COM 530 9-1 Final Project Submission: Employee Handbook
OrgX
Employee Handbook
Human Resources Director
Introduction
Congratulations and welcome to the OrgX team! We are thrilled to have you aboard, and look forward to a fruitful and fulfilling time together.
To that end, we have provided you with a Company Handbook, which will provide you with a framework of legal and ethical guidelines to help you navigate life at OrgX. As OrgX is a digital content creator and distributor of news and information for a number of external clients, our journalistic teams are often exposed to legal and ethical situations which, if not handled appropriately, may leave OrgX open to litigation and mar our reputation in the industry.
Please take the time to read this handbook in its entirety, and keep it accessible so that you may refer to it as needed: along with ethical and legal guidelines, this handbook contains case studies and resources that may be helpful in the particular situations that you may face. You will also find discussion around pertinent issues in the industry today, including privacy rights, copyright infringement, libel, social media, and the First Amendment (as it pertains to the press). Remember also that you have complete access to your supervisor, as well as to the OrgX legal team (contact information is available on OrgX’s intraweb: OrgXWeb, which is your computer’s browser’s homepage), both of whom will be able to discuss the specific issues you may require guidance on. Your team is here to support you!
OrgX Professional Code of Ethics: Guidelines and Best Practices
The OrgX Professional Code of Ethics borrows largely from codes of ethics published by the Institute of Advertising (found here) and the Society of Professional Journalists (found here). OrgX benefits from the jurisdiction of both organizations, and though there are differences in the way each approaches the ethics of news reporting, there is a fair amount upon which they agree.
The IoA code, for example, heavily emphasizes the mandate for truthfulness in advertising, and for the distinguishing between advertising and news, including situations in which endorsements and sponsorship take place. It also discusses privacy matters (especially in light of programs that track and record an individual’s activities online to better target advertising), legal compulsions, and the fairness of advertising relating to the “nature of the audience,” that is to say, vulnerable populations such as children. The SPJ code of ethics contains four broad mandates: to “seek the truth and report it,” to “minimize harm,” to “act independently,” and to “be accountable and transparent.”
Both organizations mandate that their members follow high ethical standards and adhere to the truth in their work; both organizations require that advertising be distinct and separate from news reporting. The SPJ specifically demands that news and advertising be distinguishable, that a melding of the two should be avoided, and that any sponsored content be labelled accordingly. The IoA has practically exactly the same mandate, with an increased emphasis on the labelling of sponsored and endorsed content, including the evaluation of “free” goods and services to review. the IoA’s fifth principle, to “treat consumers fairly based on the nature of the audience” resonates rather strongly with the SPJ’s mandate to “minimize harm.” The IoA seeks protection for widely acknowledged vulnerable audiences, such as children and those reliant on pharmaceuticals; the SPJ takes both a much broader and more individual view of the issue, urging compassion when balancing the need to protect the news subject and the somewhat more ambiguous right of the public to the news itself. Both codes seek to prevent harm to vulnerable targets.
The best practices that OrgX employees must follow when they become members of our team are based on a combination of both codes, and we’ve included examples that demonstrate the necessity of the guideline.
- Prize truthfulness above sensationalism or marketing interests. Truthfulness in communication is critical, specifically to guard against sensationalism to promote the sale of news, products or services. A contemporary example is the proliferation of pharmaceutical commercials in various media today, which seem to focus more on the benefits and enhancement of quality of life… and gloss over the potential side effects. The change in the FDA’s rules in 1997 allows companies to list only the most “significant potential side effects,” (Spiegel, 2009) a clear example of prizing marketing outcomes over truthfulness.
- Be transparent regarding sponsorships, endorsements, and other potential conflicts of interest. Sponsorships and conflicts of interest must be clearly outlined in the interests of full transparency and reliability. Consider the native advertising on this webpage: https://www.buzzfeed.com/dove/10-skin-care-tips-every-woman-should-know?utm_term=.ifbyDbvMax#.vr3Ql16M9R. This is a blog that is maintained by Dove, the iconic skincare line, and includes some very helpful tips. The article goes to some lengths to be transparent: Dove identifies itself distinctly below the introductory paragraph as “Brand Publisher,” and while the article uses product placement (Tate 30) in that same paragraph, Dove does not endorse its own products elsewhere in the article; even when it does suggest products to use, specific brand names are not mentioned.
- Seek to minimize harm. The IoA espouses this mandate using children as an example of how advertising targeted to this segment may well bring harm to a vulnerable population, as children’s brains are not fully developed and lack the cognitive skills to evaluate the credibility and reliability of advertising. This principle is not limited to protected classes (such as children): consider the various communities that could be impacted by your reporting, both on a micro and a macro level.
- Treat news subjects and target audiences with compassion rather than derision or aggression. OrgX places significant emphasis on compassion and fair treatment. An example of this would be the treatment of the victim of a crime, and the need to balance our audience’s right to information regarding the crime (if only to protect community members from the perpetrator, and perhaps to aid in the apprehension of the perpetrator) against the perhaps greater need to protect the victim from further harm, possible embarrassment and further trauma.
Along with ethical considerations, there are a number of legal situations that OrgX team members face on a daily basis, including issues surrounding privacy, copyright infringement, and libel. The following are a compilation of legal best practices to which OrgX team members must adhere to avoid such issues.
- Respect your subject’s right to privacy with respect to his or her residence and private possessions. The First Amendment extends the right to an individual’s privacy to the (private) home, and by extrapolation, to private materials that the subject has not made public. Refrain from using materials gathered without the subject’s express, written permission: materials gained by accessing an individual’s home without permission, including those materials that were visible during a permissible visit to the individual’s home (e.g., for the purposes of conducting an agreed-upon interview) but to which the subject did not grand viewing or recording privileges, are not to be used in your work, nor distributed to other team members.
- The exception to the above is in the case of child pornography: should you witness or have accessed evidence of child pornography or abuse, notify your supervisor and the Legal team immediately so that the appropriate authorities may be contacted. Children are considered a protected class and therefore their protection is, in most cases, not subject to legal action against the journalist under the First Amendment.
- Keep all communication with your subjects and audience in strictly professional language; sexually explicit, vulgar or threatening language is not acceptable, and may well leave the company open to litigation.
- Refrain from the use of sexually explicit materials or commentary in your work, whether in the publishing or research and discovery phases. You may expect your digital devices (including your company computer, which is the property of the company) to be monitored for such activity. In the event that you require access to such materials in the course of your work, discuss with your supervisor prior to engaging in such access.
- If your work or project involves age-sensitive material, consider prefacing such information with a disclaimer, statement, or permission “wall” (whereby the viewer is required to enter his or her age in order to access the content) to make clear that the content about to be accessed is for mature audiences only.
- Do not take a photograph of or otherwise record a person’s image or word without their express and written permission to do so. The advent of telephoto lenses and other advanced technological tools should not be used to circumvent reasonable expectations of privacy to lend credence to a social media post, or otherwise used for the advantage of someone else. Always obtain the subject’s permission to capture and use their likeness, informing them of the context in which it is to be used, and provide full citations and disclaimers when the image or recording is used.
Libel is an untrue written statement that defames a person by damaging his or her reputation or standing. While there is some protection for the press from libel (the SPEECH ACT (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) is an example) (Moore et al., 2012), those who engage in libelous activity leave themselves open to lawsuits.
- Be accurate and confirm facts provided. Commit to verifying using at least two separate, reliable sources whenever possible. If you are reposting or retweeting something, click through to the original article or post and read it through first, and then verify the facts contained therein. This will greatly reduce the introduction of hearsay, opinion and plain untruth in your statements.
- Do not take liberties with the information you have obtained; refrain from extrapolating ideas from the facts already present, regardless of your motivation. Do not use facts in evidence to presume facts not in evidence.
- Identify sources clearly, using properly formatted citations. Your audience can then look the information up themselves to assure themselves of the content’s reliability and your transparency.
- Label commentary. If a statement is your own opinion, state so clearly and ask yourself if your audience would reasonably consider your statement an opinion. Not to identify commentary and opinion leaves you open to your audience’s assumption that you are stating fact, which can constitute libel or, at the least, damage your credibility. While there is some legal protection for opinion (Moore et al., 2012), loss of credibility with your target audience will damage your ability to effectively communicate with them.
- Do not distort facts or context, including graphics and images. With the technology available today, it is easier than ever to distort or otherwise alter images; after the number of cases in the media whereupon prominently published images were found to be distorted to add credence to the story to which it was attached, or to gain more sympathy from the audience (Ricchiardi, 2007), the public is now aware and extremely critical of the practice of the excessive altering of images.
- Do not use a person’s image or words out of context: using an image you’ve come across on social media to present a story or opinion that was not part of the original image’s narrative is unacceptable unless prior (written) permission of the subject(s) has been obtained. For example, do not use a photo of a couple downloaded from a Facebook post or shot with a camera in a park with an unrelated and possibly damaging article (e.g., on the subject of divorce or couples’ therapy) unless you have approached the original subjects and obtained their express permission to do so, and, assuming permission has been obtained, without appropriate and complete citations and/or disclaimers.
- Avoid bias by using different perspectives and points of view: even if you do not publish each perspective, use them to test your own work for possible bias. Consider such potential sources of bias as gender, sexual orientation, racial and ethnic identity, disability, and age (American Psychological Association, 2010). There is a prevailing sentiment that journalists are most often middle- to upper-class Caucasian males (Patterson & Wilkins, 2013), which renders statements and articles suspect should they carry even a whiff of bias. Remember: social media especially comprise platforms that are largely anonymous and unmediated, and any member of your audience may assume bias and libel.
Copyright is an intellectual property law that (currently) defends the exclusive right—a monopoly, as it were—of the owner of a work or publication to exploit said work or publication. In other words, only the owner of a work—or his estate, family or heirs—can publish, sell, reproduce, make copies available or otherwise distribute the work for a specific number of years, which varies according to who created the work and how. The federal statute that governs copyright lists seven categories copyright law protects: “(a) literary works; (b) musical works, including any accompanying words; (c) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (d) pantomimes and choreographic works; (e) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (f) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and (g) sound recordings.” (Moore et al., 2012) This protection is extended to materials available on the Internet.
- Check to see if the content you would like to use or reproduce as part of your own work or project offers licensing guidelines. For example, the popular stock image website www.istockphoto.com licenses the images it offers in one of two ways, either with a standard license or an extended license. (iStockPhoto.com) Each covers different uses for the image to which it pertains, and a full description of permitted usage is available in its “Help” section. If your department has existing contracts with external content providers, your supervisor will have this information, along with the appropriate licensing and attribution guidelines.
- Unless there are licensing terms specified for the content you hope to use or reproduce, do not assume that simple attribution, however properly formatted and completely cited, will suffice to avoid copyright infringement. Contact the content creator to ascertain in writing what he or she will require in order to permit the reproduction of the work in question, and discuss the author’s requirements with your supervisor to ensure full compliance.
- Consider using content available in the public domain. This includes content whose copyright has expired, has not been renewed, or was never copyrighted in the first place (e.g., because it was created before copyright protection laws were in place). It is important to practice due diligence to ensure that the content under consideration is in the public domain, and even if it is, ensure that the appropriate attribution is included as part of your reproduction or use of the content.
- Consider using content created by the company. Work prepared by your colleagues for the company do not enjoy copyright or intellectual property protection when used within the company, and the use of such will not incur liability as a result. However, be considerate of your colleagues: plagiarism is never acceptable. If you would like to include a colleague’s work in your own, you or your supervisor should discuss the situation with the colleague, and ensure that the work is attributed transparently and fairly.
- Whenever using content created by someone else, regardless of how that content has been (legally and ethically) obtained or the extent of the written permission given, always identify your source(s) clearly, completely, and accurately. Adopt this concept from the code of ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists for yourself: “The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.” (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014) Our clients and your audience deserve the same consideration.
- Do not fall into the “Fair Use” trap. There are common misconceptions attached to the phrase, “Fair Use,” that using less than 10% of an entire work is acceptable without any attribution or the author’s permission; that as long as the work is properly cited or attributed, permission from the original content creator need not be sought; that the First Amendment’s right to free speech somehow circumvents copyright protection… none of these is an example of Fair Use. The Fair Use doctrine applies only in cases that involve “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” (Thomson Reuters Westlaw) Ours is a for-profit company, which develops marketing materials for our clients. As a result, the majority of the content created does not fall under the scope of the Fair Use doctrine.
Discussion: The First Amendment
The First Amendment numbers freedom of speech and of the press among the five rights it espouses, thereby granting “broad rights to journalists.” (Moore et al., 2012) Unfortunately, while journalists and other media professionals (digital or otherwise) enjoy significant protection from myriad types of prosecution, the First Amendment does not balance those rights and protection with any requirements on the communicator’s behalf to be responsible or ethical when reporting the news. This has led to a number of situations in which a reporter or member of the general public has reported a piece of news, but done so irresponsibly, possibly causing harm to another or taking the risk of litigation.
Take, for example, the case of the well-known website, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has received both lavish praise and furious condemnation for its exposure of data critical to government and public interest arguably to perform a vital community function by providing said reports in order to enable the citizenry to evaluate independently and come to their own conclusions (as the information published was done so exactly as received, without any attempt by WikiLeaks to adulterate the content or to tell some sort of a story). While this may be seen as WikiLeaks’s attempt to be a media watchdog by providing an alternate point of view to how the country commonly perceives the government’s actions (Patterson & Wilkins, 2013), when the site published the now infamous “war logs” in 2010, WikiLeaks was asserted to have placed United States citizenry (in the armed forces) as well as others in real and immediate danger. (Satter & Michael, 2016)
Can Julian Assange’s actions be considered ethical reporting and under First Amendment protection as a result? Consider that the WikiLeaks data were not independently verified (contractual talks with various news organizations including the New York Times, who would likely have required and performed such verification prior to publication, fell through), and all issues of minimizing harm, which is as much a social responsibility as it is a journalistic one (such as is espoused within the code of ethics of both the Society of Professional Journalists (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014) and the Institute for Advertising (Snyder, 2011)), were soundly ignored. As ethical frameworks mandate consideration for the outcome of decisions and actions, and not simply the intention behind them, First Amendment protection in this situation is compromised: as a result, Assange now faces myriad charges in the U.S. for complicity in the release of classified information.
In order to familiarize you with the precepts behind OrgX’s Code of Ethics and Legal Best Practices, it is necessary to engage in some discussion about landmark cases that had significant impact on the law and ethical issues.
To this end, this section of the handbook discusses the case of Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter (2017), in which Conrad Roy III, an 18-year-old boy who committed suicide, urged on and encouraged by his girlfriend, Michelle Carter, who used a barrage of text messages and emails to encourage—and perhaps force—Roy to his death. (Sanchez & Lance, 2017) Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. (Moniz, 2017)
This case is perfectly placed within the realm of digital communications, as it involved texting, i.e., the use of Short Message Service (SMS) involving cellular phones. A large number of text messages were presented as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense, and it was the prosecution’s stance that Carter used text messages to commit involuntary manslaughter. (Sanchez & Lance, 2017) Furthermore, the two teenagers had apparently built their relationship largely virtually, based primarily on texting. (Seelye & Bidgood, 2017)
This case became a landmark, precedent-setting case. Not only did it raise questions about the limits of involuntary manslaughter, which traditionally has been interpreted to require direct action on the part of the defendant (Sanchez & Lance, 2017), but the verdict also, according to Danny Cevallos, a CNN legal analyst, “…is concerning because it reflects a judicial willingness to expand legal liability for another person’s suicide, an act which by definition is a completely independent choice.”
The First Amendment was invoked in this case, taking precedent from State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel (2012). (Ross, 2012) The specific issue raised was if “advising” or “encouraging” suicide was speech protected under the First Amendment. (Slifer, 2015) Quite apart from the legality of such action, there is a serious ethics question raised here as well: even if such speech is protected under the First Amendment, is it ethical to encourage another person to commit suicide? Does this not constitute harming someone, however indirectly?
Even though neither Carter nor Roy were journalists, this case clearly shows that certain standards of ethics apply to anyone choosing to use digital communications to affect another person’s choices and actions. In using texts and emails to coerce Roy to take his own life, Carter did not adhere to the principles of seeking to minimize harm and treating the object of her communications with compassion; in fact, the prosecution alleged that she became aggressive and hostile when Roy became ambivalent about whether or not to carry through with his plans of suicide.
In an age in which the dissemination of advertising using text messages and email to subscribers, the impact and reverberations of this landmark case are significant within the context of OrgX’s work. While this is an extreme case, it serves to demonstrate the insidious power of seemingly innocuous communications media, and reminds our team members that even a communication method as brief and straightforward as a text message must be treated with caution and respect when used to convey digital marketing messages.
As the consumption of news in print format continues to decline, the consumption of content (whether actual news or otherwise) online is on the rise. While on the one hand, consumers are becoming increasingly wise as to how information on the Internet is distributed, on the other, media organizations (ethical or otherwise) are becoming cleverer at increasing their market share using technology and practices that are sometimes highly unethical. It is imperative, therefore, that OrgX maintain a reputation for ethical, factual communications; as technology continues to evolve, the professional communicator will have to fact check even those sources considered reputable, as the audience’s hunger for instant gratification will need to be satisfied in order to retain said audience, but at the same time, the dispensing of such news will have to be done more carefully than ever. Communication between the journalist and the news consumer will need to remain open and transparent, and at no point can the journalist assume complacency.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Edition ed.). Washington, DC, United States: American Psychological Association.
Lance, R. S. (2017, June 17). Judge finds Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter in texting suicide case. Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-texting-case/index.html
Moniz, J. L. (2017, June 16). Commonwealth vs. Michelle Carter. Retrieved from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/16/us/document-Commonwealth-vs-Michelle-Carter.html
Moore, Roy L.; Murray, Michael D.; Farrell, Michael; Youm, Kyu Ho (2012). Media Law and Ethics (Routledge Communication Series). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Patterson, Philip; Wilkins, Lee. Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (2013). McGraw-Hill Education. Kindle Edition
Ricchiardi, S. (2007). Distorted picture: thanks to Photoshop, it’s awfully easy to manipulate photographs, as a number of recent scandals make painfully clear. Misuse of the technology poses a serious threat to photojournalism’s credibility. American Journalism Review, (4), 36.
Satter, R. ; Michael, M. (2016, August 23). Private lives are exposed as WikiLeaks spills its secrets. Retrieved from AP News: https://apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb/private-lives-are-exposed-wikileaks-spills-its-secrets
Slifer, S. (2015, March 3). Is it a crime to “encourage suicide”? Teens’ texts under scrutiny. Retrieved from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-it-a-crime-to-encourage-suicide-unusual-massachusetts-case-of-conrad-roy-and-michelle-carter/
Snyder, W. S. (2011). Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics. Retrieved from The Society of Professional Journalists: https://web.archive.org/web/20150404143640/http://aaftl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Principles-and-Practices-with-Commentary.pdf
Society of Professional Journalists. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from Society of Professional Journalists: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Spiegel, A. (2009, October 13). Selling Sickness: How Drug Ads Changed Health Care. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113675737
Tate, Marsha A. Web Wisdom, 2nd Edition. CRC Press, 20091117. VitalBook file.
Thomson Reuters Westlaw. (n.d.). 17 U.S.C. § 107 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 17. Copyrights § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Retrieved from FindLaw: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-107.html