Case in Point: The Gun Owner Next Door

After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School occurred in December 2012, the debate over gun ownership rights and regulations has been more popular than ever. At Sandy Hook, over twenty lives were lost when an intruder opened fire inside the school. Only days later, The Journal News, a newspaper in upstate New York, released an article titled, “Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?” The article included interactive map of where all of the pistol permit owners are located in two New York counties (Plaisance, 2014, p. 159).

The release of the article immediately sparked a debate over multiple ethical issues in the media. Gun rights supporters argued that the release of this information was unfair, violated their privacy, and turned them into targets (Plaisance, 2014, p. 159). Were it not for state-specific regulations, I would fully agree to this. New York is one of only ten states in the entire country that allows gun ownership information to be public (Sibley & MacNeal, 2013). Studies also showed that, while the Sandy Hook tragedy did encourage law enforcement officials to push for stricter gun control laws, more and more states were moving towards making gun ownership information private (Sibley & MacNeal, 2013). I think this movement is a great idea. While gun permits are regulated more so than other types of products, owners deserve the same privacy rights as any other hobbyist. For example, just because people own model airplanes does not mean there should be a public database of model airplane owners with all of their addresses, names, ages, and other personal information included. The only reason this specific article is justified is because this information is legally public in the state of New York, and all gun permit holders are subject to this when they apply for and receive these permits.

While I understand gun ownership is a much more complicated topic than owning model airplanes, the overall message still remains: gun owners deserve the right to keep their information private as much as any other non-owner deserves the right to stay private. The release of this article in The Journal News not only made the gun owners feel unsafe in their communities, but also turned their own staff members into targets of outrage. This map was an unnecessary attack on gun owners that did not benefit anyone. The journalists responsible for creating and publishing this map should have taken the possible consequences into consideration before publishing it. From a utilitarian standpoint, the consequences of publishing this article far outweighed any benefit that was found from the information, so the article was not successful in reaching the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Additionally, New York passed legislation to keep gun owner information private only weeks after this scandal occurred. Clearly even the government officials recognized that this information should not be publicly accessible and gun owners deserve the right to keep their information private.

Plaisance, P. L. (2014). Media Ethics: Kep Principles for Responsible Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sibley, R. & MacNeal, C. (2013). Majority of states prohibit access to gun records. The Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved from http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/01/18/majority-states-and-counting-dont-allow-gun-records-be-public/

Case in Point: “Campaign for Real Beauty”

Throughout the course of taking Media Ethics I have become more aware of ethical issues that are prevalent in the media in our everyday lives. During this semester one particular case in point article that found to be most interesting was the “Campaign for Real Beauty.” I was drawn to this campaign when it surfaced in 2004. That was the peak of body image issues for me when I was in middle school and I remember feeling so inspired by the women in the advertisements. The video always gave me goosebumps and I more remember the feeling I felt when watching them. However, after reading this article I found myself rethinking my opinion on Dove products and questioning how ethical the company really was.

Whether it is ethical or not photoshopping models happens every day. Dove beauty products stands for “real beauty” which is something that should not be taken lightly especially with how dominant body image issues are in today’s world. Dove prides themselves on making women feel beautiful in their own skin but how ethical can they be if they are photo shopping women who are supposed to be role models for the rest of us?

I honestly felt a little betrayed when I found out that they photoshopped the models. We have learned in class and from our textbook that it is crucial to “tell the truth” and to be “transparent” but clearly Dove did not follow the code of ethics for advertising. Kant said that truth and transparency define what it means to live an ethical life, he also said that freedom comes with serious duty. Overall, Kant’s belief and duty to this world was to “serve the public.” Kant would not approve of the photoshopping of these women because it was implied that this was “real beauty” since they used the exact terminology (Plaisance, 2014). Not only is this ethically wrong but I believe it is morally wrong as well. The media portrays the perfect women to be slim and skinny and this has affected many women. When Dove’s advertisement surfaced it was a big deal. They were going against everything that the media does and tells us to do and to find out they did the same by deceiving their consumers is very upsetting.

Another major rule to follow in ethics is “do not inflict harm.” This campaign is harmful once you know the truth. I know I was affected when I found out the truth, I questioned Dove as a company and it also brought up body image issues in a negative way. It may not physically harm us but it most definitely harms us emotional, especially women. I start to question if any of the images we see are real? Our perceptions are being skewed not only by Dove but almost every beauty industry out there. When is someone going to give us a non-photoshopped image?

After reviewing this ethical dilemma, my outlook on Dove has altered. I won’t say that I will never buy one of their products again but I will say their actions have been unethical and that is not acceptable in the world of advertising.

Case in Point: Product Placement Makes Shows Real, but Is It Ethical?

The Case in Point that I chose to look at in the Media Ethics was “Product Placement Makes Shows Real, but Is It Ethical?” I chose to explore this ethical issue because while studying as a communications major I began to notice product placement more than ever before and it was something that I became very interested in. Brands are seen to create authenticity for movies and television shows. I remember when I was little I used to watch a show called Zoe 101 and in this show all the characters had Apple laptops, but instead of an apple for the icon they all had different fruits that covered up the apple. I thought this was interesting because I had Apple products in my household growing up and it was obvious to me what products they were using; why not just have the logo? Brands that are used in the media help create an authentic environment and a sense of credibility to the audience, and can help the audience make an emotional connection to the program they are watching, but does that mean it is ethical?

Up until now I did not think that there were ethical issues tied to product placement but after reading this Case in Point article it is making me think twice. One example of questionable product placement in this article was the movie “Flight” with Denzel Washington. The problem isn’t so much to do with the consumer but more the artistic integrity of the production (Plaisance, 2014). When Denzel was landing the plane there was a Budweiser label present throughout the scene. Having the audience distracted by this label opposed to watching the hard work and artistic content that went into the directors creation of this movie could be considered unethical. Another reason why this specific case can be considered unethical is because in the movie Denzel is considered an alcoholic and is drinking a Budweiser while operating a commercial aircraft, although he is not only drinking Budweiser in the film, this specific product is most noticeable when he is in the act of flying a plane. This creates an opposite effect for the brand Budweiser creating the audience to think of this brand in a negative way.

This issue relates to this course in many ways. This issue can be related to transparency in the media, which is something I did not know existed before taking this class. Transparency is prevalent in product placement because these brands are being used as a way to drive the audience away from the film and focus their attention to the product. Overall after looking into the pros and cons of product placement I have found that there are some unethical aspects to this form of advertising. However product placement is most of the time in lieu of traditional advertising which is a whole other ethical issue. I would prefer to see product placement than an advertisement.

References:

Plaisance, P.L. (2014). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Case in Point: The Gun Owner Next Door

The Sandy Hook school shootings that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 first graders were murdered ignited the debate once again of gun control in the United States. After the shooting, the Journal News, which is a newspaper that serves Westchester and Rockland counties in New York published an interactive map of the names and addresses to those who were issued handgun permits by the local government. This interactive map generated a lot of controversy and debate over autonomy.

To start off I’ll admit that I am a little biased in the debate towards gun control. While I am not against someone owning a gun, there needs to be stricter regulations in order to get one. Legally what the Journal News published was not against the law. Local governments keep handgun permits on record which are open to the public. What the Journal News published is shocking and disturbing, but that is a good thing. The interactive map shows how widespread gun ownership is. Autonomy is about not just what we can do, but what we ought to do. We ought to show everyone that has a gun, it’s on public record, it should be published. If they don’t like that they’re address and the type of gun is being published then they shouldn’t own a gun in the first place. According to Dwight Worly of the Journal News, “The people have as much of a right to know who owns guns in their communities as gun owners have to own weapons.” (Haughney, 2013, p. A15).

Philosopher John Rawls uses the sense of autonomy of fulfill one’s duty. As a journalist, your duty is to report the news in a fair and honest way to inform the public. John Rawls would be okay with the Journal News interactive map. He would  argue that the journalists were just doing their jobs by informing the public about the issue at hand. I happen to agree with that. You can’t argue with news reporters doing their job, especially in this case, where all the information was public record. A journalist’s duty is to report the news fairly and inform the public and they did that in this case. You can see on the map how many people have guns and it is scary that it is so much. And the map only showed two counties in New York. Imagine if we got to see an interactive map of everyone who is registered to own a gun in the entire United States? Autonomy is about the ability to control “why” we do something. Why did they publish the interactive map? They published it to inform the public and to show how many people own guns and to show the public how serious an issue gun control is.

Case in Point: Shades of Green in Marketing PR (p. 117)

By Kimberly Pavlovich

Environmental responsibility is becoming increasingly important to consumers. According to Neilson (2014) marketing research, “fifty-five percent of global online consumers across 60 countries say they are willing to pay more for products and services provided by companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact” (para. 1). Though many corporations partake in sustainable practices, some abuse the environmental movement by “greenwashing.” These corporations make false or misleading claims about their environmental responsibility in order to attract consumers, increase profit, improve their brand image, conceal actual unsustainability, and/or to make mandated responsibility appear voluntary (Business Ethics, 2013; Kewalramani & Sobelsohn, 2012; Plaisance, 2014). For example, General Motors has used greenwashing techniques; its “Gas-Friendly to Gas-Free” campaign made appealing green claims regarding fuel-efficient vehicles and hybrids. However, the company has only produced a few “fuel-efficient” vehicles, and the “hybrids” are gas-guzzlers like SUVs (Greenpeace, n.d; Plaisance, 2014.).

Retrieved from http://www.thesra.org/greenwashing-warning-do-not-try-this-at-home-work-or-anywhere/

One ethical issue concerning greenwashing is that it becomes increasingly difficult for consumers to discern whether a company practices environmental responsibility, or if it uses deceptive marketing techniques (Business Ethics, 2013; Plaisance, 2014). Businesses have a responsibility to be transparent so that consumers can make autonomous, informed decisions (Plaisance, 2014). Questions then arise such as: How much information is necessary to provide in advertisements in order for consumers to make an informed decision? What defines an environmentally responsible company? When can a company claim the “green” label? In order to be transparent, should businesses reveal negative as well as positive impacts they have made on the environment? Is it important to know how a company has profited from its environmental initiatives?

In order to foster transparency and address some of these issues, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has created guidelines for green marketing. One of the FTC’s primary responsibilities is to regulate false advertising and it can prosecute those who use false claims (Kewalramani & Sobelsohn, 2012).

Businesses might also look to Patagonia, an outdoor apparel company, as a role model of environmental leadership and transparency. Patagonia does not use its environmental sustainability as an inauthentic marketing tool; it instead markets, believes in, and practices environmental sustainability with the utmost sincerity. For example, the company donates 1% of its profits to environmental causes, creates products with sustainable materials, and tries to limit its use of chemicals and water in the making of its products (Patagonia, n.d.; Reinhardt, Casadesus-Masanell, & Kim, 2010). It also not only focuses on its positive initiatives, but also reveals that clothing manufacturing is inherently harmful, providing tools for consumers to make informed decisions by being transparent about its supply chain. Through Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles, a feature on the company’s website, consumers can learn about the process behind the making of each individual Patagonia product (Patagonia, n.d.).

If businesses work to be sincere and transparent about their sustainability, consumers will develop trust and loyalty toward these brands; environmental responsibility and values resonate with many consumers. Thus, these companies will simultaneously help the planet while increasing their profit margin (Reinhardt, Casadesus-Masanell, & Kim, 2010). Consumers also have a responsibility to be critical thinkers regarding a company’s environmental claims. They should research a company’s actual practices and look beyond labels to avoid falling for greenwashing (Business Ethics, 2013).

 References

Business Ethics. (2013). What is ‘greenwashing’? Business Ethics: The Magazine of Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved from http://business-ethics.com/2013/04/21/1838-what-is-greenwashing/

Greenpeace. (n.d.). Gas-friendly to gas-free? GM’s attempt to greenwash its image. Greenpeace. Retrieved from http://stopgreenwash.org/casestudy_gm

Kewalramani, D. & Sobelsohn, R. J. (2012). “Greenwashing”: Deceptive business claims of “eco-friendliness.” Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/20/greenwashing-deceptive-business-claims-of-eco-friendliness/

Nielsen. (2014). Global consumers are willing to put their money where their heart is when it comes to goods and services from companies committed to social responsibility. Nielsen. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/us/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html

Patagonia. (n.d.). Patagonia. Retrieved from http://www.patagonia.com

Plaisance, P.L. (2014). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Reinhardt, F., Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Kim, H. J. (2010). Patagonia. Harvard Business School. 1-23. Retrieved from hbsp.harvard.edu

[Untitled image of “Green Wash”] Retrieved from http://www.thesra.org/greenwashing-warning-do-not-try-this-at-home-work-or-anywhere/

Code of Ethics for Fashion Bloggers

Lauren Melkus Dan Leahy Katie Paganelli  Erika Berman

Minimize Harm

• Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects.
• Avoid stereotyping
• Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Present them in respectful way.
• Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists with concepts, designs, or styles
• Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
• Don’t tell people what not to wear for their body type, say what is recommended so as
  not to offend.
• Support several points of view and styles.

Act Independently

• Do not accept monetary gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence
  coverage.
• Avoid swaying readers, instead present your own opinions in a respectful manner.
• Do not compromise journalistic independence.
• Do not copy styling, photos, or outfit features from other bloggers. Instead show them in your own personal light.
• Do not bash other bloggers style, focus on your own.
• Never plagiarize, always attribute.
• Don’t sway followers from other blogs to yours directly. Instead, do so by promoting your own work.

Be Accountable

• Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do
  not manipulate images.
• Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects.
• Provide context.
• Update and correct information as if comes up. Keep an eye out for what other fashion
  bloggers may have missed or have done and you overlooked.
• Identify sources clearly.
• Provide access to source material with links and names.
• Credit all photos or products that you did not personally produce.
• Respect designer’s artistic work. Do not release inside industry content before authorized to.
• Respect copyrights of designs and products.

Code of Ethics for Bloggers: Satiric Bloggers

By Alex Dodds, Maria Kangas, Ash Monks, Dan Pelzar, and Anah Pignatelli

Transparency:

1. Readers should be made aware that exaggeration is used to incite entertainment, but ultimately serves the public interest by providing information that is based on facts.
   1. This is based on the Advertising Code of Ethics, as represented in Plaisance (2014), because advertising uses similar amounts of exaggeration as satirical blog commentary might be expected to use.  Thus, the audience would be faced with similar expectations to interpret the context.
   2. “The issue is empowering audiences with information through disclosure so that we can make our own judgment about whether the ‘creative’ work we are seeing is reduced to a vehicle for products to an unreasonable degree” (Plaisance, 2014, p. 91).
2. Establish mutual understanding between the blogger and the audience regarding the represented perspectives of the blogger. Personal biases, external influences, and sponsorship should all be announced.
   1. Based on transparency concepts as represented by journalists, public relations professionals, and marketers.
   2. Protects against claims of libel and minimizes harm.

Be Accountable:

1. Use of specialized knowledge and experiences to benefit the public.
   1. Based on Public Relations Code of Ethics, as extracted from Plaisance (2014): “Expertise: We acquire and responsible use specialized knowledge and experiences” (p. 49).
   2. Additionally based on the idea of corporate social responsibility, wherein professional entities that are being paid for their services must return some service that benefits the public, whether by social action (i.e. aiding in disaster) or the provision of information (i.e. journalism).
2. Bloggers must address any confusion caused by their blogs so as to keep their audience fully informed.
   1. Based on PR’s code of ethics to keep the fixing of problems above board (Plaisance, 2014).
3. Materials must not cause unreasonable public panic or distress.
   1. A responsibility to minimize harm.

Credibility:

1. As a news source/distributor of information, it is important to be perceived as being credible.
   1. If an information source is not credible, consumers will no longer be interested in relying on the source due to that fact that the information provided is not beneficial or truthful; thus, the news source clearly lacks responsibility and professionalism, and the news source will not be successful.
2. Other reasons why it is important to have credibility are:
   1. To avoid misrepresentation, to be a part of a fair competition, and to keep the advertising industry in a safe state/maintain a good reputation.
3. Related to ethical decision making and moral claims.

Plagiarism:

1. Plagiarism is the act of taking/stealing another individual’s work and using it as your own (without giving that individual credit); a form of stealing and theft.
2. Relates to ethical values and morality.
   1. Like credibility, it is ethical to remain truthful, honest, trustworthy, and professional.
3. Examples:
   1.  Copying and pasting information from an online newspaper article into your paper for class.
   2.  Taking information that an individual said and not including quotation marks when writing it down.
   3. Giving false information about who a quote is from (this relates back to credibility).
   4. Using copyrighted music, videos, and any other content that is owned by another individual.

Minimize Harm:

1. According to the Society of Professional Journalists (2015), “Minimizing harm means letting your humanity show through. Show a little compassion for the people who are affected by what you write.”
2. The creator of the blog should always be clear that he/she is purposely not trying to disrespect anyone.
   1. The creator needs to establish respect with his/her viewers.
3. The creator of the blog needs to establish that the content are his/her own opinions.
4. The creator needs to treat his/her viewers as human beings.
   1. Based on the Code of Ethics for Journalists, pulled from Plaisance (2014), ethical journalists treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
5. The creator of the blog must understand possible consequences from content in his/her posts.

Independence:

1. The Society of Professional Journalism (2015) says, “the highest and primary obligation is to serve the public.”
2. To provide objective counsel to those represented and accountable for all actions
3. Bloggers should:
   1. Avoid conflicts of interest.
   2. Refuse all gifts or bribes and special treatment.
   3. Prominently label sponsored content.
   4. Resist internal and external pressure.
   5. Tell stories without influence from advertisements.

 

---

References:

Is Plagiarism? (n.d.) Retrieved from http://plagiarism.org/citing-sources/whats-a-citation

Plaisance, P. L. (2014). Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Society of Professional Journalists Citation. (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Where is the Beauty?

Dan Leahy

CIP: Campaign for Real Beauty

Models have always been used to enhance advertisements from burgers and fries to car dealerships. What used to be almost boyish figures with clothes hanging off of them has changed into a style that favors the natural beauty of woman, one that promotes a healthier body image for young woman around the world. While the females that are put on covers of magazines are naturally good looking, there is still an issue with the amount of retouching and Photoshop alterations that appear (or don’t) in these newsstand issues.

Vogue, V Magazine, Time, National Geographic, the list of names goes on and on. There is a sort of witch hunt going on around the web nowadays to discover photo shopped images. From Beyonce’s thigh gap stair picture, to Lena Dunham’s Vogue shoot originals that fetched the price of 10,000 dollars. What makes it even more disconcerting is the avenues in which companies are promoting themselves and claiming to be pro “natural beauty”. Here enters the case in point involving Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”. As shown in class, even this natural beauty campaign, uses a makeup artist as well as Photoshop.

In a 2009 V Magazine shoot, Lady Gaga appeared and had her form drastically altered and a new head put on her shoulders. That, while immoral in itself for the Born This Way activist, is not the worst part of her image illusion. The individuals responsible for touching up these photos even went so far as to add bone, in the form of a defined ribcage, to Lady Gaga. What makes this so mortifying is that is gives off the idea that being dangerously thin is desired. That may have been the norm several years ago in the modeling scene, but for something to appeal to that degree in the present day and age is mocking the work of natural beauty activists.

‘Girls’ creator Lena Dunham was recently on the cover of Vogue magazine and the snafu with her altered pictures created quite a stir as well. While not known as a beauty queen, Dunham is an attractive woman, though Photoshop was still deemed necessary to hide some less desirable aspects of her frame in several pictures. Now another blog, Jezebel, offered 10,000 dollars for these pictures in an effort to show the amount of doctoring the images underwent. Jezebel has a tagline that includes “without airbrushing”.  Dunham herself was outraged at the fact that something so trivial would be blow out of proportion, but I believe it sets a bad precedent for any other magazine. There are even photos that were pieced together from several different images to create the right picture.

Aerie is one of the highlights of the natural beauty movement. A division of American Eagle Outfitters, Aerie lingerie products have new models, and they are all natural. There is no use of retouching of any kind applied to the young woman’s clothing models. They feature themselves in all of their natural light, with; tattoos, beauty marks, lines, stretching, and dimples. The Aerie REAL campaign was a step in the right direction for all proponents of natural beauty.

Personally I believe that beauty should be decided upon first thing in the morning. Without time to tease or straighten hair, no bronzer or eye shadow. The only requirement is that they do not apply any cheating creams, photoshopping, or pulling, sucking, or pasting. As a man I have always believed it unfair that women were allowed to wear makeup and essentially improve their appearance. I have never gone a day in my life wearing makeup. Not because I couldn’t, but because I feel as though that would be cheating myself by falsely improving my looks. Now I can already see the “well you get haircuts don’t you” argument and to that I say one word: maintenance. I do not have to cut my hair daily so I am presentable. I find it disturbing that women feel like that can’t show their faces in public if they don’t “have their face on”.

Sources

Docktermen, Eliana. “American Eagle Stops Photoshopping Models for New Lingerie Campaign.” Time. Time, 18 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://time.com/1187/american-eagle-ditches-photoshop-for-new-lingerie-campaign/&gt;.

EBY, Margaret. “Lena Dunham Slams Vogue Photoshop Controversy.” NY Daily News. 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/lena-dunham-slams-vogue-photoshop-controversy-article-1.1583070&gt;.

Romolini, Jennifer. “So We.” HelloGiggles So Were All Sick of Photoshop Stories This One Still Matters Comments. 9 May 2014. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://hellogiggles.com/sick-photoshop-one-still-matters&gt;.

An Ethical Analysis on “eXistenZ”

eXistenZ is a very trippy sci-horror film that stars Jennifer Jason Leigh  as  famous video game designer Allegra Geller who is on the run from assassins with a marketing trainee turned  bodyguard Ted Pikel played by Jude Law. The two must play her new virtual reality video game called “eXistenZ” in order to see if it’s damaged.

In order to play the video game you have to have to have your nervous system hooked up to the game device via a biotechnogical umbillical chord. (Kind of weird I know) Once you’re hooked up to the video game, the game controls your nervous system. When you’re in the video game if feels so real that you have a hard time telling whether or not it’s real life or not. As the film progresses reality becomes more and more disoriented.

The film itself deals with a lot with the issue of ethics in technological advancement. In the world of the film the you play the video game but the game controls you. How much advancement is too much for technology? That is the ethical question that this film raises. In the film the assassins want to kill Allegra Geller because they view her video game as too powerful. The testers of the video games are called slaves. This is the writer/director David Cronenberg saying that we are slaves to technology. How much technology do we need in our lives? Is this world so dull that we need to go and play in virtual realities? These are some of the questions that the films asks. The film also raises the concerns about ethics in video games. Common ethical issues in video gaming are: Is it too violent? Is it too realistic? The video game in the film requires one of the characters to kill a man in broad daylight. The players in the video game have a hard time recognizing whether or not the world there in right now is real or in the video game.

Overall I thought the film was weird, but cool and raising interesting ethical questions about technological advancement and video games.

#Minghella

An Ethical Analysis “How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying

By Jed Magnusson

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying [Motion picture]. (1967). USA: Mirisch Corporation.

This film directed by David Swift was one of the few broadway shows to shine on the big screen. It takes place in 1967, corporate America is buzzing, the framework of the nine to five office cubicles is born. A young man armed with a book called, How To Succeed in Business decides to change his career from a window washer to pursue the ladder of business. From the guidance of this book his quick rise to chairman of the board is swift and deceitful. Based on the recommendations of the books this character is able to succeed but not without a trail of debris from this unethical path to power. At the core of this ethical analysis lies the age old debate of getting ahead. Is your own aspirations to get to the top greater than fair treatment and honesty to others? Is it acceptable to cheat to get ahead? In this case it really doesn’t require that much effort. The book implies to simply, pass off blame, steal ideas, lie and deceive those in a position of power to influence their judgment of you. There are many examples in which this happens in the film.

It’s no surprise that a window washer doesn’t have the credentials to make his way to the  top of a giant company. Following the guidance of the book he is able to swindle his way into replacing the first person of authority and make it from entry level mailroom to executive. This is the first unethical example, taking someone who is much more qualified and experienced for the jobs positioning, breaking the hierarchy of the system of promotion within the company. Once he is an executive position he begins to manipulate and deceive the CEO. He fakes his hours, presenting to his boss he had been working hard all night long when he had not. Doing this just to bait him, falsing showing similar habits such a knitting or the school that he went to. A lie in order to gain the respect and attention of the boss in order to move up the ladder.  This action is done multiple times in which it saves him from the reality that he is not qualified for the job, he even spies on the boss and has relations in his office, a breach of privacy and security. His lack of transparency is hidden by his wit and chapters from the book that he follows, encouraging such behavior. In conclusion of the ethical analysis, his shockingly quick rise to the top of the ladder does not come without, dishonesty, deceit, lack of transparency, blame and manipulation. Aside from the issues in the plot there are some other ethics that are relevant in the film, particularly to the era in which the film was produced and the societal norms of that time but we see a domiant white male ownership and sexsim in the office. At least they were courteous enough address the issue in this song A Secretary is Not a Toy