News Article Week 5 - BUS520-A - Darla Lackey

NBC faced a difficult decision over the last few weeks after a false comment by journalist Brian Williams was aired on his Nightly News program on January 30. Williams had made a claim that he had been riding in a military helicopter that was hit by enemy fire over Iraq in 2003. A flight engineer came forward claiming Williams was never on that flight.

There are two ethical issues that arise from this situation. The first is with Brian Williams himself. Truth-telling is one of the foundations of ethics. In Exodus 20, it is one of the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses.  It is clear Williams lied when he made the statement. Williams has been a much-loved, even one of the most popular journalists, of the last few decades. His fans are angry at him for making these claims, and the network has suspended him for six months.

After being caught in his lie, Williams offered an on-air “apology,” claiming he was simply trying to honor specific military personnel and all men and women in the military for what they do. He also made the statement that he simply mixed up which aircraft he was on and he was actually riding a training helicopter at the time of the event, not the one that was hit and damaged. His apologies all “fell flat,” and most people were unappeased, believing he did not forget or got confused, but he completely made it up.

Williams, first of all, should not have lied 13 years ago. However, that could have been forgiven if handled correctly. First, he should have withdrawn his claim then. The fact that he “got away with it” for over 10 years, and was even willing to re-air his claims, shows a level of arrogance. After being called out on his lie, Williams should have taken complete responsibility and apologized without excuses. By changing his story and attempting to cover up his lies, Williams made the situation even worse.

Also facing an ethical dilemma after this event are NBC executives. They were facing a decision to either fire Williams, to suspend him for a short time, or to suspend him with no promises of his position in the future. This was a difficult decision for several reasons. First, what they decided to do would reflect how NBC feels about false claims to their audience. If they chose to keep Williams on the air, with no or very little consequences, it would send the message that NBC does not care about telling their viewers the truth.

On the other side of the decision, however, is how their decision will affect NBC financially and in viewership. Brian Williams was able to make Nightly News one of the top-rated shows on the network. To remove him would likely affect these ratings, which could severely hurt the network. The decision that is ethically right may not be the most profitable, and NBC had to decide which they valued more.

In the end, NBC executives chose to penalize Williams with a six month suspension without conditions. Williams desired a short suspension with a guarantee that he could have his position back after that time, but Steve Burke, the executive Vice President of Comcast, NBC’s parent company, decided on suspension without a guarantee.

Williams will face long-term consequences after this event, and his reputation will likely never be completely restored. After decades on the air, Williams’ entire reputation is now in question. In addition to the suspension, NBC executives are questioning several other comments made by Williams. His credibility is being questioned in the media and by most of the people who watched and trusted him for years.

This event proves how one unethical decision can create a domino effect. Once one claim is questioned, especially a very bold claim like riding in a military helicopter that was hit, it is easy to then wonder what other things were lied about. If he is willing to lie about a big thing, he is likely willing to lie about the little things. This event also shows how one unethical moment, if not handled correctly, can destroy a lifetime of what would seem to be ethical decisions. Williams has reported on some of the top stories all over the world, but now he will spend years overcoming this indiscretion. He may never be able to do it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/within-nbc-an-intense-debate-over-whether-to-fire-brian-williams/2015/02/11/8e87ac02-b22f-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html?tid=hybrid_control_strip_3

News Article Week 4 - BUS520-A - Darla Lackey

In today’s world of Internet browsing and search engines, many companies use “cookies” to track where customers are going on the web. They use the collected data to strategically place ads that they believe will appeal to the customer based on their browsing history. Computers and mobile devices enable users to delete cookies from their digital device, and many consumers believe that once they do this, their activity is no longer traceable. But this is not always the case.

Turn, an “online advertising clearinghouse,” is now providing companies with cookies that never really disappear. They essentially come back from the dead and continue tracking customer patterns on mobile phone and other digital devices. The information gathered is then auctioned off to advertisers who can target ads to each customer.  Consumers have complained because, even after opting out of the tracking option, Turn continued to monitor their activity. When confronted with this issue, AT&T discontinued using Turn but Verizon has continued to use their services claiming that it is unlikely consumers will be profiled by the companies buying the ad space. 

There are two companies whose ethics can be called into question through these methods. The first is Turn. The fact that they are using cookies to track consumer activity is controversial, but the consumer expects it because it is the “contextual norm” within our culture. The ethical dilemma comes into play when consumers have chosen not to be tracked yet Turn continues. They claim that opting out of the tracking system is honored, yet studies have shown it continues to run even after opt out.

Turn is invading the privacy of digital device users and, further, they are being deceptive about it. People value their privacy. This is true at home, at work, or on their mobile devices. Many consider the right to privacy a basic right, and to have that privacy taken away is unacceptable and unethical. This is especially true for people who have intentionally said to discontinue tracking their activity. Turn doing so in spite of consumer request is dishonoring the consumer.

Even more ethically questionable is Verizon, who continues to use Turn knowing its customers are unhappy, even angry, about it. The consumer is a direct customer of Verizon. Verizon is then a customer of Turn. Turn is most accountable to its customer, Verizon, but Verizon is most accountable to its customers. If management at Verizon knows what is going on, and it is abundantly clear they are aware, and continues to use Turn, they are increasingly unethical.

Ethical situations do not always occur when one person wrongs another. It can also happen when one person aids another in deceiving or mistreating another. That is the case with Verizon. They cannot decide how Turn will conduct their business, and they cannot force Turn to discontinue using the “Zombie Cookie” to track customers. However, because they continue to use Turn, knowing their methods, Verizon is just as culpable for the wrong done to consumers.

Verizon should have followed the lead of AT&T. When confronted with this issue, AT&T discontinued their relationship with Turn. They very clearly put the needs and wants of their customers above the financial benefits resulting from tracking their customers. They have likely turned to another company that tracks activity, but it is also likely that company has proven more ethical than Turn. This may include simply honoring the request of customers who have chosen to opt out of the tracking programs.

If Verizon does not figure out a way to remedy this problem, they will run the risk of losing consumers, especially those who feel very strongly about their privacy. Not only will the customer leave Verizon, it is probably they will move to one of Verizon’s biggest competitors, AT&T. By making ethical decisions, and honoring consumers, AT&T is building its reputation as one that cares about its customers. People will be drawn to this reputation, especially if they are increasingly concerned about unwanted tracking.

Verizon needs to act quickly if they are going to combat the impressions made on customers through this situation. Lawmakers are already involved, demanding an investigation into Verizon’s use of these “Supercookies.” If word continues to spread, and if this issue continues to garner attention, Verizon will likely suffer a set-back that will be difficult to overcome. They need to make intentional efforts to prove that Verizon values user privacy and is willing to give up increased information or financial rewards in order to protect their customer.

 http://www.propublica.org/article/zombie-cookie-the-tracking-cookie-that-you-cant-kill

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/lawmakers-call-for-investigation-into-verizons-use-of-mobile-supercookies/?src=busln