After reading the Dallas Cowboys story, I feel like my questions in previous blogs have been concerned. I am upset with the way the team handled the incident and if I were McIver I would have been truly upset. How can this be utilitarianism at work, when you have an individual who's life could have been ended? I understand the non-moral decisions and angle that the team took to protect Michael Irvin, but to me no stake holder's interest is more important than the lives of employees. I think that the way the team should have handled it should have been to suspend the players involved for more than one game, and to do a little bit more to inform the media and make them feel adequately informed than having to dig information outside of an organization to report a story. Either way it went reporters were going to do their jobs and report on what they could find, and anytime an organization is uncooperative it makes their public feel shut out and like they are not important to the organization. In this instance if I were Jerry Jones, which obviously I'm not, I would have worked with the media and been more forthcoming with some information. I used to want to work for the Cowboys but I have learned a great deal from working with professional sports figures. No organization should have the
"no comment" policy as the first and only media weapon in their arsenal, it doesn't serve well to include or display a positive image for the public.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
After reading about these two philosophies/theories I am unsure which approach serves the most good. I understand that Utilitarianism is "the greatest good for the greatest number" but Communitarism is stress social responsibility and focusing on the whole rather than the individual. In relation to PR and associating these two theories with Appiah's I think that it would be difficult to actually determine when what your doing as a PR professional really benefits the most people. I am sure there are situations when that course of action will be obvious, but what about your public. How can one decide what is best for the most people when your public may not be included in that group? I am a little confused when it comes to putting all the theories in action. I believe and agree that in doing PR you have to do what benefits the most people for your client but what I am hoping to learn through the duration of this course is how to discern what is the best course of action for a client while not compromising self.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Appiah's model of Cosmopolitanism fits the work of the PR industry because in Appiah's model we must believe and practice several beliefs that directly relate to PR. "Everybody matters" is applicable because as a PR practitioner understanding and realizing the beliefs and values of your public(s), regardless of whether or not you understand them, helps a company/organization remain focused on serving the needs of more than just the company/organization; being selfless is all part of including everyone. It is this approach to "universality" that makes a PR practitioner capable of tolerating another culture's belief system and values. This is one of the two most important concept discussed by Appiah. "Pluralism" is our ablility to comprehend that there are many values that people hold in life and that life can't be lived embracing the idea that everybody matters without pluralism. The second important aspect is "Fallibalism." Appiah stresses the importantance of not being so high minded that we have the perfect knowledge or beliefs. Understanding that we haven't reached the ultimate pinnacle of knowledge and being able to accept that we are wrong when life presents to us new evidence to draw better conclusions are revise our way of thinking is essential in PR. Without being able to change a course of action or see the error of your ways as a professional neither your public or the organization/company you serve will benefit from what you do. PR is about an ever changing and evolving dynamic practice. If you fail to continue to change and evolve from every experience as a professional you thrawt your progess and growth and are never going to be able to be the best at what you do.
Monday, September 3, 2007
After beginning to read Appiah's book I question many of the ideas behind what he writes. While I understand what he says and means about trying to universalize the world around a common theory, I believe that we as human beings are not able to escape the inevitable that within our own societies and beliefs we tend to learn behaviors that steer the way we percieve everything about the world. I personally want to believe that everybody does matter and that we should be accepting or even just understanding of others it is a very difficult thing to do. Appiah says that thick concepts are harder to understand when it comes to differing societies and I agree. In the instance of America's corporate supply chain there is a secret code of money first humanity last. Large companies have so many obligations to stake holders and investors when it comes to money that it has become the driving force of America. The question of who can make the most the fastest has resulted in a lack of concern on the other aspects of business, including the lives and safety of consumers and employees, quality of products and service, and disregard for the environment. I believe that everybody should matter but reality is reality. There is no real equality in America only the belief and practice of separate but equal.