If you skip to 3:20 in this Ryan Gosling Video you'll see him blatantly advocating for footie pajamas and repeatedly mentioning the brand-name. He even gives each and every person in the audience their very own pair of pajamas (or rather, the company did).
I have no problem with this type of celebrity-endorsement. The platform of a talk-show like Ellen is to interview celebrities, and their endorsements of products is expected. A reasonable viewer would not be deceived and truly believe that the celebrity is advocating for a particular product completely on their own. The reality is that they are likely paid to casually mention a brand name, drop positive comments about a certain product, or (as Gosling did) blatantly advocate for it for an extended period of time. He probably got paid a fair amount of money to add that clothing into his interview so boldly.
The FTC Endorsement Guidelines back up my claim. It says,
“Regardless of whether the star’s compensation is a $1 million cash payment or
a royalty for each product sold by the advertiser during the next year, no
disclosure is required because such payments likely are ordinarily
expected by viewers” (“Federal Trade Commission).
The key part here is that they are ordinarily expected by viewers. On a talk show, in a youtube interview, or an article in a magazine, one can expect these type of celebrity endorsements. The unethical/gray area begins when the products are being endorsed in ways viewers wouldn't ordinarily expect.
For example, if the product is being promoted by a non-celebrity--say, someone close to them, a friend or family member. Often times companies engage in a strategy called "guerrilla marketing" in which they hire a group of people to promote products to their friends and family.
This is similar to the Mary-Kay makeup company (in which people can sell the company's products to their friends and family). In this situation, they are acting ethically and disclosing that they have a relationship with the company.
An unethical endorsement would occur if my friend kept telling me how great her makeup was and insisting that I buy it. As her friend, I would trust her opinion and probably not assume that she was being paid to tell me these things (and might not actually like the product). Since I wouldn't reasonably expect that she was a paid endorser of the product, (like I would expect of a celebrity on a talk-show) this type of endorsement would be greatly deceiving and unethical.
-Madie
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Pelissero and Sports Reporting
Tom Pelissero is a USA TODAY NFL sports writer and broadcaster who has interviewed countless acclaimed athletes throughout his reporting career. Pelissero has had to exhibit the ability to ask tough questions in these encounters even though the players are often esteemed.
In his interview with Adam "Pac Man" Jones, Pelissero graciously balanced asking the hard questions with noting the positive attributes of the player.
The following paragraph is a great example of this: "The arrests. The suspensions. The trade from the Tennessee Titans and the release from the Dallas Cowboys. The two full seasons Jones missed in his prime…." (Listing all of his negative experiences)
And then he turns it around, saying "threatening the career of a highly talented cornerback and return man who was the sixth overall pick in the 2005 draft. (Mentioning his talent and desirability in the 2005 draft)
Pelissero did a good job with balance there. He acknowledged the mistakes Jones had made as a man, but understood that his role and talent as a player was also crucial to the article.
There are a few times in the article where Jones gets heated and voices his distaste for journalists and his belief that reporters refuse to write about the good things players do and wait around for them to make a mistake. Of course, I dryly laugh upon reading these comments. He makes millions of dollars playing a sport that he loves, yet is entitled enough to believe that his assault charges are simply "mistakes" that people make and that he is a victim because his life is scrutinized.
Uhm. Excuse my blatant honest, but the so-called "mistakes" he has made go well beyond the mishaps of an average citizen. He remains a violent, bloody-rich football player with entitlement issues who let the "money make him" rather than making the money. (Exactly what he said players shouldn't do.)
Jones goes on to whine about how unfair it is that his arrest was covered but his big "win" in court wasn't. Sorry you didn't get your big applause, Jones. Congratulations on being judicially-justified in hitting a woman due to your instinctive reflexes.
Pelissero agreeably responded to Jones's complaint on the media, saying, "that's an issue for the media, absolutely. A lot is made of an arrest. The outcome can get way less attention."
He also helps to defend Jones' and other athlete's misconduct by writing it off as "inevitable" due to the size of the league. Pelissero says, "Part of it may be there are 1,700 players in the league. That's a larger group than most sports, so inevitably there's more bad news."
And frankly, I got kind of pissed. Why is Pelissero telling Jones what he wants to hear? Isn't the reporter supposed to have the upper-hand here? The fact that Jones is a famous football player shouldn't make Pelissero afraid to be confrontational.
That was my initial response. But after thinking it through, I realized Pelissero handled the interview exactly as I would hope I would handle such an interview. As a reporter, he was successful in asking hard questions for the player to respond to, even if they created uncomfortable situations. However, he acted human and conversational by responding neutrally to Jones's attacks on the media and defense of his own actions. Which, in all honesty, is what most of us would do when speaking to someone about something we disagree on--Hear what they have to say, acknowledge the points they have made, and move on. Pelissero demonstrated a fantastic way of handling asking those tough questions, especially when the person you're asking them to might hate you for it.
-Madie
In his interview with Adam "Pac Man" Jones, Pelissero graciously balanced asking the hard questions with noting the positive attributes of the player.
The following paragraph is a great example of this: "The arrests. The suspensions. The trade from the Tennessee Titans and the release from the Dallas Cowboys. The two full seasons Jones missed in his prime…." (Listing all of his negative experiences)
And then he turns it around, saying "threatening the career of a highly talented cornerback and return man who was the sixth overall pick in the 2005 draft. (Mentioning his talent and desirability in the 2005 draft)
Pelissero did a good job with balance there. He acknowledged the mistakes Jones had made as a man, but understood that his role and talent as a player was also crucial to the article.
There are a few times in the article where Jones gets heated and voices his distaste for journalists and his belief that reporters refuse to write about the good things players do and wait around for them to make a mistake. Of course, I dryly laugh upon reading these comments. He makes millions of dollars playing a sport that he loves, yet is entitled enough to believe that his assault charges are simply "mistakes" that people make and that he is a victim because his life is scrutinized.
Uhm. Excuse my blatant honest, but the so-called "mistakes" he has made go well beyond the mishaps of an average citizen. He remains a violent, bloody-rich football player with entitlement issues who let the "money make him" rather than making the money. (Exactly what he said players shouldn't do.)
Jones goes on to whine about how unfair it is that his arrest was covered but his big "win" in court wasn't. Sorry you didn't get your big applause, Jones. Congratulations on being judicially-justified in hitting a woman due to your instinctive reflexes.
Pelissero agreeably responded to Jones's complaint on the media, saying, "that's an issue for the media, absolutely. A lot is made of an arrest. The outcome can get way less attention."
He also helps to defend Jones' and other athlete's misconduct by writing it off as "inevitable" due to the size of the league. Pelissero says, "Part of it may be there are 1,700 players in the league. That's a larger group than most sports, so inevitably there's more bad news."
And frankly, I got kind of pissed. Why is Pelissero telling Jones what he wants to hear? Isn't the reporter supposed to have the upper-hand here? The fact that Jones is a famous football player shouldn't make Pelissero afraid to be confrontational.
That was my initial response. But after thinking it through, I realized Pelissero handled the interview exactly as I would hope I would handle such an interview. As a reporter, he was successful in asking hard questions for the player to respond to, even if they created uncomfortable situations. However, he acted human and conversational by responding neutrally to Jones's attacks on the media and defense of his own actions. Which, in all honesty, is what most of us would do when speaking to someone about something we disagree on--Hear what they have to say, acknowledge the points they have made, and move on. Pelissero demonstrated a fantastic way of handling asking those tough questions, especially when the person you're asking them to might hate you for it.
-Madie
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Access to the Internet
While no governments are entirely "shutting down" the public's access to internet, the image above insinuates that access is so important that being denied it would be means to overthrow the government. While it's an extreme example of censorship, it articulates my belief that excessive censorship is unjust and that the accessibility of information via internet is crucial.
My friend from High School once had a girl from China stay with her as a foreign exchange student. She was amazed at the accessibility of information here in America--saying that they couldn't even have Facebook where she lived. Among other cultural differences like the rigor of her academics and living conditions, this seemed to be the one that impacted her the most. She went back to China after a few months but ended up moving to America and I recently just received a Facebook friend request from her. Having gotten to know her while she stayed with my friend, I knew what a huge deal this must have been to her. She was so excited to be "on Facebook" and to have the same access to information as we did.
I definitely do not agree with over-censorship of internet access (like is practiced in China) and strongly support the claim that people deserve the freedom to research and decide things for themselves. When the information online is censored, the public is likely only being fed one-sided viewpoints. One of the reasons the First Amendment is necessary is because of the Marketplace of Ideas effect (I learned about in my Media Law class). The Marketplace of Ideas is the notion that freedom to information and speech is necessary so that people can "battle it out" and come to terms with their own opinions. Debate is necessary in adequately forming personal beliefs and discovering truth.
While I support freedom to information and easy access online, there is a line that must be drawn. As Erin Mauger discussed in her blog, "Is Free Speech Everywhere," I believe obscenity should be censored. It's complete bullshit that the Child Online Protection Act has yet to be passed and upheld. Could no one really write a bill that wasn't over-inclusive? Far too many times I'm scrolling through my Facebook timeline or Twitter feed and see sexually explicit images or violently graphic photos (spammed or shared through other people). It is WAY too easy for children to see these things, too. A child could be sitting next to me, looking over my shoulder, or scrolling through their own Facebook (as plenty of young children even have their own these days). 30 years ago, sexually explicit images were generally only available through the purchase of "adult" magazines like Playboy. Now, it's almost impossible to avoid seeing them.
The government should interfere with access to the internet as little as possible, but for the "little" amount they do interfere--they should focus on protecting children and shielding them from obscene/violent/graphic information.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Would you quit because a job is unethical?
Chicago news anchor for WMAQ-TV, Carol Marin, quit her broadcast position because she felt the decision to hire Jerry Springer on the show was unethical. I support her decision to leave the station and contend that the hiring of Jerry Springer was unethical. To come to this decision, I had to ask two questions: 1. Was hiring Jerry Springer unethical? Why? And 2. If so, was quitting the answer?
First off, in deciding if hiring Jerry Springer was unethical, one must look at his credibility and past behavior. Carol Marin mentioned in one of the articles that he has done programs on topics like "Women With Watermelon Breasts" and "My Brother Is My Sister." Surely a news network is not the place for such crude and vulgar language. While anchors and guest should be charismatic and enjoyable to watch, hard-hitting news isn't funny or distasteful. Audience members can turn on SNL if they want to watch such things. The news is historically an outlet people can trust to be accurate and professional. Jerry Springer would likely not carry on those standards. It's also clear that the network hired him to raise ratings, which is unethical in itself.
The next question as to whether or not Carol Marin should have left is of course a question of personal ethics. If she felt uncomfortable in the situation with Jerry Springer and didn't feel she would be delivery news adequately to the public/her viewers, quitting was a no-brainer. In leaving the station, she made a statement to the media that she is a trustworthy news anchor who is interested in the truth and professionalism--not celebrities and ratings. She will obviously get a job at another station, and that station will likely be one that corresponds with her ethical code. The viewers, in turn would know that they can trust this new station.
The topic of quitting because of ethical disagreements was briefly brought up during our last class with Evan Fazio (guest speaker tom Golin Harris). He said that he's currently working in medical company Public Relations, and that luckily he has agreed with the medications he's advocating for. But in the future, if he disagrees with deceiving the public to take a particular medication that is unhealthy/not in line with his moral standards, he would probably make the decision to quit. (Or not take on the project from the beginning).
Quitting a firm like Golin Harris would obviously be an extremely hard decision to make, but in the long run, people want to employ people they can trust and who stand by their morals.
First off, in deciding if hiring Jerry Springer was unethical, one must look at his credibility and past behavior. Carol Marin mentioned in one of the articles that he has done programs on topics like "Women With Watermelon Breasts" and "My Brother Is My Sister." Surely a news network is not the place for such crude and vulgar language. While anchors and guest should be charismatic and enjoyable to watch, hard-hitting news isn't funny or distasteful. Audience members can turn on SNL if they want to watch such things. The news is historically an outlet people can trust to be accurate and professional. Jerry Springer would likely not carry on those standards. It's also clear that the network hired him to raise ratings, which is unethical in itself.
The next question as to whether or not Carol Marin should have left is of course a question of personal ethics. If she felt uncomfortable in the situation with Jerry Springer and didn't feel she would be delivery news adequately to the public/her viewers, quitting was a no-brainer. In leaving the station, she made a statement to the media that she is a trustworthy news anchor who is interested in the truth and professionalism--not celebrities and ratings. She will obviously get a job at another station, and that station will likely be one that corresponds with her ethical code. The viewers, in turn would know that they can trust this new station.
The topic of quitting because of ethical disagreements was briefly brought up during our last class with Evan Fazio (guest speaker tom Golin Harris). He said that he's currently working in medical company Public Relations, and that luckily he has agreed with the medications he's advocating for. But in the future, if he disagrees with deceiving the public to take a particular medication that is unhealthy/not in line with his moral standards, he would probably make the decision to quit. (Or not take on the project from the beginning).
Quitting a firm like Golin Harris would obviously be an extremely hard decision to make, but in the long run, people want to employ people they can trust and who stand by their morals.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Privacy (or lack thereof)
Some Americans were outraged upon learning that their own beloved government was spying on them. (As if it was a huge surprise...) These people represent 52% of the population (according to the Washington Post) and believe that the monitoring of American citizens and their private information is unconstitutional and unjust.
Contrary, 45% of people claim the NSA has invaded our privacy in the honorable name of nationalism and that such surveillance is essential to preventing future terrorist attacks. Yes, please bug my phone and read my emails. All my texts to my boyfriend can be texts to my NSA boyfriend as well. Whatever it takes to keep me safe from the god-forsaken terrorists.
The questions emerged: Is our national security worth giving up our constitutional rights? Have the potential threats and risks been blown out of proportion? Aren't there other ways of preventing such attacks that don't involve the invasion of citizen's private information? Couldn't this monitoring possibly lead to incriminating innocent Americans?
The NSA scandal (revealed to the public by former NSA employee Edward Snowden) is just one example of the many mixed opinions regarding privacy. Crossing this privacy line is clearly not as simple as crossing into either the right or wrong side, as Americans were basically split in half on the "okay with it/not okay with it" scale.
We would never want the media spreading all of our deepest, darkest secrets. But when it comes to Kim Kardashian's, we want ALL the dirt. Tell me more. I want to know who, what, where, when, why, and how, in as much detail as possible. Get down to the nitty gritty. And please, if there's a photograph or video of proof, SHOW ME.
She's a celebrity. So we can disregard the fact that she has a right to privacy; a family, maybe even kids, plenty of friends, and other relationship that will in turn be harmed and hurt.
We want to see the crime scene. Our curiosity gets the best of us and we don't care when the line is crossed as long as we get answers. The sex offender on the news? The gang member who just shot a little boy in a drive-by? Tell us everything about him. His history. Any scandals from high school. Is bis family messed up too? The world should know what an evil son-of-a-bitch he is.
He's a criminal. So we can disregard the fact that he has a right to privacy; a family, maybe even kids, plenty of friends, and other relationships that will in turn be harmed and hurt.
When it comes to "protecting their children," 21st century parents can download apps that constantly show them where their kids are, or even install cameras that record their children walking in the front door so they know they made it home safely. How did children possibly survive in the generations before this technology without such surveillance?
Thank God we now have military-like tracking devices for our kids walking home from school in the suburbs.
For the sake of this blog and maintaining an argumentative stance, I make the bold claim (as almost devil's advocate) that there should be no line when it comes to privacy and the media. Transparency and truth should always trump censorship and lies. An unpleasant as something may be, if it's the truth, the public should be exposed to it. Sugarcoating and leaving out information is the equivalent to lying.
Legally speaking, if published content is true, it is protected from libel claims. Libel requires a false statement to be published. Thus, if the statement isn't false, it isn't libel. The Publication of Private Facts law (which holds true in most states) complicates libel situations and creates another cautionary measure for media outlets to be aware of. It states that one can sue a media outlet for publishing information even if it's true, if it meets the following standards:
1. Public Disclosure: The defendant must "give publicity" to the fact/facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact/facts disclosed must be private and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.
The newsworthy clause is quite ambiguous as to who defines what is newsworthy. Courts have upheld, however that newsworthiness includes "publications concerning homicide and other crimes, arrests, police raids, suicides, marriages and divorces, accidents, fires, catastrophes of nature, a death from the use of narcotics, a rare disease, the birth of a child to a twelve-year-old girl, the reappearance of one supposed to have been murdered years ago, a report to the police concerning the escape of a while
animal and many other similar matters of genuine, even if more of less deplorable, popular appeal."
This clearly gives the media plenty of leeway regarding what they can and cannot publish. However, in order to maintain transparency and truth, there shouldn't even be "Publication of Private Facts" law. The media should remain loyal to its audience by publishing all true content--even if privacy has been breached.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html
Contrary, 45% of people claim the NSA has invaded our privacy in the honorable name of nationalism and that such surveillance is essential to preventing future terrorist attacks. Yes, please bug my phone and read my emails. All my texts to my boyfriend can be texts to my NSA boyfriend as well. Whatever it takes to keep me safe from the god-forsaken terrorists.
The questions emerged: Is our national security worth giving up our constitutional rights? Have the potential threats and risks been blown out of proportion? Aren't there other ways of preventing such attacks that don't involve the invasion of citizen's private information? Couldn't this monitoring possibly lead to incriminating innocent Americans?
The NSA scandal (revealed to the public by former NSA employee Edward Snowden) is just one example of the many mixed opinions regarding privacy. Crossing this privacy line is clearly not as simple as crossing into either the right or wrong side, as Americans were basically split in half on the "okay with it/not okay with it" scale.
We would never want the media spreading all of our deepest, darkest secrets. But when it comes to Kim Kardashian's, we want ALL the dirt. Tell me more. I want to know who, what, where, when, why, and how, in as much detail as possible. Get down to the nitty gritty. And please, if there's a photograph or video of proof, SHOW ME.
She's a celebrity. So we can disregard the fact that she has a right to privacy; a family, maybe even kids, plenty of friends, and other relationship that will in turn be harmed and hurt.
We want to see the crime scene. Our curiosity gets the best of us and we don't care when the line is crossed as long as we get answers. The sex offender on the news? The gang member who just shot a little boy in a drive-by? Tell us everything about him. His history. Any scandals from high school. Is bis family messed up too? The world should know what an evil son-of-a-bitch he is.
He's a criminal. So we can disregard the fact that he has a right to privacy; a family, maybe even kids, plenty of friends, and other relationships that will in turn be harmed and hurt.
When it comes to "protecting their children," 21st century parents can download apps that constantly show them where their kids are, or even install cameras that record their children walking in the front door so they know they made it home safely. How did children possibly survive in the generations before this technology without such surveillance?
Thank God we now have military-like tracking devices for our kids walking home from school in the suburbs.
For the sake of this blog and maintaining an argumentative stance, I make the bold claim (as almost devil's advocate) that there should be no line when it comes to privacy and the media. Transparency and truth should always trump censorship and lies. An unpleasant as something may be, if it's the truth, the public should be exposed to it. Sugarcoating and leaving out information is the equivalent to lying.
Legally speaking, if published content is true, it is protected from libel claims. Libel requires a false statement to be published. Thus, if the statement isn't false, it isn't libel. The Publication of Private Facts law (which holds true in most states) complicates libel situations and creates another cautionary measure for media outlets to be aware of. It states that one can sue a media outlet for publishing information even if it's true, if it meets the following standards:
1. Public Disclosure: The defendant must "give publicity" to the fact/facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact/facts disclosed must be private and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.
The newsworthy clause is quite ambiguous as to who defines what is newsworthy. Courts have upheld, however that newsworthiness includes "publications concerning homicide and other crimes, arrests, police raids, suicides, marriages and divorces, accidents, fires, catastrophes of nature, a death from the use of narcotics, a rare disease, the birth of a child to a twelve-year-old girl, the reappearance of one supposed to have been murdered years ago, a report to the police concerning the escape of a while
animal and many other similar matters of genuine, even if more of less deplorable, popular appeal."
This clearly gives the media plenty of leeway regarding what they can and cannot publish. However, in order to maintain transparency and truth, there shouldn't even be "Publication of Private Facts" law. The media should remain loyal to its audience by publishing all true content--even if privacy has been breached.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Harm in the Media
Harm is discussed in chapter five of our Media Ethics book as something that acts explicitly to "set back someone's interest or undermine someone's human dignity" (Plaisance, 108). This, of course, suggests that libel and slander are accurate forms of legal harm. Libel is defined as "publishing in print, writing, or broadcast through radio, television, or dil, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others" (dictionary.law.com).
Harm, then, (or harming people) is an immoral practice media outlets sometimes partake in, while libel is the illegality that harm can create. In addition to my Media Ethics course, I am also currently in a Media Law class (and they often go hand in hand with each other). In my Media Law course, we have learned that a "tort" is any civil wrong that creates a right for a victim to sue the perpetrator. If a tort has in fact been committed, there are several types of damages that can be decided upon. Damages--as in what harm has been done and how the victim can be compensated. They are detailed below.
3 Different Types of Damages
Harm, then, (or harming people) is an immoral practice media outlets sometimes partake in, while libel is the illegality that harm can create. In addition to my Media Ethics course, I am also currently in a Media Law class (and they often go hand in hand with each other). In my Media Law course, we have learned that a "tort" is any civil wrong that creates a right for a victim to sue the perpetrator. If a tort has in fact been committed, there are several types of damages that can be decided upon. Damages--as in what harm has been done and how the victim can be compensated. They are detailed below.
3 Different Types of Damages
- General: No specific dollar amount (ex: embarrassment)
- Compensatory: Dollar value that can be proven with a paper trail (ex: lost wages, doctor bills)
- Punitive: Intended to punish perpetrator (huge consequences)
These three different types of damages are specific examples of how amounts of harm done can be evaluated by the legal system. Not only is it unethical to publish content that is directly and intentionally harmful, it is also often illegal.
Libel cases commonly involve celebrities (as tabloids and gossip magazines usually publish juicy content on famous people more than "common folk"). For instance, Kiera Knightey won a libel case against the Daily Mail after they published a story about her having an eating disorder and voiced that she was partially responsible for the death of a young girl with anorexia. She won $3,000 worth of damages in court. In other words, there was $3,000 worth of harm done. The money she received was donated to an eating disorder charity.
(http://jeremystake.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/5-infamous-celebrity-libel-and-slander-cases/)
Celebrities do not always win in libel/defamatory cases, however. David Beckham, for example, filed a libel suit against a US magazine claiming he had slept with a prostitute. He couldn't prove the magazine had acted malicious, however, so the 25 million dollars worth of damage he had claimed was dismissed.
(http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/feb/15/david-beckham-magazine-libel-judge)
It is evident that ethical wrongdoings involving harm against other people and legal situations of libel and slander go hand in hand. Minimizing harm is good from a moral standpoint, but it is also good from an I-don't-want-to-go-to-jail standpoint.
-Madie
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Justice Blog
The short video below is an adequate representation of the domestic-housewife gender role women are consistently forced to fit into and relevant to my blog post:
Ad Parody Feminist Video
The justice chapter in our Media Ethics book says that "our expectations of a 'just' society implies the responsible participation of groups and institutions, including the media." Justice is spoken about throughout the chapter by Rawl as creating fairness, and is done so by wearing a "veil of ignorance" and assuming the "original position" (a dispostition with no biases). Is there a sexist fallacy in these notions, though? I agree with Benhabib and contend that yes, there is.
Benhabib, a political philosopher, makes the claim that Rawl's logic on justice is "male-centered and fatally-flawed" and that "a concern for fairness simply doesn't guide how people relate to each other and make decisions." I agree, as the just society Rawl speaks of doesn't necessary reflect real society at times. Benhabib also says his philosophy "privileges a male-dominated public world and devalues the domestic sphere, resulting in an unequal distribution of power." An unequal distribution of power? You mean like the ones the ladies joked about in the video above? Women make 81% of what men do, and hold only 18% of congressional seats. They joke about the fake product, "swiffle" that gives their life meaning, as if since they are women, the only meaning their life can possibly have is in regards to home-making and taking care of children.
The justice values Rawl speaks of are challenged by Benhabib (and myself) when she says that through the ages, philosophers talk about "individuals" and exclude women from that generalization, as it focusses on the justice and not on the domestic. The subtle sexism exhibited Rawl's justice teachings is still prevalent in today's society, as the video above proves.
Ad Parody Feminist Video
The justice chapter in our Media Ethics book says that "our expectations of a 'just' society implies the responsible participation of groups and institutions, including the media." Justice is spoken about throughout the chapter by Rawl as creating fairness, and is done so by wearing a "veil of ignorance" and assuming the "original position" (a dispostition with no biases). Is there a sexist fallacy in these notions, though? I agree with Benhabib and contend that yes, there is.
Benhabib, a political philosopher, makes the claim that Rawl's logic on justice is "male-centered and fatally-flawed" and that "a concern for fairness simply doesn't guide how people relate to each other and make decisions." I agree, as the just society Rawl speaks of doesn't necessary reflect real society at times. Benhabib also says his philosophy "privileges a male-dominated public world and devalues the domestic sphere, resulting in an unequal distribution of power." An unequal distribution of power? You mean like the ones the ladies joked about in the video above? Women make 81% of what men do, and hold only 18% of congressional seats. They joke about the fake product, "swiffle" that gives their life meaning, as if since they are women, the only meaning their life can possibly have is in regards to home-making and taking care of children.
The justice values Rawl speaks of are challenged by Benhabib (and myself) when she says that through the ages, philosophers talk about "individuals" and exclude women from that generalization, as it focusses on the justice and not on the domestic. The subtle sexism exhibited Rawl's justice teachings is still prevalent in today's society, as the video above proves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)