Media Ethical Issues

The survey firm declared that “Now, recruiters can easily and anonymously collect information that they would not be permitted to ask in an interview, and the survey found that recruiters are doing just that.”

According to a survey report done by the Kelly services with 170,000 people from 30 different countries, 55% of all the participants believe that the use of social media for both the personal and professional posts can cause problems in the workplace (Bennett, 2012). According to a study done by the proof point, many US companies that have hired the employees more than 1000 in number face a real problem with their employees to use social media (Ostrow 2009). Almost 17% of these companies had faced serious disrepute due to the offensive comments on the social media websites (Ostrow 2009). Almost 13% of the US companies have investigated the use of personal text messages that have been found to infringe the company’s law (Ostrow 2009).

A growing hot topic, and cause for concern is the increasing use of social media in the workplace. The landscape for communication has changed, and the line between personal and professional communications has been blurred. How will your employer manage the risks associated with the use of social media and at the same time, gain the benefits that this media form provides? While many employers were initially concerned that employees would use company time and equipment for socializing with friends, they are quickly learning that many social networks can also be used directly for work purposes.

When I was a manager at a company, I had to administer many policies as they related to my employees. On of these policies was called the Social Media Policy. This policy was meant to protect the company from malicious posts regardless of the intent. To summarize this policy stated that if you in anyway identified yourself as an employee. So if an employee wanted to they could rant about the company or other employees as long as they did not identify the company, list the company as an employer or list the names of employees that are know to work for the company. This policy was created solely because of individually that lacked a filter or the common sense to think about what they were posting.

One media policy issue in particular has been in the news quite a lot recently, and has caught my attention. The bill in question has many Canadians worried about not only their safety and privacy online and in public places, but also what is done with their personal information and how it is being shared, without their consent. In researching (you guessed it) Bill C-51, I became highly interested in finding out if, and how long service providers have been allowed to collect and distribute people’s personal information whether it be free, or for money. I then did some research on the Privacy Act that took effect in 1983 and is still in place in Canada today. On the official website for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada it says

The news has a responsibility to provide accurate information to the American people. However, journalists are only human, and it is important to take note of any biases present in their writing. W.L. Bennett is one scholar who addressed this concern, arguing that journalism has four main media biases: personalization, dramatization, fragmentation, and authority-disorder bias (Bennett, 2012). While Bennett voices concerns of adverse consequences, scholars Ozen Bas and Maria Elizabeth Grabe argue that biases like personalization can help people with lower education levels retain information better (Bas & Grabe, 2015). Referencing two news clips and an article, this essay argues that media biases rampant across platforms have good intent to get

The success of a company is based on the professional, creative and friendly behavior of the individuals that compose it. Creating an agreeable job environmental from new hiring employees is critical for the owner of the company and current employees. If I worked for a companying hiring new employees and checking through their social media, I will look for the vocabulary that they use and how respectful are they to the general audience, for instance, obscene and inappropriate vocabulary and offensive comments to other culture, religion, gender or to previous jobs.These previous online activities I will be considered as a red flag because they can put in risk the job environment and images of the company. On the other hand, proper comment and

Today, Americans are generally more politically and socially conscious than previous generations; we use social media in an array of ways, such as fighting for causes, making our personal opinions public, and connecting with other people with similar ideas. In some cases, an employer might support the beliefs and values a worker makes public on a profile, such as being involved in gay rights awareness marches, but there is also a much larger chance of an employer disagreeing with an idea and the employee being penalized for their private life activities. Even if a company is neutral on certain topics, the social media could easily lead to discrimination.There should not be an opportunity for scrutiny between an employer and an employee with opposite view points made public due to social media monitoring. Recognizing that social media monitoring is a possible inadvertent violation of laws that regulate discrimination on the basis of political preference, gender, and race, companies should step lightly if at all. The the possible damage done by bias to workers is endless, and the potential legal consequences for companies infringing on the privacy and rights of their employees are

According to Nielsen’s National Television Household Universe Estimates, roughly 301 million (about 94%) people in the United States live in a household with a television. Along with that statistic, they also estimate that 96% of Americans have an internet broadband connection (NIELSON). With nearly the entire US population having access to the constant flow of media and information that come from the internet and television, media is an integral part of life in the year 2017. People readily enjoy that access to media with many studies show the sheer extent to which our population utilize the media. In a media consumption report by the company Zenith Optimedia, they reported that in the year 2015 individuals in North America spent on average

The Boston Globe did not previously cover the story due to the lack of content. Without enough credible sources and facts, the story was unable to run and was not up to the SPJ code of ethics.. According to the SPJ code, journalists must make sure to not misreport or oversimplify a story. Another ethical factor at play was the responsibility of a reporter to serve as a watchdog. Although this story, if published sooner, could have changed the entire course of the 2000 election.

The article published in the Rolling Stone the day after the capture of the infamous drug lord, El Chapo, sparked conversation nationwide. Penned by actor and political activist Sean Penn, the article is anchored by a private interview he had with El Chapo in October. The controversy surrounding this article is directed towards the story behind the story, as Angela Kocherga described in an interview with PBS Newshour. After speaking with Jann Wenner, founder of Rolling Stone, Penn went forward with his interview without alerting authorities about his contact with one of the world’s most wanted fugitive. The question of whether or not Penn violated media ethics remains unanswered as debates continue across the nation. From the interviews following the publication of the article, it can be deduced that Penn is acting as a citizen journalist interested in improving the state of journalism and that the editors of

According to Vinjamuri, there are five main unethical behaviors of corporations when they utilize social media marketing (2011). The first of these is unreported endorsements. Unreported endorsements are when companies give any form of compensation to a blogger or tweeter, and this type of action must be disclosed (Vinjamuri, 2011). Back in 2006, Wal-Mart was guilty of this when they, essentially, paid bloggers to write positive things about their corporation.

Ethics are “rules or standards that govern the conduct of members of a group” (Roland). In every work environment there are a predetermined set of ethical standards the company has put forth for its employees to abide by. But in the technologically fast paced world of today, the lines of what is ethical and unethical blurs easily. While some will argue that any information that is accessible should be able to be read by anyone looking for it, others will argue that just because the information exists on a computer somewhere does not mean it is open territory for all. So how do companies draw the line between what is right and wrong, between who sees what information, and what information

Gatekeeping is “controlling access to goods, services, or information, usually applied by individuals or groups in hierarchical organizations. ” (CSA). As it applies to media, gatekeeping refers to the method in which information is filtered for distribution, this can be done through the internet, print or broadcasting. Due to the power that gatekeepers wield in controlling what we as the public read, hear or see, there are many ethical concerns to be considered and liberties to be safeguarded.

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information