The Ethics of Data Mining

The topic of data mining for this week’s blog post seems almost eerily appropriate, as it comes right after I watched an episode of NBC’s Parks and Recreation which deals with this exact issue. Leslie Knope and her husband Ben Wyatt tackle this issue against a pseudo-Facebook type company called “Gryzll”, who has been reading all their texts, emails, etc. in order to find out what people like. In Andrea Petersen’s article, “Parks and Recreation’ takes on online privacy. And it hits close to home”, she uses a quote from Ben who aptly says of this:

The Internet is no longer optional; it's a necessity for everyone. And I think that you do know that data-mining isn't chill because you stuck it into the 27th update of a 500-page user agreement. A person should not have to have an advanced law degree to avoid being taken advantage of by a multibillion-dollar company. You should be upfront about what you're doing and allow people the ability to opt out.

I think what Ben is saying speaks very much about the topic of transparency that we have discussed in class. Companies should be upfront about what they do with their customers’ information, yet many of us do not even know how our personal information is being used. While on some level, we all know that data mining exists, it is really quite unsettling when you sit down and think about it. While some data mining can be used in a beneficial way, the majority of it is used for the company’s personal gain: to sell us products.

In term’s of this week’s article about Target, I very much think the company’s use of data mining is cause for ethical concern. We might look at this through the lens of Mill and his utility principle which focuses on the consequences of the action. Clearly, in this case, the consequences of the action were quite negative as the girl’s father was upset and confused by the situation. In looking at this outcome, Mill might say this was not an ethical situation.

Even though we as the consumers do know that this type of targeted marketing happens, I find it disconcerting, both on a personal and ethical level.  Our article for today quotes Andrew Pole who says, “…as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works”. This in itself is cause for concern; Target knows that what it’s doing is somewhat sketchy, yet they do it anyway, so that they sell more products. Don’t get me wrong, I love Target and shop there all the time, but in looking at this under a closer lens, it is troubling. The very fact that they knew of a teen pregnancy before her father did sounds like something from television! This goes against the entire concept of communitarianism, which looks out for the good of society. Sneakily placing baby coupons among other ads would not be considered good for society, general speaking. I don’t think the manager behaved appropriately as he did not even know what was going on. It would behoove the company to let their employees know of the sneaky practices they’re using. While the manager did apologize and called the father again, the whole thing seems somewhat fishy.

In looking at this next to certain codes of ethics, many red flags appear. Firstly, the code of ethics for public relations focuses on honesty and loyalty, among others. Target certainly did not act in an honest or loyal way to its customers, since it basically admitted in this article that as long as women didn’t realize the specific ad placement, they could get away with it. Is that a definition of honesty? I don’t think so. The same can be said for the code of ethics for advertisers; advertisers are not knowingly supposed to create “false or misleading statements or exaggerations, visual or verbal” (http://www.aaaa.org/about/association/Pages/standardsofpractice.aspx). While Target’s marketing strategy is not false per se, it can be defined as misleading. This deals with the idea of credibility, something we have read about in Wilkins and Lee’s book. Plaisance also touches on this in listing out 5 key values of credibility:

•      A sense of responsibility to consumers, community concerns, and society
•      Decency, honesty, and truth
•      Avoidance of misrepresentation and deception
•      A sense of fair competition
•      The protection and promotion of the reputation of the advertising industry 

While items 4 and 5 don’t really come into play here, items 1-3 certainly do. I think many of the philosophers we have looked at would have strong opinions about Target’s marketing practices. Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance’ is an appropriate term to be used here; Target certainly is pulling a veil over their customers’ eyes. Rawl looks at a case by asking himself what is the best course of action for everyone? This example with Target seems to only be the best course of action for the company itself, not the consumer or the consumer’s family. As Duhiggs suggests, “even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.” As he very appropriately puts it, stories like these are both “unsettling and unsurprising”. We know companies need to make money and keep their customers shopping, but at what cost?

Rape at UVA

This week’s blog topic deals with the story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, published on November 19^th by Rolling Stone magazine. The article tells the events of a freshman student named Jackie who was allegedly gang raped by 7 men at a fraternity party. The article inevitably caused a lot of shock and outrage towards UVA for failing to report this incident. However, following the aftermath of the article, it became clear that the journalist who wrote the article, Erderly, did not fact check any information from Jackie’s initial story. They claimed it was due to the sensitive and delicate nature of the story and they wanted to give the rape victim, Jackie, the benefit of the doubt.  In her article “Blame Rolling Stone”, Hanna Rosin says:

In his statement, managing editor Will Dana says the magazine relied on Jackie’s credibility and now realizes its trust was “misplaced.” (In a later series of tweets on Friday, Dana wrote that the failure “is on us—not on her.”) But any story, much less one as damning and explosive as this one, should never rely on just the credibility of one source.

This in itself is cause for ethical concern. Rolling Stone had to have known there could be potential outrage and backlash over this story, so wouldn’t they have wanted to protect their only source by verifying her facts? While we will never know the truth, we do know that Rolling Stone did a poor journalistic job; it’s possible it wasn’t intentional or it’s possible that they only wanted to serve themselves and have their story to go viral, which of course it did. However, it is clear that Erderly did not adequately serve her source. One aspect of this story I found particularly troubling is when it was made known that Jackie explicitly asked Erderly to remove her name from the story, but was refused. An article I found on vox.com says “If Rolling Stone published the story against Jackie's will, that is a terrible mistake on the magazine's part — and a violation of the ethical guidelines reporters should follow when reporting difficult, and sensitive stories about rape”.

I think Jackie does of course deserve privacy but her story should also have been fact checked. The very nature and ethics of journalism require journalists to make sure their stories are accurate and truthful. Chapter 2 in Wilkins and Lee lists a set of values, which should exist in journalism. They include accuracy, confirmation, and dignity, three things of which the RS article did not have. One writer from New York Magazine very aptly puts it by saying, “Protecting vulnerable subjects means not just being sensitive to their privacy and trauma; it also means getting the story right. Otherwise, a reporter leaves them open to the kind of credibility attacks critics are now leveling at Jackie”. In my opinion, both the magazine and the reporter are at fault for not being more transparent in their work. They opened themselves up to serious errors and as we know, journalists have an ethical and professional duty to pursue the truth about significant issues as accurately and as possible.

In looking at this case in terms of one of our philosophers, I was thinking about Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance, which asks decision makers to examine the situation objectively from all points of view. Rolling Stone obviously did not do this; while it might have shed light on the topic of sexual assault on college campuses as a whole, it did not objectively and accurately portray the details surrounding the event. One would think that the first thing a reporter would do in when receiving a story like this would be to at least verify that a party or event occurred at the frat house that night. Erderly failed to do even that. I would also look at Ross’s duties in this situation. As we have learned, Ross distinguished between the right and the good with the help of several duties. In their book Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, Wilkins and Lee say they would add an additional duty to this list, one which is implied but not specifically stated, which is “the duty to the tell the truth, veracity “ (16). Clearly, Rolling Stone did not tell the whole truth in their story, something we expect a reporter to do.

I think activism journalism can be dangerous because the very nature of journalism is that it is meant to be objective. While it is hard for anyone to remain objective while reading a sexual assault case, it is the duty of the journalist to objectively and accurately portray their source to their readers. Unfortunately, because of their failure to do this, their source, and the victim, now has to suffer with people not believing her story.  In closing with this post, I turn to Bok’s method of decision making in which she examines the following:

1.     Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?
2.      How will others respond to the proposed act?

I think it’s safe to say Bok would not agree with Rolling Stone’s behavior in this case. This article did nothing to promote a greater good and instead caused a lot of distress and turmoil for not just their source, but also the larger community and beyond.

Blog 2-Doctoring Photos

The case study that I am focusing on is from Chapter 8 called “Manipulating News Photos: Is It Ever Justified?” (205). This case involves a staff photographer from the Los Angeles Times who had taken a photo during the 2003 Iraq War. The image was powerful, yet profound. However, it was discovered that this photographer had combined elements of two photos, in order to improve the composition. He was immediately fired and apologized for tarnishing the name of the Los Angeles Times.

Since this is a piece concerning photojournalism, I will use the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. This code states journalists have a responsibility to the following four objectives:

1.     Seek truth and report it, or tell their stories even when it is unpopular to do so (Plaisance, pg. 29)

2.     Minimize harm; journalists do not need to avoid all potential harm but just try to be aware of the fact that their stories could hurt others.

3.     Act independently

4.     Be accountable, or as Plaisance puts, “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others” (29)

People hope and assume that journalists are going to be truthful when writing an article or creating an image, yet this is not always the case, as we can see from this particular case study. I think this code of ethics is helpful in evaluating this case study because clearly, the photographer did not follow the guidelines of the code. He intended to report truth but since the photo was edited, it was not the entire truth. Moreover, he did not minimize harm since he sullied the reputation of his employer and obviously, lost his own job because of it.  Lastly, I don’t believe this photographer held himself fully accountable because although he ended up apologizing for his actions, I would imagine he did not follow the same standards in which he held his colleagues and boss.

I think if we looked at this in terms of Kant, he would not fully support this photographer’s actions. Although Kant is about the action and not about the consequences, he does also want to know “is this action good”? Patterson and Wilkins say that according to Kant, “journalists can claim few special privileges, such as the right to lie or the right to invade privacy in order to get a story” (10). This photographer did not intend to make a mistake but even so, he falsified a photograph and allowed it to be published in a national newspaper. Journalists have a moral obligation to tell the truth and in this case, Kant would say the act was unethical since it everyone did what this photographer did, it would not bode well.

Let's now turn to another philosopher: Mill. While Kant focused on the action, Mill focused on the outcome, which in this case, was not positive.  Mill believed that an act was wrong if it contributed to unhappiness or pain; this photographer’s act of falsely editing a photo caused both unhappiness and pain for all parties involved. Walski, the photographer in this case, said after this incident "I went from the front line of the greatest newspaper in the world and now I have nothing" (Plaisance & Wilkins, 206). Mill believed that if a situation had negative consequences, it was not ethical, and if it had positive consequences, it was acceptable. The very fact that this case has negative consequences shows that Mill would not agree with this situation.

In terms of this particular case, I think the journalist code of ethics was actually most helpful in helping me evaluate it. The code very clearly states four specific objectives and the photographer in this case simply did not follow them. While it wasn’t done intentionally, his job was to remain accurate and true and to uphold the credibility of the newspaper. One shouldn’t alter a photograph to make it more appealing or more popular. As New York Times photographer Laforet stated, "Our credibility is all we have" (Plaisance & Wilkins, 206).

I think ethics factors into any kind of job, not just a media specific position. There is always going to be a time in someone’s life, professional or otherwise, in which you are trying to figure out the “right” thing to do. Of course, people’s definitions of “right” vary greatly from person to person and this is due in a large part to upbringing. Children, hopefully, usually learn the difference between right and wrong at a young age and so grow up being able to differentiate good versus bad. However, some people never receive that kind of lesson and so it becomes harder for them to make ethical choices.

While I don’t know exactly what my future career will hold, I do know that ethics will most certainly come into play in some form or another. There are always opportunities when you have to speak up for something you think is right, or maybe a time when you don’t agree with someone but have to defend your beliefs anyway. In my opinion, a large part of this is learned or taught behavior and is something that needs to be instilled in a person from a young age. I do consider myself to be an ethical person, and I think that comes from the way I was raised and shaped by my family.  I also think it is just a part of growing up and maturing in which you learn more about yourself and the differences in what is right and what is not. In addition to this, there have been times in my professional life when I have disagreed with someone, like my boss, because I felt that she wasn’t making the appropriate decision.  Those are the kinds of situations where you think to yourself “what should I do here?” which is essentially the question ethics attempts to answer.

            There have been many important ethical cases in the media, spanning backs years and years. Things for instance like news manipulation, where the public is unsure of how much they are hearing or seeing is actually accurate and true. There is also the idea of photojournalism which is something I have always found interesting. There have been many cases, even nowadays, where people take issue with magazine covers photoshopping their models or celebrities to such an extreme that they no longer look like themselves.  Sometimes celebrities, whether in print or even in music, even speak out against this because it has become such a problem in today’s society. A topic even more relevant in our news today is the idea of freedom of speech; as we have seen so recently in France, people were killed for creating cartoons in a newspaper.

            I think there will always be ethical dilemmas because our world is constantly changing and advancing and there will always be people who disagree with others. In terms of my own tools, I was raised by parents who helped me to make good decisions and who helped me to be a responsible person.  In terms of this course, as mentioned, I am interested in the idea of photojournalism, and people who distort images to make their points more valid. Other than that, though, I think there is so much constantly happening in our culture and our society with regards to media, like Facebook privacy rights, NSA and Edward Snowden, distortion of media, and more, that there is a plethora of things to discuss. I look forward to learning more about it!