"I Always Feel Like (Somebody's Watching Me)"

When the barista at Starbucks has my caramel macchiato with whip ready before I even order it, I’m surprisingly okay with that.  I’m not even totally concerned that the guy at my local bodega (corner store, forgive the city slang) asks about my mom and boyfriend, even those he’s never met them.  But when Facebook ads are eerily accurate in terms of my political stand point and obsession with cats - hold the phone, stop stalking me Internet!  Data mining in the digital world seems to be a bigger threat to personal security than any other instance now days.  This doesn’t stand alone for social media platforms like Facebook or Myspace (if that’s even still a relevant platform to be a part of) but also huge corporations who utilize considerably illicit benefits of data mining.  In the article written by Kashmir Hill titled, “How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did”, thanks to the art of seeking out patterns in a persons shopping routine, the store was able to send coupons to the girl for discounted baby items; even though she never informed Target that she was pregnant based on compiled information of her shopping habits Target was able to infer (and correctly at that) that she was indeed pregnant.  Is this cause for ethical concern? Of course!  Stealing information, virtual stalking, these are at the center of most digital ethical concerns. If the tables were tuned, would the target corporation want their every move monitored? Probably not, because then we would have noticed a long time ago the amount of data tracking of customers they were engaged in.  If Target considered Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance as the metric standard for ethical behavior, they would have seen everyone’s interest and not just their own.  They definitely would not have wanted themselves on the receiving end of data mining.  

This type of “targeted marketing” is a great cause for ethical concern. Marketing in it’s purest form should be the selling of an product or service based on how efficient and and worthwhile investment it will be.  Marketing should not be based on the compilation of customers information and spending habits.  There should be a level of respect between retailer and consumer, and the level of professionalism and respect for privacy should go beyond the cashier and be embedded in the programming of the system.  Although companies want to be “helpful” and just give the customers what they need, there are boundaries that should not be broken in this process.  While our marketing and advertising motives have shifted heavily from good product promotion to customer exploitation and stalking, maybe taking in to account Kants Categorical Imperative would help these big companies choose whether or not they want to engage in their customer data hoarding.  If Target, and other companies considered a law being made on the tactics that they use to target customers than I guarantee they would re-consider their actions.  As if, 1984, The Matrix, and Minority Report don’t already give a grim possible look into a heavily surveyed society.

In the case of the targeted marking, coincidentally done by Target, in the article discussed by Kashmir Hill, the managers ethical obligation to the irate customer is to rectify the problem immediately, ideally.  But, the manager seemed to have no idea of what the customer was talking about.  Given the customers anger, the manager was right in apologizing profusely for such seemingly random and suggestive coupon dispersion to the customers daughter.

In the article discussing Target’s data mining technique, there was a discussion on the companies personalized coupon booking technique.  So, we already know that Target uses personal information to determine which coupon to send you, but in order as to not seem like the creepy peeping Tom, Target adds a bunch of miscellaneous coupons to those books as to not make customers weary to the coupons that are incredibly accurate to their needs.  This technique is questionable on many levels; one, while creepy, it’s also quite impressive the lengths that this organization is willing to go to achieve prime customer targeting.  Two, while blatantly using data to compile coupons for customers, they are trying to cover up by throwing in meaning less coupons; that’s kind of like of serial killer dressing up as your doorman so you’re unsuspecting of his true intentions.  While piling ethical concern upon ethical concern, Target may have benefited by checking through Bok’s Ethical Decision Making list: How do you feel about the action?  Clearly, they knew it wasn’t the right thing to do and customers would be creeped out by the accuracy in coupons, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue? Oh I don’t, maybe legitimate marketing, and respecting the privacy of your customers, and seeing your brand and your product abiding by your institutions code of ethics, just a thought.  How will others respond to the proposed act?  Given the irate father who wasn’t happy with his daughter receiving baby product coupons, I don’t think they would respond too well.

The practices of Target’s advertising agenda seems to go against the professional code of ethics for advertisers and PR practitioners.  One of the first things listed is Native advertising and sponsored client, which states: “The blurring of lines between editorial/news content and advertising/promotional messaging (both in print and online/social media platforms) potentially threatens the ability of consumers to develop informed opinions and to make rational decisions. It is critical that a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content be apparent to the consumer.”  Although in the Target instance we aren’t talking so much about sponsorship, when Target is specifically using client data to target ads towards them, it leaves little to no room for original decision making on behalf of clientele.  What is thought of as a personal decision, which happens to be supported by “random” coupons sent by Target, is actually the meticulous logging of customer transactions, which leads to personalized coupon books, which inadvertently leads to a suggested (yet accurate) shopping list provided from the research that Target has done on you.  I guess their logo is more accurate than ever now.

Hey! Don't leave yet, watch this video!

Ethical Standards in Journalistic Writing

When it comes to the story published by Rolling Stone, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, about the UVA rape allegations, there are definitely ethical standards in question.  Without a doubt, the basic code of ethics for journalism was not followed in the laying out of this story.  The lack of fact-checking played a huge part when it comes down to determining whether or not Rolling Stone followed the code of ethics established for journalist.  When the victim, Jackie’s, story came into question as not having matched up with stories that the fraternity was bringing forward, in terms of a party having been thrown, the name of her date and his affiliation with the fraternity - or him existing at all - all made Rolling Stone look very ill-educated in what acceptable journalism looked like.  For a journalist, the core principal of writing a story is to be as objective as possible, which relies on hearing both sides of the story and writing a piece the equally reflects the issue from both perspectives, doesn’t judge, and allows for a clean cut of the situation being reported on. Rolling Stone did not follow this technique, so on an ethically expected level, yes - there is cause for ethical concern.

In terms of Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, having adequately served her source, Jackie, I would have to say that although there were good intentions behind writing the story, she ultimately failed in her attempt because she did not follow the journalist code of ethics.  Sabrina wanted to bring attention to an issue that is extremely prevalent in our society.  Clearly this reporter, and editor were not abiding by Mills Utility principle, which begs to look at the outcome associated with completing a certain task.  If the Rolling Stone team had looked ahead and kept in mind the possible backlash, questioning, and lack of information that they used to write and publish this story, a lot of what’s happened could have been avoided.  It’s true, if the reporter had taken just a little more time to gather information and inquire deeper into those who Jackie mentioned than maybe their article would have been even stronger and would have been able to withstand the backlash it received, because they would have had a credible more objective piece.  But sadly, after having been criticized for the lack of information and accuracy in their published article Rolling Stone stating that their trust in jackie was misplaced, not only discredits Jackie’s claim altogether, but after putting this young woman story in the public eye, lacking all the information possible, and then abandoning her and her story, was not a respectable move on behalf of Rolling Stone.  Rape is a serious topic, and perhaps, as mentioned in Maya Dusenbery’s blog post, it’s a topic that should be left out of the objective realm of writing since there are so many outlooks and beliefs about the act.  Following the idea of Pluralism, which essentially says there are multiple competing values and not one ultimate value, there are certain topics that just can’t be broken down or perceived through an objective lens.  When you have a topic, such as rape, where the victim, the perpetrator, social norms, personal value, and morals are affected it seems like a topic that is almost impossible to restrict to an objective view.  To turn rape into an objective view, for me, discredits just how serious a topic it is.

Now, as we continue our discussion on ethical situations, within the entire series of events that unfolded since the release of the Rolling Stone article, other actions can be brought into question as ethical or not as well.  Charles C. Johnson, who decided to take it upon himself and leak Jackie’s personal information online, shattered a ton of ethical obligations, not just journalistic ones.  Yes, Jackie did agree to sit down and be interviewed for the Rolling Stone story, but no, that does not mean she has relinquished her right o privacy in some extent.  And not at all does that give the right of some attention-seeking “internet-troll” to leak Jackie’s personal information online.  An individuals right to privacy should always be respected no matter what the circumstances.  Jackie’s story should have definitely been fact checked before being published; and this is not at all to discredit her claims and recollections of what happened the night that she was attacked, it just makes for a stronger argument, so that if her story is attacked (which is was, due to the lack of fact-checking) the publishers can at least say that they have heard her story, and have in fact contacted and talked to all involved in order to make for a more compelling argument, perhaps on Jackies case.  Fact-checking doesn’t mean “we don’t believe you” it means, we need to have all the information possible so if we are questioned, or ‘new’ information is brought up, we can say, we know/knew/are aware/ and have done that, it just makes for a stronger story, in the journalism world at least.  Also, if they had fact checked in the first place,  they probably wouldn’t have had to abandon Jackie at all when s*** hits the fan.

When a story is called into question, who should shoulder the “burden” of transparency?  Ultimately I would have to say the reporter.  Although after the story leaves the reporters desk, and undergoes the eyes of the editors, the reporter is charged with the responsibility of having done proper research and accurate fact-checking before presenting the final product to their editors.

Within the series of events that unfolded since this articles release, there have been questions to whether or not “activism journalism” could be a possible thing to flourish and work within the industry.  The reporter wanted to make a statement about rape culture within American universities, and while using her article on Jackie as a foot in to such a topic, ended up with ridicule from the upset journalism community.  The idea of activism journalism holds certain ethical problems, because one, journalism in itself holds its own code of ethics to be followed, and two, activism (the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about social or political change) doesn’t use an objective lens but a persuasive one, to make you think a certain way.  So while the idea is interesting, it ultimately wouldn’t make much since if we’re abiding by the ethical codes of these two realms.  Activism should be done with a persuasive style and the freedom to be bias, whilst journalism needs to abide by its code which calls for an objective lens.  Ethics is a complex topic and idea to grasp, and while forever the core of most issues in the world, it’s still makes for an interesting dinner topic……and maybe the loss of a few friends along the way.