Well. I accidently read the wrong chapter 10. I thought we were supposed to read from Johannesen, instead, we were supposed to read out of Schultze. Oops...
:)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 10
After finishing my ethical reflection paper, I was not surprised this chapter would follow. This chapter deals with Formal Codes of Ethics, something I have become very familiar with since writing my paper.
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 6
This chapter highlighted Religious, Utilitarian, and Legalistic Perspectives, and had a lot of really interesting information.
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
Johannesen: Chapter 5
This chapter deals with the idea of situational perspectives. Johannesen explains the concept of situational perspectives by stating that depending on the specific situation, the approach and ethical standards held may vary due to the sitaution's context. However, there are four main perspectives Johannesen cites, however there were two that stuck out to me as interesting.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 2
The second chapter in text talked about different political perspectives. It seems as if just the word politics is crawling with uncertainties, dislike, and confusion. However, the word "politics" in this case is used as an umbrella term for any communication on public issues and public policy.
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Schultze Chapter 6: Class Notes
Incarnate Power:
- Power of Communication
- Power of Knowing
- Power of Charisma
Logos: word
Rhema: spoken/inspired
Charisma: gifts
Knowledge: information abundance, information overload
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 6
Hello old friend. I am so happy that we have switched back to this text for the time being. It is written in a clearer, more understandable way that Phaedrus or Johannessen, so it is like a breath of fresh air.
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)