When you turn on the evening news, chances are, you’re going to hear the broadcasters pitching today’s top stories with a liberal slant—meaning they’re in favor of progress or reform. You often hear stories about culture or society revolving around a particular story from the far side of the spectrum. These stories act as the beating drum to drive change and prop up political soap boxes demanding reform.
Last week, at the Hinckley Institute of Politics, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski of the MSNBC show “Morning Joe” spoke about bias within the media and the potential dangers that come from the talking-head discourse. Although both are moderate in their political views, both reaffirmed the media’s essential role as an additional checks-and-balances protector in society’s political and cultural process.
“One of the dangers in America right now is that you can wake up in the morning with a prejudice and turn on the television and have that prejudice reinforced,” Scarborough said. “By the time you go to bed at night, you don’t think that someone who disagrees with you is wrong; you think they’re evil. That’s dangerous talk.”
Some people will point out that today’s mainstream media are quick to receive whatever messages the White House releases without asking the tough, probing questions to understand what is really going on. These people will argue that Obama, one of America’s most popular presidents when he was elected, has the media in his back pocket.
However, this slanted view is inaccurate because a similar thing was done by the Bush administration when it needed to sell America on the war on terror. A strong patriotic message calling for retaliation after the 9/11 attacks permeated evening broadcasts and headlines across the country. There were some outlets that challenged the administration by breaking classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists. This is the liberal slant to which our “Morning Joe” friends refer.
The media’s job is not to entertain or present news that tests or polls well with Americans. But, because of the current structure in which advertisers write media paychecks and condone content they want pushed, it compromises the media’s true purpose. The media should be a watchdog that holds public personalities, institutions and businesses accountable. When that mission is corrupted by censorship and lazy journalists, we all lose.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/media-needs-to-be-nation-s-watchdog-1.2238306
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
PETA’s solutions worse than the problems
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has pulled a ton of publicity stunts over the years. When the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile hit the road to find a new child singer, a PETA employee dressed in a pig costume and commandeered the Wienermobile. It launched an ad campaign comparing what happens in slaughterhouses to the horrendous crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer. In addition to dumping red paint onto fashion runways or unsuspecting wearers of fur, PETA dumped a ton of manure on chef Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant doorstep after he served horse meat on his television show.
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
Friday, April 9, 2010
Ethics in business a tough sell
Rod Blagojevich was fired by Donald Trump on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” The former Illinois governor, who is accused of selling President Barack Obama’s senate seat and still faces charges, talked a twisted political game in an effort to shift blame in his team’s failed attempt to promote a new theme park. Blagojevich was perceived as a nice guy by many of his teammates, despite trying to throw them under the bus. Unfortunately, the trend is all too frequent in business today.
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)