Internet Privacy, How Far Is Too Far?

Privacy. A word that we tend to hear all the time but do we really know what it entails? According to Merriam-Webster, privacy is “the quality of being apart from company or observation.”

Recently, many people have been debating on how far is too far when asking for privacy on the internet. The EU has recently been using the idea of Digital Privacy for its citizens. If a citizen finds something that is irrelevant to their present life, they have to report the link to Google and it will be taken down. Many people debate whether or not this is good. If someone has control over what is shown when their name pops up on Google then who says everyone can’t have control over what we see? This debate has been happening all over the world recently, especially with the Net Neutrality debacle in the US. We decided to ask some questions regarding privacy on the internet and here’s what we heard.

1. Do you feel comfortable with tech companies using your browsing information?

Robert Herrick: Not always. Sure, it is convenient for Amazon to recommend me relevant related searches, or Target.com to suggest other items to purchase. However, the vast amount of data about me on the internet is shocking. Someone could know a lot about my life, like my social security number, credit card information, home address, and more across the internet. I fear companies using this information, because the more hands in transfers between, the more chance it has of falling into the wrong ones.

2. Do you value privacy or security more?

Caitlin Klarich: I feel like privacy and security are definitely two things that I value in my life. However, I feel as if I would value security over privacy mainly because I would never want someone to steal my identity or use my information for something that is not me.

3. Should we be able to tell google to remove sensitive information about us?

Robert Herrick: This is a complicated issue, with a complicated issues. Obviously, there are some cases where removing a picture would be appropriate. Things posted without consent, that may cause harm should be removed. However, while removing all embarrassing or sensitive information would be nice, the right to be forgotten can cause more harm than good. It removes Google’s freedom of speech, as well as freedom of information accessible on Google. It’s a slippery slope to rights being impeded.

4. Should journalists have to ask our permission to use our information in a story?

Alex MacNeil: I think they should have to ask us unless it’s a public need to know. I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with my personal information out there if I didn’t do anything wrong.

Super Bowl ads, misleading or informative?

The Super Bowl is America’s favorite time for football, parties, screaming at your TV, and of course, ethical dilemmas. The Super Bowl is consistently the most watched television event of the year, with that number only climbing as time goes on. This makes it the perfect chance for companies to debut new, funny, groundbreaking advertisements that try their best to entice you into buying their product. However, these ads occasionally go too far over some ethical lines in an attempt to sell. We’ll leave it up to you whether these choices go too far, but here are our choices for the top 5 most ethically questionable Super Bowl commercials.

1.) Ram Commercial: Really? Using the legacy and words of a famous humanitarian to sell trucks? Bold move there Ram. This commercial has come under scrutiny from The King Foundation, as well as Martin Luther King Jr.’s own daughter, Beatrice. Also, the sermon exert they used to sell cars actually was about the immorality of consumerism. As Martin Luther King Said: “Now the presence of this instinct explains why we are so often taken by advertisers. You know, those gentlemen of massive verbal persuasion. And they have a way of saying things to you that kind of gets you into buying. In order to be a man of distinction, you must drink this whiskey. In order to make your neighbors envious, you must drive this type of car”.

2.) Cure Auto Insurance: It was very clear these guys were stretching the boundaries of what can go in a commercial. It this 15 second ad, there was no mention of their insurance plan or company in general. Instead they took a clear, arguably funny, shot at Tom Brady.

3.) T Mobile Baby Commercial: T Mobile didn’t really talk about their company or products they were trying to endorse. They used adorable babies in order to promote their brand but spoke nothing of it? Nothing but distraction for the common consumer coming from this commercial.

4.) Tide Commercial: Yes, everyone loves David Harbour, which makes this commercial even more questionable. The commercial showed different type of ads that we commonly see, yet the main part in order to endorse Tide is that they are all wearing clean clothes. Although Tide somewhat gets their point across, isn’t it a little misleading that they use someone so famous and different ad situations in order to keep us entertained? How do we know the product is reliable. What if it’s not? They are using a well-liked celebrity in order to gain the love from an array of consumers and not just one selective group. Yes, the commercial was enjoyable, but was it informative?

5.) Amazon’s Alexa: Again, using celebrities to promote a brand is what we saw in this commercial. Sure it was lighthearted and funny, but ads use celebrities to promote their products even if it is not good just to get to a new demographic.

If you would like to hear an interview about the Super Bowl ads with an average consumer, click here

Was Cris Collinsworth Biased?

For Philadelphia fans, watching the Superbowl was an incredible, joyous, and celebratory experience. However, listening to it was anger inducing to them. Eagles fans were noticeably upset after the game of how play-by-play commentators covered the game, specifically citing one of them, Cris Collinsworth, as overtly favoring the Patriots in his commentary. So naturally, it must be asked; Was Cris Collinsworth biased? And if so, is it unethical for a sports journalist like Collinsworth to favor one team?

Eagles fans observed he talked significantly more and more positively about the Patriots than the Eagles. According to them, this seemed to be a regular pattern throughout the game. But they were more mad about one specific thing he said. With just over 2 minutes left in the fourth quarter, Eagles Running Back Corey Clement caught a touchdown. However, the play went under thorough review to ensure that he stayed within bounds. After extensive review by the NFL, the play was ruled a touchdown. Collinsworth was surprised, and reacted negatively. He questioned “when does he gain control of the football? Does he have control there? I would argue no..” and later says “I would have called that incomplete.” Both other journalists and fans of the game were outraged, believing that a commentator has no reason to inject their personal beliefs into the results of a referee’s decision.

We believe that it would be unethical for a sports journalist like Collinsworth to favor one team, and have that favoritism be reflected in their reporting. Sports journalists have a duty to be objective in their reporting, and give an unbiased presentation of facts. They are held accountable by organizations like the NFL and teams like the Eagles, who they present facts about. They are also held accountable by fans to present those facts as objectively as possible, even if they are personally upsetting. Favoring one team on air is a breach of duty, and a violation of ethics.

In the podcast below, we interviewed Saint Joseph’s University student and sports marketing major Chris Rini for his thoughts on this issue.

An Open Letter to Sex and the City

Dear Sex and the City,

I have a confession; I’ve never watched your show. Technically, being born in late 1998, you existed before I did. You were cancelled when I was six, and I don’t think your show would’ve had much appeal to me then anyways. However, your show became a part of my life in freshman year of college, during a media ethics class. We were learning about product placement and you, Sex and the City, became the poster child of product placement gone too far.

As I’m sure you know, product placement is “The practice of ‘embedding’ a product, brand, or service into a film or story line in lieu of airing more traditional commercials” (Media Ethics, 87). I question whether or not you attempted to rewrite that definition. In 2004, you were approached by product placement agents for Absolut Vodka, who invented a drink for your show, the “Absolut Hunk”. But they didn’t just embed this add into an episode, you guys embedded an episode around this advertisement. It sounds preposterous right? Building an entire plot line around an advertisement? Well, to you, it sounded like Season 6 Episode 6.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not completely against product placement in film or especially television. After all, anything to watch less commercials is a win in my book. However, you guys took this way too far. As media critic Mark Crispin Miller said “If movies were completely hospitable to placements, they’d be over as an art form” (87). You blatantly played on people’s susceptibility, and turned a form of art with a plot and a story into a 30 minute ad airing on HBO. And you were so close to being forgivable, but you forgot to even acknowledge Absolut’s sponsorship of the episode. Look at your successor (and superior) 30 Rock, who acknowledges everyone who sponsored the episode. Maybe take a page from their book before you take another swing with your 3rd movie.

Week 1 Discussions: Sinking Boat Dilemma

One of the first activities we did in class put our values to the test: The Sinking Boat Dilemma. The game was simple, you’re on a sinking boat and only have one life raft. There’s twelve people on the boat, but you can only save six of them. Each one comes with their own flaws and circumstances. It’s your job to figure out which ones are worth saving.

As I read through each person’s description, it became clear there would be no easy choices. Each person was very different from the others. It would come down to which flaws I saw as worse than others.

The ages of the people ranged from 16 to 70. There was a coke addict, an alcoholic, a cheating husband, and many others with equally bad labels. We ended up basing our decisions off of who we believed had the potential to lead better lives and who believed could help us survive the ocean. Here’s how it went:

The chosen ones:

Billy- The 16 year old charming young man who has gotten in trouble for stealing and is very untrustworthy. We decided that a boy that age has potential to become a better man.
Dr. Storch- An arrogant doctor but nonetheless intelligent man. His only flaw was his character, but will prove useful if anyone is hurt.
Shane- A young selfish genius who is wheelchair bound. Again, his character being his flaw but can help make decisions for the group.
Barry- A retired hired mercenary who has killed multiple people. He also has expert survival techniques which would come in handy if the group ran into trouble.
Fred- Abandoned his sick wife and children but is an expert yacht navigator. He will be very useful in navigating the seas.
Lola- A young dancer who has two attempted suicides but none recently. We felt her life is getting better and deserves a chance to make a great life for herself.

The left behind:

Mary Anne- An experienced nurse and an alcoholic who lost custody of her child. Nothing stood out to us and seemed to have no goal to stop her alcoholism.
Sheena- A fitness instructor and is also HIV positive from being raped. We felt bad because it was not her fault for getting HIV, but we saw our top six as being more useful.
Mickey- The coke addict and street fighter. This put us on edge about his behavior and he also has bad hygiene.
Tom- Veteran who has PTSD when not medicated. This made us nervous because without his medication he could become a liability.
Cindy- 70 year old smoker who might have lung cancer. We figured she had lived a good life and wouldn’t survive much longer anyway if we decided to save her.
Xavier- 18 year old aspiring musician but is also on the terrorist watch list but claims he has no ties. That made us nervous regardless and he has no useful skills to the group.