. It’s people not knowing of, wanting to, or deliberately going against them for the sake of their own side of the argument.

Ethics In Advertising

Anthony Suszczynski

as309714@ohio.edu

Ethics codes are particularly important especially in the case of advertising. The first type of advertising that comes to my mind, where regulation is incredibly necessary, is pharmaceutical ads. So often we see commercials on television suggesting that we buy medication. Many of these commercials are well designed. They zero in on the consumer’s pain (literally) and use it as a way to convince the consumer to buy their product.

Scientific American wrote an article titled, How DrugCompany Ads Downplay risks.

In the article it is explained that in the United States, “pharmaceutical companies can lawfully market prescription medications to the public through direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising.”

According to the article there are critics who believe that doctors should be deciding which medications to prescribe without being influenced by what their patients heard and watched on television. There has been an increase in patient demand for drugs advertised on television so it is obvious that the ads are effective. The American Medical Association supports a ban on these types of advertisements.

So how can groups such as the American Advertising Federation and the Public Relations Society of America ensure that no person is being hurt by these advertisements? On the AAF website is a piece titled, Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics.

According to the AAF, there are eight principles and practices that lay out the ways in which forms of communications such as advertising should do the right thing for the customer. One of the Principles I found interesting and completely necessary is number three which reads, “Advertisers should clearly distinguish advertising, public relations and corporate communications from news and editorial content and entertainment, both online and offline.”

Graphic Source: aaf.org

I liked this because breaking news has the ability to create a higher sense of urgency, worry, fear, and action than advertising. So if a potential consumer cannot decipher the difference between what is news and what are advertisements then the potential consumer may purchase a product out of panic. The consumer’s mindset is different when evaluating news as compared to a commercial. The consumer should be treated ethically and not misled.

The AAF demonstrates with this graph the skepticism of the general public in regards to the amount of trust that they have for advertisers.

There are of course seven other principles and practices listed, but I would like to focus on them as a whole. Together, they work to protect the best interest of the consumer. Advertisements are already powerful as it is; so it unnecessary to act unethically. Both the businesses and consumers can live in a world where each group is treated fairly so as long as there are a set of guidelines and rules to follow to benefit all.

Ethics and advertising in the modern world

Rebecca Marion

rm812416@ohio.edu





As a young child I was often told that I could always trust the government, but as an adult in a society that advertises products containing harmful chemicals I now wonder if organizations like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the businesses that follow their lead are as infallible as I once believed them to be. The product in particular I am referring to is SugarBearHair, one of the leading supplier of gummy vitamins for healthier hair and nails.

https://weheartit.com/entry/247663328

According to BuzzFeed News, a lab test found that, “the vitamins had “relatively high” levels of lead compared with other hair supplements tested by the lab.” Lead is a naturally occurring metal that was once found in petrol, and now in SugarBearHair’s gummy vitamins.






After heavy research, I began to wonder why a business that makes vitamins would allow their products to contain a potential harmful substance. According to the FDA, lead can create potential health problems, but considers removing lead or inhibiting its presence in food products impossible.






With other governments across the developed world already taking notice of the potential risks of lead poisoning and cracking down on the amount of lead allowed in their food and makeup, I question why the United States has been so slow to act. In fact, it wasn’t until 2017 that the FDA began to take notice of these potential health concerns and formed the Toxic Elements Working Group to reevaluate when they should take action on the levels of lead found in food products.






With that said, how is it that SugarBearHair vitamins are being advertised as a delicious alternative to traditional hair and nail supplements? According to the Public Relations Society of America code of ethics (PRSA), all member should avoid deceptive practices and be honest and accurate in all communications.






If the goal of every news organization is to operate with honesty and avoid deceptive practices, then why do they show advertisements that place warning labels in small print, or avoid them all together? This is an issue I have run into several times working as an Advertising Manager for a college newspaper, and several times we have had our creditability doubted because of it.






Truth be told, It’s incredibly difficult to balance ethics with keeping a business afloat that pays its employees. Even though the process is difficult, that doesn’t mean we should neglect ethics, but rather implement stricter guidelines for advertisers that reflect journalistic ethics, and prompt our government organizations to do the same.

Do Ethics Codes Work?

Samantha Skvarek
ss062718@ohio.edu

Codes are very important part of work when it comes to communications. There must be a set of rules in place for journalists to follow. Journalists and even advertisers create the voice for the people. The code of ethics allows readers to be protected. Journalists are supposed to be honest, independent, and advocate.

I really think the code of ethics is not working. I think partially the code of ethics may not be clear. I think the objectives are now laid out very clearly. For organizations to successfully follow the codes it needs to be clearly written. The other main issue the codes need to address is they need to go along with the mission of the organization. I really think this lacks all around. I will say that companies can be very honest. When they present material they tend to be accurate. Not only are the accurate they tell the truth. Telling the truth is one of the most important aspects of being in communications. If you are not truthful, people will not want to read what you are putting out.

Part of being honest means that you have expertise. Expertise means that the writers are doing their homework. Their homework is to do the research and present that accordingly. I think that by researching and presenting it in a way holds journalists in accountable. Journalists are given too much independence. The problem with independence is the journalists do not care what happens when something goes wrong. Journalists should be held accountable for their actions. I also think that the higher ups within the company should be held accountable as well.

I think unrealistic expectations ruin the codes for people. I think fairness really gives people what they need. Everyone deserves to express opinions. That is one part of the code that companies and organizations need to strive for better. Feedback is important when it comes to regaining control over journalism. Fairness allows readers to express those opinions freely and openly. Being able to do helps companies grow. Something companies and organizations truly lack.

Codes of ethics remind me of classroom rules. Children need to follow them in order to succeed throughout their days in school. Without them it would be mad chaos. The same goes for journalism. Without code of ethics, journalists would be writing off the charts. Not only does this affect journalists but it also affects advertisers. In the end code of ethics really pushes writers to be better. They are able to provide better content. In the end a set of rules needs to be in place for everyone.

  

Resources:

Brewer, D. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved from http://mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/editorial-ethics/239-fairness-in-journalism

Carr, D. (2014, November 03). Journalism, Independent and Not. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/business/media/journalism-independent-and-not.html

Turteltaub, A. (2016, August 25). Ethics for ethicists? A Code of Ethics and Compliance Professional. Retrieved from http://complianceandethics.org/ethics-for-ethicists-code/

Ethics and pharmaceutical sales

Brenda Stepp
bs014317@ohio.edu

If you had the chance to watch television this weekend, you probably were bombarded with some type of pharmaceutical ad.  Advertisers have a unique job with these types of ads.  The goal of the ad is to offer a viable solution to a health concern while keeping the ad upbeat and memorable.  The ad must ad go into detail about the drug and its possible side effects.  In order to remain compliant, the ad must mention any possible side effect that could have occurred during clinical trails.  These are often read while we listen to a piece of popular music, watch an animated animal do something cute, or look at beautiful scenery.

Pharmaceutical representatives are assigned territories and certain physicians per territory.  I know many of them.  In years past, these representatives would bring freebies into the physician's office.  These freebies consisted of ink pens, paper, toys (the Rhinocort rhinoceros had a an entire series of stuffed toys), candy, and the list goes on. Some companies sponsored elaborate dinners and family  outings for the physicians. Their goal was to get that coveted signature and hopefully a few scripts written for their product.  The number of scripts written by each physician is tracked.  The more scripts written, the nicer the freebies became. A few years ago, it was decided that these gifts were too influential.  While any physician worth their salt did not allow these methods to influence their choice of medications, there were some that allowed themselves to be swayed by the attention.

I believe one of the chore values that these representatives violated on a regular basis was one of fair competition.  I have known individuals who have worked for a company, left that company for their competitor and used that knowledge to sell a similar product with the new company.  Although they  may not have thought anyone was listening, I have heard reps tell physicians that one medication is  better than another using information that would have been classified.

There are still practices that are questionable though it is much better than in year's past.  Elaborate dinners now offer a "expert speaker" that allows companies to wine and dine a physician by offering a lecture about the product.  Medication samples are offered in exchange for a few words with the physician.  I shutter to think that anyone should be swayed by these offerings but if they didn't work, they would not continue.

Patients will continue to ask for that "pill I saw advertised on TV".  It is up to physicians to be ethical enough to prescribe medications based on need, not flashy gifts or commercials.  It is up to the pharmaceutical representatives to remember the ethics that should define their profession.  We have work to do.

Utilizing our Ethical Code or Not?

Miranda Mariner
mq044416@ohio.edu

There is something about social media that makes it automatically trustworthy. We follow the people we look up to, the people that we are friends with, our families, and plenty more. This may make social media immediately trustworthy, right?

Wrong.

Americans believe that two-thirds of news on social media is misinformation. According to Poynter Americans believe that 39% of news on television is misinformation but it was even higher according to social media which is a 65% rate of disbelief. Social media is considered to be more biased and less accurate than the news.

Which is believable and just proves the ethical code that journalists must follow. Social media is for fun and games, not actual information. Social media can not be maintained and organized as journalism is. Therefore, it does not have to follow the ethical codes that journalists do.

Trust is extremely important regarding news, so it is best to not get information from social media due to the opinionated bias that is not allowed to be presented in regular journalism due to the code of ethics.

The only codes that social media follows would be providing ads and revealing that they are ads. Someone such as a social media influencer gets paid to promote different products or companies which later gets a great amount of attention, since typically the influencer is "rich and famous."

Someone such as a Youtube personality named David Dobrik often refers to SeatGeek in his Youtube vlogs (video blogs) because they help him to purchase cars for his friends or tickets for Superbowl games.

We see influencers following this rule because of their status and payment for promoting the product or company.



Among trust and proper advertisement there are a plethora of other ethical codes, but these are possibly the codes that regular social media users do not take part in which causes the lack of trust from "normal" users.

Do we as humans utilize the ethical code that journalists use, or no?

Social Media Ads: Is Ethics or Algorithms the Problem?

Jeffrey Wolfe
jw939417@ohio.edu

Anyone with a social media account, for example Facebook or Twitter, has scrolled through their feed and seen an advertisement every few entries. Products you may or may not be interested in are marketed directly to you when your only intent may have been to see what your friends have been doing. Modern television watching involves fast-forwarding through commercials, so why wouldn't we be frustrated when this happens in what feels like a more personal place?

Algorithms

What you search for on social media sites influence what you see from your friends and businesses. According to a recent Buffer.com article, Facebook's algorithm looks at content creating "meaningful interactions" and will prioritize it within your feed. This same article also explains how Twitter prioritizes by ranked tweets first, followed by "in case you missed it," and then everything else in reverse-chronological order.

Why are algorithms important?

Many of the advertisements and posts you see, you've put in front of you by what you've shared, commented on, or searched for. This can be helpful if you searched for your favorite baseball team, only to later see advertisements for merchandise you might want from the same team. However, this can be a detriment in an area like politics.

If one tends to read more conservative or more liberal articles, it is likely that during campaign season you will get advertisements that match those ideals. That also means you're likely never to see the opposing viewpoints ad, either.

https://vrevzine.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/ethical-issues-in-social-media/

In a 2018 article, The Guardian references Robert Mueller's indictment of the Internet Research Agency which alleged a conspiracy using Facebook ads to "encourage US minorities not to vote," making the argument that this direct advertising may work too well.

Ethics

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the American Advertising Federation (AAF) have guidelines for advertisers to follow regarding honesty, fairness, conflicts of interest, and the free flow of information. Much of the information focuses on how the content should be presented, but where it has no influence is in how the information is disseminated. This is still at the mercy of the algorithms mentioned earlier by each social media outlet.

What can be done?

I believe that the content being created is in general following the guidelines set forth by the PRSA and AAF. It is how that information reaches the consumer, or rather, how it doesn't in some cases, that is the problem in social media advertising today. For social media advertising to be as fair as it is meant to be, the ethics code will need to extend into a standard of information sharing on social media and those platforms must agree to them.

#Sponsored: The Ethics of Influencer Advertising

I am sure you have seen an Instagram post, Facebook post, or even a Twitter post with these headlines: "This product is THE BEST!" or "I use this product every day!" or even "Apply my code for 25% off your next purchase! #ad".

Many popular influencers like Kylie Jenner have been creating these picture ads for the past few years, but do they really use the products they advertise? Or are they just being paid off?

Source: Crave New Media

I know that when I see a celebrity that I like promoting a product that they claim to use, I am suddenly interested and BELIEVE that this product is working for them, therefore it should work for me, right? Why would they lie about a product working or not? Would that follow the code of ethics?

The AAF and the PRSA both discuss in their first codes the importance of truth. The AAF states, "Advertising, public relations, marketing communications, news, and editorial all share a common objective of truth and high ethical standards in serving the public." The AAF also goes on to mention, "Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency.

The PRSA discusses truthfulness and honesty as, "We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public."

Are these codes being followed? How do we know?

The simple answer is yes, however some will question the truthfulness of these endorsements. These codes are being followed, even if we don't think that they are when we see the post. According to Kristen Matthews of Convince&Convert, it all comes down to one word. "One word: Every time you run a campaign or PR push, and money or goods are exchanged, simply ask that the post contains the word 'sponsored.'"

In the picture above of Kylie Jenner advertising hismileteeth, she disclosed the endorsement by creating the hashtag, "#ad". She also shared the identity of the endorsers, hismileteeth. She is being truthful in her disclosure, but maybe not in her use of the product.

So, I guess it really doesn't matter if the celebrity uses the product or if the product works because they have followed the code of ethics to the smallest extent. It is clear that with changing social media and mobile communication that the Code of Ethics needs to be updated to suit the growing advertising markets and social media influencer ads.

Whether the ethic codes really effective in advertising?

Yichen Wei
yw130215@ohio.edu

The boosting development of the new technologies largely transforming marketing and advertising. The accessibility rate of the Internet in developing countries in the world are more widespread, let alone the developed countries. It says the transparency and honesty are the important guidelines for marketing. Actually, it is very similar to the journalism industry like the information provided in the commercial area should be created based on accuracy and ethics.
For example the Instagram as one of the biggest browsing and advertising platform there are tons of commercial advertisements inserted inside. When the viewers scroll down the pages the companies like NYTimes would pop up and try to persuade you to subscribe it only for one dollar per week, et
cetera. Many people report seeing advertisements specific to their location.

Link of picture: https://later.com/blog/instagram-ads/

People are always scanning these social media during their leisure time for a temporarily relax. It is a smart way to penetrate the inner side of the customers this moment and achieve the purpose of the sales. Through utilizing the way by making the advertising pages more colorful and exhibited by the celebrities and put the purchase link down these strategies make the potential customers have more confidence and trust to the products. However; whether the buyers fulfill the expectation with the purchase and use it with satisfaction it is still controversial. 

One of the principles of the advertising, ethics is that the advertisers should have fair treatment to the customers based on the nature of the product and service or the way it advertised. obviously, it is a tough goal to finish with for the reason of the pursuing of the profit, the pressure from the competition in today's markets. Since these, the advertisements have no choice but to be performed the way like fancy and eye-catching. After this series of operation, common advertising sometimes will seem not too real and be convinced. So this is the standard which the advertisers should strive for especially for the younger generation. According to the Children's Advertising Review Unit(CARU) it lists several principles particularly pointed out for children. 

Link of picture: https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/creepy-kids-in-creepy-vintage-ads.html

Nowadays more and the younger generation are closely connected with social media from television, mobile phone, and radios everywhere. Especially during the period, they have not formed their comprehensive cognitive skills and values yet they are more vulnerable and trustful to these advertisements. The people who post this information should pay attention to the content and style they posted and observe the ethics codes. The existence of these principles are making this industry more standardized and to have a bright future.