Etiquette and manners

The Ethics of Outing the Movie Star

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

My least favorite website, the ethically challenged Gawker, became the latest media source to publish rapidly spreading tales of the gay sexual escapades of a well-known Hollywood leading man who is also married, has children, attracts a great deal of positive publicity because of his family life, and, to cap it all off, is a high-profile member of a church (the Church of Scientology) that has in the past treated homosexuality as a curable malady. A book is coming out, and the author is pumping up interest in the tabloids.

The ethical question: is this legitimate news? Should it be reported? If it isn’t news, but rather a vile and mean-spirited invasion of privacy, then Gawker, as usual, is wading in slime. If, however, it is news, then why is the mainstream media ignoring the story?

This is a messy ethical conflict. Continue reading →

Apology I.O.U of the Month: Gawker to Sarah Palin

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Don’t you just hate it when you give a snarky, belittling, “you’re such an idiot to believe that” response to someone’s complaint, only to discover that they were right and you are the idiot? I sure do, and yes, it has happened to me.

The ethical way to avoid this, if you are Gawker, the habitually unethical gossip website, is to 1) not violate copyright laws by publishing long, bootlegged excerpts from Sarah Palin’s as yet unreleased new book without the publisher’s permission,  2) not respond, when she suggests in a tweet that this is illegal, by saying—

“Sarah: If you’re reading this—and if you are, welcome!—you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law. Try starting here or here. Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers. They’ll walk you through it.” Continue reading →

Ethics Call To Arms: Fight the “Fuck You!” Culture

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.”

This was the very first edict in the list of civility rules memorized by George Washington as a child, rules that shaped his character and significantly influenced not only his life and career but the fate of America. Like most of Washington’s 11o rules, the first has universal and timeless validity, pointing all of us and our culture toward a society based on mutual respect, caring, empathy, and fairness.

Recently, however, there has been a powerful cultural movement away from George’s rules and the culture of civility that they represent. Rudeness has always been with us, of course, and public decorum has been in steady decline since the Beatniks of the Fifties, to the point where it is unremarkable to see church-goers in flip-flops and airplane passengers in tank-tops. Something else is going on, however. Like the colored dots of paint in a George Seurat painting, isolated incidents and clues have begun to converge into a picture, and it is not one of a pleasant day in the park. I believe we are seeing a dangerous shift away from civility as a cultural value, which means that we are seeing a cultural rejection of ethics. The past two weeks have presented damning evidence that this true. Continue reading →

“How Not To Apologize” by Cook’s Source Editor Judith Griggs

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Not many of you chose to read about the “Cook’s Source” fiasco, which is a shame. It is admittedly a tiny blip on the ethics radar screen–a dispute between a writer and a narrow audience website that launched an Internet vigilante movement—but there are many useful lessons to be learned. Now one of the two key figures, “Cook’s Source” editor Judith Griggs, has generously provided us with yet another: how not to apologize. Continue reading →

The Pat-Down Rebellion: Government Arrogance and Abuse of Power, Meet American Culture

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

We may be seeing a sterling example of the innate American resistance to intrusive and excessive authority, just when it looked as if many citizens were prepared to  accept reductions in their dignity, privacy and freedom that past generations would never have countenanced.

As usual, the fuse has been lit by a combination of incompetence, bad management, and arrogance. Since the tragedy of 9-11, airplane passengers have been remarkably passive and tolerant in accepting increasingly inconvenient and de-humanizing security procedures at airports. They have allowed political correctness to hold sway over fairness and logic, subjecting decrepit seniors,  ten-year-old girls and U.S. Senators to aggressive wanding rather than employing reasonable profiling techniques. They have allowed near-miss terrorist attacks caused by sloppy Homeland Security procedures and execution to be addressed by punishing the public with increasingly more intrusive search techniques. But when new procedures involving full-hand body searches were recently instituted without due warning, while the new full-body scanning devices were standing unused because of a shortage of trained personnel, anger, resistance and traditional American refusal to be pushed around finally made their appearance. Why, passengers are asking, must they be molested to compensate for intelligence failures? Where are reasonable alternatives? Why are we being treated this way? Continue reading →

First Necklaces, Now Literary Magazines: On the Civility Deathwatch

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Public civility is clearly on its deathbed.

As if it wasn’t bad enough to have a pop diva proudly wearing jewelry that says “Fuck You” to the world (see previous post), now it appears that gutter discourse is considered acceptable under the banner of one of America’s most distinguished  literary magazines, The Atlantic Monthly.  From the magazine’s online site: Continue reading →

Celebrity Ethics: Rihanna’s “Fuck You” Necklace

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Pop star Rihanna is getting media flack for being photographed with a group of young children while wearing a necklace with a design that spells out “Fuck You.” “We know she probably wasn’t anticipating being bombarded by a bunch kids and shit, but damn, she could’ve tucked that joint in before agreeing to take photos with the little crumbsnatchers,” opines the classy gossip site Bossip, for example. Continue reading →

Theft, Disrespect and Retribution: the “Cook’s Source” Debacle

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This is another example of how ethical insights can emerge from the most unlikely episodes, as one obscure website stole material from another, and ignited web vigilante justice on a grand scale.

Medieval  food expert and enthusiast Monica Gaudio learned from a friend that the e-magazine Cook’s Source had taken her online article about the origins of apple pie and reprinted it without her permission. Assuming it was an innocent error, Gaudio wrote the site and requested an apology, as well as a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism to make amends for what was a blatant copyright violation.

The managing editor at Cook’s Source, Judith Griggs, didn’t recognize a generous and reasonable offer when she saw one. Instead of proper contrition for taking Gaudio’s work without permission, Griggs decide to go for a new high in arrogant defiance, writing…

“Yes Monica, I do know about copyright laws. … But honestly Monica the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. … We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!”

Seldom are so many ethics fouls packed into so few words. Note that: Continue reading →

Note to Ethics Alarms Readers: No More Ads! (And I’m Sorry It Took So Long For Me To Kill Them)

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Dear Ethics Alarms Readers,

As discussed here last week, I only recently learned that WordPress has been planting ads in Ethics Alarms according to some mysterious formula. Whatever it is, the formula managed to keep me in the dark and deface my blog, giving some readers the impression that I had approved of, or profited from the ads. I never saw them, nor did WordPress ever give me notice what the ads were, how they were being placed, or that they were being run at all. Some of the ads, I learned, were for products that I find objectionable: for example, Barack Obama-mocking T-shirts in questionable taste.

Without checking to make sure, because it is pointless, I will stipulate that somewhere in the vast number of Conditions of Use provisions I must have agreed to at some point in time now lost to posterity, there must have been a statement in fine print giving WordPress permission to do all this. Had I read it, I would have probably agreed to it anyway, and would still be in the same position today, coming late to the realization that because I never saw ads on Ethics Alarms doesn’t mean some readers aren’t. I take full responsibility for this, and I apologize. I have a duty to you, just like WordPress has a duty to me. It should have kept me informed, particularly when their conduct affected the content of my website. It didn’t.

Anyway, I have paid the 30 bucks that buys me, and you, a year of ad-free content. If you see another ad on Ethics Alarms, please let me know. And There Will Be Blood.

Thank you for your patience, passion, loyalty and understanding. In the year since Ethics Alarms began, we have begun to build a diverse community of readers who constantly surprise, challenge, amuse and enlighten me with its insight and opinion on ethics and related matters. I know I don’t express my appreciation to all of you frequently enough; I will try to do better.

Sincerely,

Jack Marshall

What Gawker Calls Unethical: Poor Ex-Rep. Etheridge Was “Tricked” Into Assault

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The ethics-free web zone known as Gawker is indignant that it now appears that the young men roughed up by now-defeated North Carolina Democrat Rep. Bob Etheridge were G.O.P operatives stalking him in the hopes of catching him in a gaffe. Etheridge lost, in part because the video of him grabbing one of the young men in a bear hug was turned into an effective campaign ad by his adversary. He deserved to lose, as much as any candidate running in any race in the country.

Gawker apparently believes that under some circumstances it is no big deal for members of the U.S. Congress to commit assault and battery on the citizens they are supposed to serve, a view that Etheridge shares, but that Ethics Alarms does not.

Neither does Ken, over at Pope Hat, who makes a definitive argument that Etheridge has no excuse whatsoever. I can’t improve on it. You can read it here.