Week 16: TOMS Shoes v. Whole Foods Ethically

I really enjoyed researching my final project for Media Ethics on TOMS Shoes vs. Whole Foods Market regarding the ethical image these two brands have built themselves on. Basically what I found, and what most research discussed was the Utilitarianism concern behind TOMS providing or "giving" (the term that they have marketed) a pair of shoes to a child in need when your purchase their shoes. The problem is the economies in these countries would benefit more so if TOMS would support their market by taking advantage of the businesses in these areas and allowing entrepreneurs to provide the second pair. Whole Foods rather, has the Whole Planet Foundation, which encourages micro-financing, where they provide the money, tools, and help for entrepreneurs to build their own successful companies and become self-sustainable.This is an article which discusses some of these issues.

http://smorgasblurb.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/toms-shoes-vs-whole-foods/

Week 15: "Worst People EVER Deny Kid Foul Ball"

I thought this video was funny... Basically a couple catch a foul ball tossed into the stands at the Rangers game last night... Beating out the toddler sitting next to them who immediately bursts into tears. They laugh and pose with the ball and wave it around and stare at themselves on TV and its just a sickening display... Completely oblivious to the very upset child directly next to them. Announcer Michael Kay says what everyone must have been thinking... They are being called the worst people ever (via socia media) and Kay called them out for rubbing it in the kids face. I bet they are embarrassed today for their tacky behavior... Or not, it wouldn't surprise me, they looked too oblivious to anyone else but themselves. Way to go for Kay ethically reporting what he saw in this situation :)

http://deadspin.com/5905250/worst-people-ever-catch-foul-ball-refuse-to-give-it-to-a-crying-child-are-vilified-by-michael-kay

Week 13/Report: Cosmopolitanism & Global Media Ethics

 Early Cosmopolitanism thinkers called themselves "Citizens of the World." They believed in the "ideology that all human ethnic groups belonged to a single community based on a shared morality."It is the mutual respect of the many morals, economies, political structures, religions, etc. of the nations that make up our global society. Great thinker Immanuel Kant, used cosmopolitanism as a guiding principle to protect people from war based on universal hospitality. But when evaluating media ethics from a cosmopolitanism ethical viewpoint, there is a problem. With rapidly growing technological innovations in communication, especially with the success of social media, media professionals can not depend on their usual ethical standards and policies. This is because traditional journalism is with focus on one's public. A media professional's public was at one time mostly confined to their nation or community. However, now media professionals, bloggers, journalists, and anyone on the internet can quickly receive and send news, images, and videos from all over the globe. Therefore, many take a cosmopolitanism stance claiming we need new guidelines for how we conduct ourselves in the media, and most specifically on the internet, as the information, opinions, and objectivity from which we report from will no doubt be globally accessible. Our "public" needs to no longer be considered our immediate nation, but considered citizens of the world.

The following is my Prezi slideshow with further information, and a video featuring Kwame Anthony Appiah, author of "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers." 
Cosmopolitanism & Global Media Ethics Prezi

Week 13: Marketing in A Digital World vs. Digital Marketing

Social Media Ad Campaigns That Reach The Unthinkable 100% Response Rates 

I think this a great article about channel planning and social media. It basically discusses how most social media advertising is not suited to the medium. Nearly 98% of all online video ads were originally intended for broadcast, and re-purposed for a company’s Facebook, Twitter, blog, etc. Most Facebook ads get less than 5% click-through rates. However, Kimberly-Clark, makers of Kotex, Kleenex, and Huggies have begun “marketing in a digital world,” rather than digital marketing. They ran 2 social media campaigns in Israel that achieved 100% engagement. The cost of which were both less than $10,000, and reached 10% of Israeli population. Both campaigns utilized social media postings by their audience to identify a need. In the Kleenex campaign, they found people posting about being sick, and sent them a gift box of Kleenex. In the Kotex campaign, they utilized Pinterest, sending participants personalized gift boxes with the agreement to “repin” the digital gift. This campaign reached 695,000 impressions for under $10,000.

I think this is very important for marketers to realize. To really generate sales, digital marketing must be more specific and tailored for that medium. It’s no longer enough to post their current television advertisement on their Facebook. Advertisers are going to have to refocus and re-strategize to successfully reach their audiences through the social media medium.

Week 12: Palaver Tree & Komen

Thinking about the Komen and Planned Parenthood issue that happened earlier this year and the Palaver Tree discussed in class... Some of the values presented from the Palaver Tree system such as no urgency, consensus, hearing from all parties, and community gatherings would have been an interesting way to examine the Komen case.
- No Urgency: Had Komen not been so quick to make such a drastic change within their funding, they may have been able to clearly look at what the ramifications of such a decision would be.
- Consensus: Again, the decision to pull funding was not a decision made by the consensus of either party involved. It was more a drastic move by Komen's ultra conservative VP.
- Hearing From All Parties: The decision to pull funding for PP had an effect on not only those seeking abortions, but those who use the breast cancer preventive services, family planning, and other women's health needs. These parties did not have the opportunity to voice their opinions on this decision.
 - Community Gatherings: The Palaver Tree suggests that decisions are made by gathering all parties together, allowing "free speech" and a safe place to voice individual concerns in a common gathering area. In the Palaver Tree system, the community met under a Palaver Tree, the symbolism here is quite apparent. Its a neutral ground, where the many different roots and branches (individual opinions) come together to form the trunk (common communal consensus).

Week 11: Lettuce Be Lean!!!

In the New York Times Article, "Calling All Carnivores..." the author poses the question, "Is it ethical to eat meat?" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/magazine/tell-us-why-its-ethical-to-eat-meat-a-contest.html

This blog post could end up being a 20 page paper if I let it get out of hand... So I will try to keep it brief. Ethically... Americans historically have a habit of turning the blind eye to the things that come to us conveniently or comfortably. Therefore, when it comes to eating meat, I have a hard time believing that many of us would continue to do so if we were informed about the inhumane commercialized process of how our meat gets to us. Several docu-movies have been made trying to help shed light on these practices such as "Food, Inc.," "Knife Over Fork," and "Fresh." There are so many disturbing things that happen in this industry I have a hard time finding a place to begin. Basically, when we figured out how to produce corn in the mass amounts for insanely inexpensive monetary costs... The farming industry was changed forever. The "little guys" could no longer compete. Corn was genetically altered to perform functions it was not naturally intended to. For example, cows, naturally are herbivores. They are supposed to live on grass, yet the majority of the cows raised for food purposes are fed a corn mixture (and sometimes ground up dead cows -- Which leads to mad cow disease FYI). Animals are now mass produced in environments so disgusting they become breeding grounds for diseases and farmers are forced to pump them full of antibiotics and growth hormones to speed up the process. When animals are raised in pins so tight they cant turn around, and stand in their own excrement, I would imagine they may need antibiotics. This is not even half of the issues this industry creates.

The problem here is that part of our responsibility as stewards of the earth is to respect the natural design of nature. These factory production farming ways are far from ethical. "Manure lagoons" develop on these farms which contain toxic waste filled with pesticides and hormones being released into our air and run off into our natural water supplies.... Aka now we have a pollution problem.

So... ethically, I do not have a problem with people who eat meat. It is the production process of meat I have a problem with. Also, I think the lack of education is an issue. I have tried to be an advocate for my family and friends to learn about these practices and change their buying/consumption habits. I've suggested watching the docu-movies, but honestly many say "I don't want to know. I like my hamburgers." Truly... If they knew were the meat came from, and the costs, not just the initial cost but the cost behind the production and costs on the environment, they might make different decisions. I have successfully helped my mom become educated about this and she and I consciously choose a meat free diet. I have a friend with multiple ranches who now raises his own cows for their family's meat that they can monitor their diet, but honestly not everyone has that option.

Keep in mind that we do not need meat to achieve a healthy well balanced diet. Protein can be obtained from many other sources such as beans.

As I attempt to do my part to be an ethically responsible citizen... I think there are other people who want to as well, but are scared to open this door as they have become so accustomed to a diet consisting of meat. Consider when planning a dinner, the menu always consists of the main course (beef, chicken, fish, etc) and then the supplemental sides (potatoes, salad, vegetables, etc). Now... I fully believe that if that was reversed, the health care crisis our country is in would change drastically. If you compare countries like China to the US, they do not have the same health problems, (diabetes, obesity, heart problems, cancer). Their diet is considerably different. How can people not make this distinct correlation?

This is the movie Food, Inc.  It will change your life. Share it.

Week 10: "Where's the Media Outrage?"

So I stumbled across this on Facebook yesterday...

I was intrigued, so I did some googling and found that the January 2007 case mentioned here is that of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome in Knoxville, TN. Basically, the young twenties white couple (both enrolled in college) planned to go to a friend's birthday party on a Saturday night, instead they decided to go to Channon's friend's apartment to watch a movie. Channon called her parents at 12:30 a.m., to let them know she would not be staying at her friend's as planned, and instead would be coming home. She never showed up. Two days later, Christopher's body was found by the railroad tracks badly burned. The two had been carjacked and kidnapped in the apartment complex. They were then taken to a house where they were both brutally raped and beaten. The details of this act are far worse than I want to recount, but it was horrific. Chris was then drug to the railroad tracks, shot twice in the back, and once in the head execution style before his body was set on fire. Channon was then kept alive for several more hours enduring further rape and torture, after which a chemical substance was poured down her throat and open wounds in an attempt to cover up DNA evidence. Still alive, she was put into several trash bags, and inside a trashcan, where she suffocated to death. She was found with her eyes still open.

There was media coverage of this event, local TN stations kept up with the case, and CNN and FoxNews ran a story about this. However, it seems many feel there was not enough media coverage of this story, and blame the black on white issue. As the victims were white and the five attackers black. Some argue this case was not publicized enough on the national level for fear that it will encourage the issue of racism. However, these type of attacks happen all over the country, with victims of all races. Consider the Natalie Holloway case, how long had she been missing before the nation was aware of it? I can't imagine very long. In this case, the victims could not have been missing for longer than 48 hours. Their attackers did not make it had to find them. Her car was found 2 blocks from the house where they took them, they left their finger prints inside the car, and they took them to a house that one of the attackers was renting, where they left her body and evidence of the attack. Had they been missing longer, would there have been national media coverage?

Is national media coverage really necessary to help the family grieve and move on? From an ethical standpoint, I wonder if it would be in the family's best interest to have excessive national media coverage. They would be main shareholders. Once their children's bodies were found, what is the point of seeing it over and over again and having reporters consistently reminding them of the tragedy they just endured. Granted, I cant imagine they need any reminding. But from another point of view, people may need to be aware that these types of attackers are out there. However, I do not think this recent question of media coverage (ie: the FB photo above) is anything but race related. The photo shows the victims: white, preppy, smiling, college student, wearing a North Face (associated with a fraternity)... Basically All-American kids. Then the attackers: black, mug shots, glaring, scary. The intention of this attempt is to make this tragedy an act of racism.

In the following 16 minute documentary by Knoxville's KnoxNews, the case is discussed in detail, but I think the most important thing I took from it was the point that these attackers were known by people of their community as "they've always had a life of crime, they were always unstable, and they were always into something."

Week 9: #StopKony

Last week the not for profit organization, Invisible Children launched a social media campaign urging the US to "Stop Kony in 2012," with this 30 min video:

This campaign gained a large amount of publicity and awareness by reaching 21 million YouTube viewers in less than a week by utilizing various social media outlets. This blog is not about Invisible Children’s intended message, gaining awareness about the issue of Joseph Kony’s actions. However, I wish to examine the ethical issue concerning the organization’s questionable actions, which have raised much controversy among bloggers and news media.  

Basically the tactics of this video, and information divulged as well as the organization's funding allocations have been questioned. If you are an organization like this, is it okay ethically to exaggerate facts as a means to a greater end? Their biggest objective was to create awareness by making Kony famous and to make his name associated with the child abuse in Africa. I think they clearly did, and in remarkably fast time. In fact this case is a great testament of the power of social media. After seeing the mass Kony postings on my FB news feed from friends who have never taken an interest in any cause before, I began to question the authenticity.  When I posted on my wall the counter-action blog urging people to do more research on the organization, the cause, and what happens to the funds.... I was met with outrage. People saying I needed to be proud of country for making a change by joining together, proving that you dont have to be rich or famous to make a difference. I just think its sad how people follow along sheepishly without making any decisions or questions themselves. 

Anyways this blog helps discuss some of the things I had issues with, as well as answers from IC. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/08/kony-2012-what-s-the-story?fb=native 

Week 8: Victoria's Secret on Blast

After considering the undeniable disregard VS has for our environment due to their inexcusable mass catalog mailings... I thought about what sort of ethics and principles this company has.

VS is one of 6 brands under the umbrella Limited Brand. On their website, they have a subheading for responsibility... That is broken into community, products, environment, labor and inclusion. When you dive further into the products, the main overview is as follows:

"Limited Brands is a values-based company. Our mission is to make our customers feel sexy, sophisticated and forever young. We acknowledge our responsibility to deliver on this promise by providing high-quality, safe and effective products in all of our brands, including Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, PINK, Henri Bendel, White Barn Candle Company and La Senza.
While Limited Brands offers a broad array of products ranging from top-selling perfumes (Bath & Body Works and Victoria’s Secret) to fun collegiate dorm wear (Victoria’s Secret PINK), we apply the same, disciplined approach to all of our products when it comes to quality and protecting our customers."
http://www.limitedbrands.com/responsibility/product_info/product_overview.aspx
 

As a company that plays largely into women's misconceptions of what "sexy" is. I was disturbed to find that VS does not have an individual mission statement garnered specifically for that brand. I find it hard to believe that the same ethics, morals, and principles should be applied to a lingerie company and a candle company. I did not find any acknowledgement of the companies attempt to help women have a healthy body image. In fact, the days of Tyra Banks (a full figured super model) who preached about her love of her curves are almost non existent. The VS Fashion Show is and has always been an exciting TV event that I love. I used to dream about how amazing it would be to work for them, designing and putting together such a magical event. But the 2012 VSFS left me speechless. The models were thinner than ever. I felt like we were back in the early 90's. The next day on campus, the girls in my classes were discussing how sick these "models," were. More so than the show.

So from this semester's discussion of companies mission statements, values, ethics, and principles, I just find it so outdated to see that VS has made no efforts to recognize the influence their brand has on women's perception of body image, and the powerful messages their brand sends. By incorporating a campaign similar to that of the "Dove Real Woman" campaign, it seems they could improve their image. Their main stakeholders, women, would benefit by VS becoming more ethical and moral, than just by helping woman feel "sexy" in $150 underwear.

Week 7: Mass Direct Mailings ... Seriously. Still?

Several years ago, in my effort to become a responsible and sustainable patron of mother earth, I made the decision to unsubscribe to the MANY direct mailing/catalogs I was receiving. It was just too much of a waste... And a temptation to spend. I also choose to do my billing electronically, in my continued effort to save the planet and eliminate excessive waste. However, the previous tenant in my apartment not only never paid her bills or speeding tickets, but clearly had a massive shopping addiction. It's amazing how you can get an idea of the type of person someone is just by looking at their mail... Anywho, the point is, I get a TON of catalogs flooding my mailbox on a daily basis. I've also made numerous attempts to return to sender as well as inform my postman that Tina Gr***om does not live here any longer and she probably should know she has several outstanding speeding tickets... I can only assume as I know better than to open other's mail! :)

I digress... So when discussing media from an ethical point of view, I want to consider the ethical responsibility companies have to our environment. The "Green Movement," is here to stay. I don't see it as just a popular trend. Society is concerned. Many companies have caught on to this and are figuring out ways to capitalize on the popularity of being a green patron of society. I think that is brilliant. Make money and do good. I'm all for it. What I don't understand is how companies can ethically continue to send out catalogs in the mass quantities that they do when the Internet makes shopping much simpler and greener.

 The biggest violator of mass mailing? Victoria's Secret. They take it to the extreme. Not quarterly, or seasonal, but BI-MONTHLY catalogs... If not more. Sometimes weekly. The frustration comes when I recognize that they are basically the same catalogs with different covers. I didn't want to buy that $85 bra last week, and I still don't this week. Catalogs advertising end of season sales, then clearance, then Christmas, and Spring, and Swim, and Swim Brazil. It's just plain crazy. I don't even have the chance to look at one before another 2 show up in my mailbox. If that is not enough to keep their brand in my mind, then they send me quite obviously expensive mailings with $10 off coupons every month. Its overkill, and frankly has ruined my appreciation for the brand.

According to a 2009 post on greenamerica.org, VS was sending 400 million catalogs a year... That's more than 1 million a day. http://www.greenamerica.org

There I found another site called victoriasdirtysecret.net which was actively aiming to get VS to change their mailing policy. Where a popup explained that VS had "cleaned up their act."
Uhh... According to who?

Now, if you go to their website, they have an online catalog. The exact same thing. Seriously. Exactly it. Where you can flip through it just as if you were holding it in your hand.

The screenshot below shows the option to choose a current catalog:

Then choose which pages you want to scroll to, or you can just browse normally:

So they have already made an adaption to become "green," yet I feel like the number of mailings have grown. Why has no one targeted this and made it an issue? I get that women like to see it in their mailbox, go inside, flip through, and circle/ear-mark items they are interested in, but seriously... Cut back on the amount. Once a month even. Promote your online catalog availability. Trust me. Women (and men) will still shop there. Check yourself Vicky.

VS is one of 6 companies under the Limited Brand, who's mission statement regarding the environment is as follows:
"Sustainable Success:  Our Environmental Responsibility
 We believe in doing what is right in our industry, our community and our world. This includes conducting our business in an environmentally responsible way. To this end, we are always looking for ways to reduce our environmental impact. We are working to shrink our footprint through better natural resource management. We’re helping to reduce the demands on our forests by promoting sustainable materials in our catalogues. And we’re introducing programs to reduce our energy consumption and reduce or reuse materials whenever we can. Together with our manufacturers, suppliers, partners and customers, we’re helping to support a healthier planet."
 Limited Brands

Bottom line... Not good enough.

If you are have the same problem as me go to http://donotmail.org to request that you no longer receive junk mail and unwanted catalogs.

Week 6: How To Be a Pedophile Guide Only $5 on Amazon.com!

In class today we discussed a case that took place on November 10th 2010. Popular blog "TechCrunch" outted Amazon for selling a book titled “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct." When the online response spread like wildfire, Amazon refused to remove it and stated:

“Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.”

This brings us back to our discussion of a company's morals and values. If Amazon wants to be THE online book retailer, it only seems that they would agree that some lines shouldn't be crossed, regardless of censorship. As a private company they do not HAVE to sell these types of books. It is damaging to their brand to do so. This is not the only book they sell which could be considered a promotion of "criminal acts." You can find books on how to make pipe bombs and other illegal activity How To Guides on their site. However this particular book sparked such an outrage that even after releasing this statement, the book was removed from the site later that day, and surprisingly with not another word from Amazon about it. From a PR perspective, it would seem this "stonewalling" move would be damaging. However, given the proximity to Black Friday and Cyber Monday that this event occured, I actually think it was their best move. "Make it go away. NOW." Especially since this book is not the only pedophile guide they have on their site. The following blog posting discusses how this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/11/pedophilia-book-removed-from-amazon-but-others-remain/

I think basically what happened here was Amazon figured instead of fighting with bloggers and social media over this one book, they could just get rid of it, and hope it went away, as quickly as possible, with as little damage to their upcoming biggest shopping day of the year. They were probably hoping the other books would not be brought into question and it would all just go away.

I do know that this past 2011 Black Friday/Cyber Monday weekend, Amazon was advertising that they would match any competitors "instore" offer. So instead of fighting the 5am lines and crowds, shoppers could sit in their PJ's at home and shop on Amazon for the same deal. I have to wonder if the prior year's bad publicity had a little something to do with that.

And here is the creepy guy who wrote the book.... Creepy "Chester The Molester" van in the background and all...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pedophilia-book-amazon-sparks-outrage/story?id=12111987#.T0R9i8xoD8A

Week 5: Tragedy at the Ballpark

Baseball is historically the official pastime of Americans. Families come together for a night out at the ballpark. Whether you sit high up in the stands or directly behind the dugout, families can enjoy an evening of hot dogs, peanuts, beer and crackerjacks! Little boys and adults alike bring their glove with hopes of being the one to catch a fly ball to take home for their memories. On July 7, 2011, Shannon Stone and his son attended a Texas Rangers game at Texas Stadium in Arlington, TX. Stone saw the opportunity to catch a foul ball for his son and leaned too far over the railing, loosing his balance and tragically falling headfirst. All right in front of his young son. The article below has more information:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-baseball-fan-shannon-stone-asked-son-fatal/story?id=14030458#.Tz1P_ZhZVAc

As a PR student we learn how to handle crisis situations like this. How do you handle a crisis that was clearly an unfortunate accident? No one to blame. This has happened before, but what can be done to prevent it without closing off the stands, eliminating the essence of the ball park experience? Fortunately, owner Nolan Ryan and the PR team for the Texas Rangers did the right thing. They did not place blame or point fingers. They did not act in a "CYA" manner, as in saying, "Well its clearly not our fault." They expressed the utmost respect, sympathy, and support for the Stone family. Stone's son got the chance to throw the first pitch at a Rangers game and meet player, Josh Hamilton.

The immediate and effective handling of this terrible accident by Ryan and the Rangers lead to the best outcome of an indescribable tragedy. The Texas Rangers organization followed up by setting up a scholarship for Cooper Stone, son of Shannon, where donations can be made for him and his family's future.

Jenny Stone released this statement five days after the incident:
"Josh Hamilton remains Cooper's favorite baseball player, the Texas Rangers will always be our team, and baseball will always be our favorite game. ... Shannon loved going to watch the Rangers and he loved Cooper. And, at the very end, he lived life to its fullest, doing something he loved."

The mother of Shannon Stone wrote a letter to Josh Hamilton asking him to NOT stop tossing foul balls into the stands, as she explains, they are what makes the memories of the father-son experience of attending baseball games so extraordinary:
http://espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/story/_/id/7397842/mom-texas-rangers-fan-shannon-stone-implores-josh-hamilton

Week 4: Not So Golden Silence

Last week the Susan G. Komen foundation made a big ol' PR NO-NO. If you've been living under a bridge... Basically Karen Handal, a VP of Komen political policy led the movement to stop funding to Planned Parenthood for mammograms and clinical breast exams. They made the decision to do so saying the foundation was adopting new standards. This decision was met with so much controversy, the issue immediately became a PR nightmare. 

All politics aside... Komen handled this situation so poorly it was quite obvious they did not have a crisis plan established. Anything would have been better than how they handled this.

Their biggest mistake? Basically going silent on all social media forms. They had no control of the story and most importantly the conversation. Komen issued a weak and insufficient news release which gave a bunch of educational information and numbers, but basically put their hands up as though to say "I dont know what you want us to say? We're backed into a corner."

 Instead of addressing the mass amounts of negative feedback on their Facebook, Komen simply deleted them. Their Twitter updates were links to their news releases. There was no conversation. No new information. No action taken. No acknowledgment of the fact that the decision was clearly going to have to be reconsidered.

As Komen is basically the top dog in non-profit organizations, the damaging result of this fiasco extends beyond this specific issue. Supporters of Planned Parenthood basically bullied them into revoking their funding policy change. This will absolutely be damaging to their credibility and trust as a leader in the non-profit world. If they can be bullied and scared so quickly. It's difficult to view Komen with the same credibility as prior to this incident.

The damage control they attempted was just too late. Now extreme measures are being taken. Handal stepped down from her position with the organization. Those who donated because of the decision to no longer support Planned Parenthood wanted their money back. This is a nightmare that could have been avoided with a proper PR crisis plan and someone willing to step up to the plate instead of letting the conversation take place without them.

Komen "PinkWashing" Cartoon: 

Week 3: iSheep and The Veil of Ignorance

 Ok I'm not going to lie. I LOVE MY APPLE PRODUCTS. LOVE THEM. My MacBook Pro is seriously within arms reach about 70% of the day. I'm factoring 30% for sleeping and yoga/gym. When I sleep, I keep my iPhone under the pillow as an alarm, and when I work out, I take my iTouch for tunes/miles calculator. I do not think I could mentally handle what would happen if I was forced to switch back to a PC. Every time I work on one, I curse their very stupid existence for being such a waste of my time. My Apple products truly enhance the quality of my technology obsessed life and career. :)

With that said... I want to discuss Rawl's ethical argument of the "Veil of Ignorance" and its relevance to American iSheep. Rawls argues that when making a decision, many prefer to remain in the dark as to what made this decision possible, or the repercussions that may arise from it. Once the veil is lifted, they will become responsible for that knowledge.

On Apple's newest product release days, enthusiasts camp outside of the store to make sure they are the first to own one. Imagine if these consumers put the same effort into finding out how our beloved products are manufactured. Once that veil of ignorance is lifted, would you still purchase the new iPad? Sadly, the Apple cult following is so strong, I fear there is not much you could argue to cause a boycott.

 So whats the relevance of Apple's iSheep cult? 

Well... It has recently been brought to our attention the working conditions of Apple's Asian manufacturing factories like Foxconn. Activist websites are presenting Apple with a petition of 250,000 signatures protesting these controversial labor issues. So their veils have been removed, and they are trying to make a change. I wonder what percentage 250,000 is of Apple's overall brand loyal customers.

"The substandard conditions at Foxconn's Asian facilities drew attention last year, as Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior, or SACOM, accused the factory of making workers sign pacts against suicide in response to a string of worker suicides. SACOM alleged the pact prevented family members from suing the factory.

Scrutiny increased after a deadly explosion halted Apple manufacturing and pointed to the dangerous conditions in the factories. In addition, 150 workers from its Wuhan, China site recently attempted to commit mass suicide in response to the factory's persistent abuses."

So... Its gotten so bad that workers are threatening suicide? How is that ethical or moral? Unfortunately, this is an issue that has been long withstanding. Everyone knows China is the place to go for inexpensive manufacturing. I saw a docu for a Sociology class called "Mardi Gras: Made in China," about the manufacturing of Mardi Gras beads. Beads. Plastic colored beads. That women expose their breasts for. (I'm not even going to go down that road...) The worker's conditions looked like concentration camps. It was sickening. 

My point is... This isn't new folks! This is why GM has their "Made in America" campaign. I think its absolutely brilliant to take advantage of Apple's strength to bring light to this moral dilemma. No one really thinks about the moral costs of mere Mardi Gras beads... These trivial "party favors" if you will, hold no comparision to our glorious Apple products. I have a feeling by involving Apple, at the very least the world will become more aware of the issue. However... This isn't the first time society has discussed this, prior incidents have included other American companies like Nike, Reebok, and Gap. Maybe Apple holds enough power to make a lasting difference.

This is the article's link:
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/127373.html

Week 2: Killing Your Phone

I am a member of the "technology generation." Otherwise referred to as the "Millennial Generation," "Generation Y," or the "Net Generation." I remember the trip to sign up for my first cell phone, and the freedom it meant from my parent's ability to monitor my home phone line... AKA conversations with my friends and boys. I could not drive yet so it was truly my first individual connection to the world sans parental guidelines. It meant freedom.

But what do our phones mean to us now? William Powers describes our phones as our "prison keepers." They keep us connected to everyone we know, store names, phone numbers, addresses, emails, and play a large part in many's source of income. We are expected to have them on us at all times and if not immediately acceptable to the person intending to contact you, to be so in a socially accepted amount of time.

Powers describes a terrifying incident when as a novice boat owner, when he went overboard... Phone in pocket. Prior to going overboard, he was physically alone on the boat, however he still felt connected to the world with a quick fingertip. Once he accepted his phone in fact had died from the accidental drowning and there was no possible way of performing CPR, he realized he was then truly alone. Why does alone have such a negative connotation? At what point did we become so reliant on being tied to this prison of technology? My first phone symbolized freedom. Now my phone binds me to my responsibilities as an adult.

So while killing your phone may be too extreme a measure... When is it safe to disconnect for a little alone time? From the PR/Ad perspective, I'm terrified to say never. Imagine a PR crisis breaks out at 11PM on a Friday night. You've attempted to disconnect for the weekend, and reconnect on Monday morning. That's two whole days your client has gone without addressing the crisis... Or worse, someone else incorrectly handles it, making your job twice as hard. So where do we draw a line between the imprisonment of our phones and our freedom?

For those prone to accidental drownings of their smart phone:
As with everything else, technology and science have now improved our ability for constant communication in our technology prison. I would compare this development to floaties for your phone. You can now completely submerge your phone in water... without missing a single text.
http://tech.lifegoesstrong.com/article/how-waterproof-your-smart-phone

Week1: The Joy of Quiet

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/the-joy-of-quiet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

I truly enjoyed the following paragraph written in the New York Tims article, "The Joy of Quiet," by Pico Iyer:
"In barely one generation we’ve moved from exulting in the time-saving devices that have so expanded our lives to trying to get away from them — often in order to make more time. The more ways we have to connect, the more many of us seem desperate to unplug. Like teenagers, we appear to have gone from knowing nothing about the world to knowing too much all but overnight." 

I remember when AOL first became popular and we all had @AOL.com email addresses, internet messaged through AOL, and got our instant news updates through AOL. I remember on 9/11, the AOL welcome screen changed to reflect the tragedy. Now... We are instantly accessible through so many technological media forms that its impossible to have a moment to ourselves to think.

For example, I wanted some space from the guy I've been currently seeing. I ignored his multiple texts. Screened his multiple calls. Then avoided my laptop so he would not be able to contact me through Skype, Facebook messenger, or Gmail messenger. I just wanted to have some time to reflect on our relationship and consider the pros/cons. Instead he was able to see I was online, and active, and he concluded I was upset with him or purposely ignoring him. Then I decided to go for a run and brought my iTouch to listen to music... Unknowingly, I logged into Facebook messenger and began receiving messages from him during my run. So basically, I was surrounded by all the wonderful toys I love to communicate with and trapped by them.

Have you ever lost/broken your cell phone? Its the most unnerving experience. Until you get accustomed to it. Last semester a friend picked up my phone from the restaurant we ate at and took it home to McKinney with her (2 hours away from Ft Worth). It took a week for me to get it back. At first I felt disconnected and panicked. By day three, I was loving it. I had complete control of who contacted me and when. Thus I was able to control how my day was going. It was great!

I agree with this author when he discusses how what we consider breaking news has changed. We need periods of time without these devices. I believe everyone should have something to help them escape the technological world. Whether it be yoga, reading, family time, exercise, or any other form of quiet time. It seems quiet time has become a highly paid for commodity, as shown by the $2800/night hotel room/black cave.

With the recent SOPA and PIPA scare, consider the overall response of the American public. Protests and huge media attention have flooded the news channels with speakers protesting on behalf of Google and Wikipedia. Imagine the world without these sites. Information no longer at our fingertips. Technology is considered a vital aspect of daily life. People need to be able to disconnect when the time has come to separate business life from personal life.