What leads to audience's distrust in the advertisers?

by Aditya (AD) Sahasrabudhe

asp.aditya259@gmail.com | as086919@ohio.edu

The internet has been one of the most transformative technologies since its advent. In today’s time when online affordances available to anyone with access to the internet are immeasurable, it is hard to distinguish a regular netizen from a communication professional based on their online communication. It is the ethical codes and principles followed by advertisers and PR professionals which ensure, to a certain extent, that the public is served justly, and the audiences are not misled.

The ethical values and codes that the professionals adhere to make serving the public easier and create transparency. A survey conducted in August 2017 by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) found that 60% of agencies are taking action to address transparency ¹. However, generating transparency doesn’t lead to generating trust to a similar degree.

The latest research from the Adweek Media/Harris Poll shows that only one in five Americans trust advertising most of the time and 13% say they never trust it. If truth and honesty are the overriding values in any communications business, why does the research show such abysmal trust percentages? I hypothesize that these results could be a reflection due to the following possibilities.

1. The communication professionals are not true (deliberately or unknowingly) to their job (advertisements here)
2. The public can’t differentiate between what’s true and what’s not
3. Truth doesn’t exist or is unknown
   

Let us have a look at the conceptualization of the above possibilities through an advertising example- Cleaner X kills 99.9% germs.

Supposing only 1 in 5 (as per the research mentioned above) trusts the above advertisement, communication of the false claim (the cleaner kills 99.9% germs) might dissuade the audiences from building trust in the brand. This false communication might either be deliberate or done without knowing the veracity of the numbers mentioned in the ad.

If the second possibility is considered, the audiences might be in a state where they can’t conceive a cleaner capable of killing 99.9% of the germs. In other words, they can’t make up their mind about whether the advertisement should be trusted or not.

Since a regular person usually doesn’t have access to scientific labs to run the tests and verify the accuracy of the ad, they might choose to consider that the truth doesn’t exist, or it is unknown.

Numerous research results have shown people have a lot of distrust towards advertisers. With that in mind, it would be fair to say that not all ethical codes are being followed. One of the forms of unethical practices that violate public trust is false advertising. Activia ad campaign’s infamous advertising scandal claimed the yogurt had “special bacterial ingredients.” Ads for Dannon's popular Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action settlement of $45 million in 2010, according to ABC News.

                                Activia's false claims landed the company in a $45 million class action settlement

Several other false-advertising cases, like, Volkswagen’s environment-friendly diesel cars, New Balance’s calorie-burning shoes, etc. have surfaced over the years. Although brands claim they follow ethical guidelines and codes, it would be hard to ascertain the degree to which they do.

References

1.     Retrieved from “Principles & Practices for Advertising Ethics”, http://www.aaf.org/_pdf/aaf%20website%20content/513_ethics/iae_principles_practices.pdf

Media military relationships and embedded journalism

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu
Make up blog 10/22

In times of war, there is a delicate balance between government censorship of war correspondence and the right of the press to produce unregulated news stories. In essence, both rely on each other for propagation of war sentiment and both have the power to destroy each other’s credibility with the American public. 

The mistrust between the military and the media that was established in Vietnam is a sentiment that continues to be felt by both sides today. In the war in Iraq, the media and military continue to look for a balance between censorship and free press. 

Embedded journalism

Whether to alleviate tension or to gain political and militaristic control, the Pentagon decided to be proactive about setting up safe media relations for the war in Iraq. Unlike previous attempts to keep the press away from the battlefield, the Pentagon established a system of “embedded” reporters, which by definition are "media representatives remaining with a unit on an extended basis.” 

Embedded journalists in Baghdad (via BBC)

For the journalist there is a trade-off. Embedding will get you closer to the front line but often, it is at the price of editorial independence. And in the same way journalists use militaries to get news stories, militaries use journalists to get their story out, which proved throughout the war two agendas on a collision course.

Critics have also argued the embedding program was the administration’s attempt to build popular support for the war in Iraq. Several influential members of the Pentagon leadership and the administration believed the media contributed to defeat in the Vietnam War by demoralizing the American public with coverage of atrocities. They hoped to avoid a similar result in Iraq by limiting journalists’ coverage of darker stories on combat, the deaths of Iraqi civilians, and property damage. 

Alternatives to embedding

Although the embedding program was the dominant form of reporting during the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, two alternatives did exist. Though slightly more expensive than embedding, some news organizations opted to station a reporter in Baghdad. These journalists bunkered down in central Baghdad and watched as American “shock and awe” bombing raids wrought death and destruction on the city.

The second alternative—funding an independent reporter with the freedom to roam—was far more costly and largely the province of elite news sources, like The New York Times and other national newspapers. While ground commanders interacted positively with independent reporters, on several occasions Pentagon officials criticized what they called “four-wheel-drive” and “cowboy” journalists for operating outside of the embedding program.

War reporting in perspective

The relationship between the mass-media and the army is a special relationship due to the many elements that may form. For this reason, we must always remember the importance of professionalism, our ability to show impartiality, fairness, and responsibility as journalists. Both elements, the military and the media, are pillars of society; a good cooperation between the two is essential.

Military Leaders Address the Media (Via Wikimedia)

Media construction and crime reporting

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu 
Make up blog 10/13

Crime reporting has risen dramatically in newsrooms across America, and some studies suggest viewers want more of these stories. As fascinating as crime may be for some viewers, is it right that a local news station air the gory details of a tragic event, possibly jeopardizing an ongoing police investigation, and violating suspects' rights? How much does the public need to know?

For reporters, the struggle over how far to pursue a story may present serious ethical and even moral complications. Investigative reporting, on any level, requires asking invasive and sensitive questions of people who may not want their privacy invaded. 

Aside from the moral and ethical objections of some reporters to acting with disregard for suffering victims, there is a far more practical reason for exercising restraint. In-depth crime reporting and investigating depends upon reporters and producers cultivating and sustaining relationships with well-placed, informed sources, like employees of the police department or other city, county, or state agencies. If a reporter burns those bridges by revealing confidential information that impedes an investigation, those sources may, in the future, refrain from sharing information.

Unfortunately (I use this adjective as a personal belief), a basic fact in the news media is that, if a story involves a brutal death or injury of some kind (or the likelihood of it), it is likely to get higher ratings. The more lurid the story, the better its chances of being the ratings leader. Natural disasters, bank robberies, shootouts, rapes, serial killers, and school violence all draw an army of news vans the same way that a limping gazelle draws a pride of lions. 

This mantra is deeply ingrained in journalistic norms. Newsworthiness is determined by several factors, and destruction fulfills many of them a lot better than news about society working its wonders another day. Also, because getting information on them is easy (through the police or government agencies via press releases) and since they take place on public streets where permits or business permission are never required to film near, they are generally rather cheap to cover. They also tend to provide flashy visuals.

Some have suggested that coverage like this, focusing on negative stories of war, death, and destruction rather than the positive things that are happening in society, is responsible for making people cynical about the world around them. People who watch the news start to feel that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and give up on the idea that society's problems can be fixed. In addition, when the media obsess over violent crimes, deeper problems with society (such as cities running out of money) go ignored, leaving the public uninformed.

Even further, this type of coverage is even being glamorized by Hollywood blockbusters like ‘Nightcrawler’, which chronicles the life of an aspiring video journalist who spends his nights cruising the streets of L.A., hunting and prying to capture violent crimes or accidents on his video camera, in order to sell the footage to news stations. Although this film presents an extreme and stylized reflection of the news industry, people love the narrative, and our industry phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads” remains at the front of the news scene. 

'Nightcrawler' Official Trailer (Via Youtube)

You Can't Handle the Truth: A College Junior's Ramblings on WikiLeaks

Amanda Hagley
ah725510@ohio.edu

What do I think?

You can't handle the truth! That's what I sometimes think of individuals who criticize whistle-blowers and information leakers.  Although I will recognize the fact that certain information being publicly released can lead to conflicts involving national security and our country's safety, I'm conflicted because I also believe that our nation's citizens have the right to know about certain information and the things that our government is doing behind our backs.

Let's put it like this, everyone's seen the movie Mean Girls right?  Of course you have, it's pretty much a classic at this point.  At one point in the movie Regina George, popular queen bee, releases pages of the Burn Book to the entire school. This burn book was basically just a bunch of crude comments about other students at the school.  Although these girls may have believed that the hateful comments they wrote were not all true, it still created havoc throughout the entire school.  Okay, so maybe this isn't the most appropriate example because half of what was written was just petty high school drama, but you can see the comparison, right?

The question we have to ask ourselves is "What does the public really need to know, and whose responsibility is it to decide this in the name of protecting a nation?"

The Populars.

So where are these leaks coming from?  Why are they even taken into account?  I'll be honest and say that I had to do some research on this popular site called WikiLeaks that I kept hearing about prior to composing this blog.  Although I understood the basic idea, I couldn't honestly say that I was knowledgeable about how the whole thing actually functioned.

Here's a run down of how it works:

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that publishes secret and leaked information provided by completely anonymous sources. If you need more information than that you can check out Wikipedia's page on the topic if it so fancies you.  There have been several big cases of government information leaked through WikiLeaks including the popular news stories covering individuals like Bradley E. Manning and Edward Snowden, both of who are facing serious legal repercussions for their actions of releasing government information.

So were these men right in their actions of alerting the public of seemingly private government action? Although it may come as a shock, I don't know that I have a solid opinion on this topic for you.

Manning Left. Snowden Right.
Photo Courtesy of Media.Wired.It   

The Final Say.

The questions we have to take into account when deciding whether or not to publish released confidential information is whether or not the positives will really outweigh the negatives.  Maybe it's controversial that the government has been reading our emails, but are you willing to give up your sense of national security in order to find out about this occurrence and to maintain that right to privacy?

Was it necessary for Manning to release half a million government reports to the public at the expense of a possible threat to the country?  Maybe and maybe not.  I guess what it all comes down to is what you hold to be your highest concern:  the truth or your country's well-being.  

Gender Identification Controversy

Carly Maurer
cm744511@ohio.edu

After Private Manning declared that she planned to live out the rest of her life as a woman, the media was in a frenzy to decide what was the appropriate way to refer to her.

A handful of news outlets decided to respect her wishes and refer to private Manning as Chelsea Manning from here on out and use feminine pronouns. Among these were Reuters, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Daily Intelligencer and The Huffington Post.

The fact that so many media outlets decided not to, however (including The New York Times, CNN, ABC News and The Associated Press), was a horrible decision in my eyes.

What About the Transgender Community?

This decision shows they are out of touch with the transgender demographic in our society. The Associated Press Stylebook states the following about the term transgender:

“Transgender - An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexuals, cross-dressers and other gender-variant people. Transgender people may identify as female-to-male (FTM) or male-to-female (MTF). Use the descriptive term preferred by the individual. Transgender people may or may not decide to alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.”

Who cares if you don’t want to call Manning ‘she’ because she still has a male genitals?  As a reporter for a news outlet, it is not about you or your beliefs! She asked to be referred to as a girl, she has made the decision to biologically become a girl, and she already considers herself a girl despite the fact that her body represents that of a male. They should have followed the AP Stylebook and used the term she preferred.

The proper term at a drag queen show is ‘she,’ and I’m sure it is safe to say that a number of them have not had a gender change surgery. Why did so many news sources find it necessary to use surgery as a quota for being referred to as a woman? These major publications should have respected her wishes and her right to self-identify. As Janet Mock tweeted, “Self-determination is a cornerstone of our nation.”

The decision to continue calling her Bradley and ‘he’ was disrespectful to the LGBT community. The Transgender Law Center even tweeted that the media should refer to Manning as Chelsea, ‘she’ and ‘her.’

This decision sparked a lot of debate, some of which is showcased on Storify. One of the posts that stuck out to me was David Walton’s, “You can oppose what Chelsea Manning did and still think she’s entitled to be referred to with the correct name and pronouns” tweet. I think he is exactly right. By referring to Manning with the ‘she’ pronoun, news outlets would not be saying they support her or don’t support her. They would simply be respecting her wishes and choosing not to alienate a giant demographic of people in the U.S.

Credit: CBS News

Public Confusion 

As for thinking the public would be confused, news outlets could simply clarify in their articles. One can even say something like “Private Manning, who from now on wishes to be referred to with feminine pronouns or as Chelsea….”  I don’t see anything harmful in doing this. Times public editor Margaret Sullivan explained that their goal was to provide clarity to their readers and respect the subject's preferences. Why did they find this so hard to do?

“It’s tricky, no doubt. But given Ms. Manning’s preference, it may be best to quickly change to the feminine and to explain that — rather than the other way around,” Margaret Sullivan declared.

I think she came to the right decision and I was glad the Times was transparent about this decision but I still believe they waited too long. They were not among the first to make the decision to use the term ‘she.’ It seems to me they were overly hesitant and are now going back and trying to explain after the fact, which is exactly what Sullivan indicated wouldn’t be the best way to handle this change.

What About Music Artists?

New York Magazine had a very good point in their article when they brought up the fact that music artists change names all the time. People don’t stop to wonder which one they should call them, instead they respect their wishes and call them by their new name. The fact that there is stigma encompassing the switching of names with regard to sex change shows a bias in the reporting and, in my honest opinion, a lack of acceptance.

The decision to continue referring to Manning with masculine titles was a big mistake by the majority of the media. I think it sadly damaged our credibility and supported the public’s perception that the media is biased toward the majority and does little to speak for those who are underrepresented. It is time that we remember journalism is about giving a voice to the voiceless, not amplifying those already being heard.

There are no stupid questions

Alexandra Newman
an077811@ohio.edu

As an advocate for human rights, I think that everyone needs to be considerate of what people identify as, whether that be gender, sexuality or anything else. In the case of Bradley Manning, or as she is known now as Chelsea Manning, I think the media needs to be respectful of her choices.

Although it may be true that she does not really identify as a woman and is just doing this to be in a woman’s prison instead of a men’s prison, it is imperative that we recognize the bigger picture here.

A blog post on the Human Rights Campaign website does a good job of summing up the whole situation. It makes a point to say, “What should not be lost is that there are transgender service members and veterans who serve and have served this nation with honor, distinction and great sacrifice.”

Just because society as a whole can’t figure out how to accept the LGBTQA community (even Pvt. Manning’s Wikipedia page is confused), doesn’t mean that our journalists should be just as ignorant. Equality starts by recognizing every one is different and was raised a little bit different. The media needs to compensate for this by being fair.

It is our duty as news gatherers and presenters to be fair to what people want/feel/are. We can’t be fair, one of those concrete ethical rules, by not respecting the trans community.

Photo courtesy of people.com.

Something else I would like to point out is that transgendered and transsexual are two different things. Transsexual is after you get the surgery to become a male or female and transgendered is “all in your head” and how you present yourself on the outside.  I have noticed that people use these interchangeably and that is not fair.

When the pregnant man came into the news a couple years ago people freaked out. They couldn’t just accept that this person was born with female reproductive parts and just doesn’t physically look like a female and that they identify as a man.

Something else I would like to point out is that not everyone fits into the gender binary. Some people don’t identify as a man or woman. When this occurs people freak out because they just simply don’t know what to do or how to act around these people. You should act the same around all people, because all people have feelings.

If you don’t know which pronoun to use with someone, use a gender-neutral pronoun like “they” or just ask them. In school they tell you to ask questions when you don’t know something; the same applies to the real world.

Now back to Chelsea Manning. She specifically sent out a letter asking to be called “she,” and I don’t think it gets much more simple than that. It is easy to be confused when this person has been in the news so much as “Bradley Manning”, but if we want to be fair to this person, no matter what they have done criminally, we have to respect their wishes.

If we were doing our jobs right at journalists and human beings then there would be no question in regard to what to call this or any person. Just ask what they prefer to be called. Even better yet, if they TELL YOU what they want to be called, your job is 100 times easier!

Journalism Fakes Hurting the Profession as a Whole

Emily Mueting

em561411@ohio.edu

Society of Professional Journalists, Radio Television Digital News Association, American Society of Magazine Editors, Online News Association, Public Relations Society of America, American Advertising Federation and National Press Photographers Association are all organizations that fall under the journalism category. All of these organizations also have their own ethical codes that tend to follow for the basic ethical values of journalists. Ethical codes are used to help support values and assist journalists with the hard ethical choices they will face.

Similarities in codes among journalist organizations

Many of these codes overlap between the organizations, and that is due to the values they support. Trust, unbiased reporting and fairness, truth and independence from outside pressures are all important values that are universal among the journalistic world.

Another similarity in the codes of journalists is the idea of personal integrity. Because of this, codes are not enforced, but rather guidelines. RTDNA stresses in the preamble of their ethics code, truth. If a journalist does lie to the public, not only will they be breaking the values and codes, they will be hurting their own personal integrity. This was the case with Stephen Glass when he was discovered to be an unethical journalist.

Stephen Glass- Courtesy of vanityfair.com

Glass and public trust

Glass was a journalist for The New Republic who in 1998 was discovered to have fabricated stories for three years for TNR as well as other magazines. With fake sources, quotations and events over that time, it was aware to the journalistic world that it is more important than ever to be ethical journalists. Journalists like Glass give a bad name to their organization and journalism as a whole.

The public’s trust is currently quite low. According to the Pew Research Center’s data collected between July 17 and 21, 2013, 71 percent of people believe that journalists try to cover up their mistakes rather than admit them. In addition, 67 percent of these people believe that stories are often inaccurate.

As student studying journalism ethics, I find these numbers embarrassing. I understand how hard a truly ethical journalist works to preserve a positive image of journalism, however it is much harder to gain trust than it is to lose it. Just like the old saying about taking years to make friends and only seconds to lose them, it can take generations for the public to trust the journalists, and a few individuals to ruin it.

Even in Hollywood, journalists are portrayed in negative ways. For example, in the Spiderman trilogy, Peter Parker is a freelance photojournalist who makes a living by staging photos of himself as Spiderman to sell to the newspaper. Negative portrayals and real life frauds ruin the integrity of journalists everywhere.

Whether it is Peter Parker snapping a shot of himself swinging from a building or Stephen Glass dreaming up an entertaining and humorous story based on fictional events with quotes from people in his head, journalists need to look out for frauds and make sure they follow the values of journalism and the codes established by journalist organizations like RTDNA and SPJ in order to ensure the public that the news they consume is trustworthy and factual.

PRSA Code of Ethics: The Bigger Picture

Hannah May

HMay2011@aol.com

Ethics -- a word that can be translated, interpreted, and acted out differently by all organizations and companies, small or large. It is the civil duty of each business to create their own personal code of ethics that members must carry out on a day-to-day basis. Following a code of ethics in the workforce is one of the first steps to ensure that a business runs successfully and smoothly. The Public Relations Society of America has created their code of ethics that they commit to in order to obtain maximum trust from the public. 

After reading and analyzing the PRSA Code of Ethics, it becomes clear the key beliefs of PRSA.

Gaining trust is the key to success.

As a person in public relations, your main contender is, as the position states, the public. If you do not have the public's trust your service announcements or press releases stand for nothing. What you have worked so hard to construct will go in one ear and out the other. As a PR professional you never want to put yourself in a position that could jeopardize building trust between clients, the employer and the public. The work created must be consistent in strengthening the public’s trust in you and your company. 

Personal actions reflect the whole society.

PRSA believes that as a member of this society, you must commit to ethical practices in order to uphold the reputation of the society as a whole and on a personal level as well.  It is stated in the preamble that, “each of us sets an example for each other.” I believe this statement to be unquestionably true. One simple wrong action from a member of the society could be poorly reflected back onto other members of the society. PRSA believes that they must all uphold a powerful standard of performance, professionalism and ethical conduct to avoid possibly negative accusations and assumptions of other members.

PRSA takes their Code of Ethics seriously, no laughter here. 

Failure to uphold the standards of performance, professionalism and ethical conduct that PRSA administers, results in execution from the society. Your membership will be revoked, and you can no longer associate yourself with PRSA. Simple as that.

Not only should PRSA uphold a high standard of values and ethics, the whole public relations profession should.

One of the most powerful things the public can take away from the PRSA Code of Ethics falls under the PRSA Member Statement of Professional Values. Not only is PRSA stating that their society will personal follow the values listed, but they believe that their Member Code of Ethics sets a standard and guide for the whole public relations profession. They state that their Member Code of Ethics “sets the industry standard for the professional practice of public relations,” and that they believe their “professional values are vital to the integrity of the profession as a whole.” By making that statement PRSA is setting a very high bar for the rest of the public relations world -- a bar that I hope all can meet.

Communication must always be organic, and private when need be.

The information that the public receives needs to always be truthful, that is a given. The content of the public announcement may never be tampered with or persuaded by higher officials. When coming to a crossroads of what information to relay, PRSA states numerous times to, “be honest and accurate in all communications.” The truth may hurt, but sometimes that sting is necessary. On the contrary, it is important for public relations professionals to understand when it is most important to not relay information to the public. PR professionals need to be aware when the client, organization or individual has a right to privacy that triumphs the ability to reveal all information to the public.

PRSA goes above and beyond when creating their Member Code of Ethics. Instead of focusing on their own society, worrying about themselves and not minding what any other public relations firms are doing, the society public declares the importance that the profession as a whole maintain the standards that they are providing. I know personally that down the road in my public relations future, I will be taking a look back at PRSA’s Code of Ethics and making sure I am able to uphold the bar they have set for me as a professional in the field of public relations. 

Journalists have a basic ethical guideline

Alexandra Newman
an077811@ohio.edu

After reading the SPJ, the RTDNA, the NPPA, the PRSA and several other organizations Codes of Ethics I feel like I know the four things that all journalists seem to be in agreement about that isn't that far out of normal human beliefs.

Truth:  Every Code of Ethics I read had some sort of section on truth. Many of them starting with the words "Seek the Truth." I think as journalism students that is really all we can do. We don't really have any other motives besides learning about how to be a journalist in the best way possible. So the chances of us not reporting the truth as students I don't think is very high. The excerpt I liked the best was, "Online journalists should uphold traditional high principles in reporting original news for the Internet and in reviewing and corroborating information from other sources" (Online News Association).

Bribes/being swayed: It was very interesting that all of the Codes of Ethics had something about not accepting gifts or payment to run a story or sway a certain way. I find this line more interesting as a student journalist and not as clear. When I am coming up with story ideas I ask my friends. If they are involved in something that I find interesting angle to take on I am more likely to do the story because I know someone involved in it. I think this could take a turn into something a little more biased, even if you're not getting paid or anything, just a unintentional favor to your friend. One of the excepts I liked the best for this example was, "Present analytical reporting based on professional perspective, not personal bias" (RTDNA).

Duty to the Public: It is quite evident that all of these organizations want to do what their doing in the public interest. More journalists would argue that this idea is the most important. As a student journalist I find this to be quite difficult. I would say about half of my peers read the campus publications for fun or personal interest. I think it is quite difficult to reach that other half of students that don't really care about reading about what the City of Athens talked about at their city council meeting last week. In a general sense though, that is what we are here for, the public, but when certain audiences don't really care about what's going on, it's hard to feel like you're accomplishing anything. The excerpt I liked the best was, "We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate" (PRSA).

Follow the law: I think this one kind of speaks for itself, but I think that it is important for the public to remember that journalists aren't above the law, they have the same access to certain documents as the public does. Journalists just have connections so they can get the information more quickly and can check its reliability. I am taking media law and media ethics at the same time, and I really am enjoying the overlap between the ideas that we discuss in both classes. An example of a code of ethics about following the law I liked was, "Advertisers should follow federal, state and local advertising laws, and cooperate with industry self-regulatory programs for the resolution of advertising practices" (Advertising Ethics).

I think it is important that we think of ethics as a guideline and not actual rules, but we understand the law is important in making ethical decisions. I think as a student journalist I am well on my way to being the best journalist possible, as long as I keep my personal values close. 
In conclusion I would like to share this short video with you because I think it is short, sweet and to the point about ethics.

                               
                                                   Video courtesy of YouTube.com.