Ethics Newsline®

QUESTION: Please tell me whether you completely agree with, mostly agree with, mostly disagree with, or completely disagree with the following statement:

“Most elected officials are trustworthy.”

(Numbers in table are percents of total.)

	Completely Agree	Mostly Agree	Mostly Disagree	Completely Disagree	Don’t Know
United States	3	41	40	15	1
European Average	5	25	36	26	8
UK	3	36	36	17	8
France	5	25	35	32	3
Germany	4	28	43	15	10
Italy	3	23	36	31	7
Spain	7	13	33	35	12

Special to NEWSLINE

by Carl Hausman

Daniel V. Jones spread his scrawled banner skyward before he blew most of his head off on live TV April 30. The message, “HMOs are in it for the money!! Live free, love safe, or die,” didn’t make much more sense than his entire strange odyssey. He had already caused a massive traffic jam on a Los Angeles freeway. Later, pulled over on an interchange, he set fire to his truck, his dog, and himself, walked from the truck with his clothes smoldering, unfurled his banner, and returned to the truck to get his shotgun.

But even in his final mindless moments of dementia Jones had the uncanny presence of mind to face the message to the sky–where the TV helicopters hovered.

Jones’s suicide was carried live by seven local stations in Los Angeles and by MS-NBC, a national cable news channel. In the final seconds of the drama, two local stations stayed on a relatively tight shot that showed the shotgun blast ripping away his skull. Other stations moved to wide shots in the 11 seconds or so from the time Jones retrieved his gun to when he pulled the trigger.

In the immediate aftermath of the suicide there was a banquet of self-conscious reassessment. Anchorpeople for many of the stations in L.A. apologized on air for showing the graphic details in midafternoon. KTLA anchor Hal Fishman went on the air to say that “KTLA shares with its viewers their distress.” Several station managers and news directors promised to reevaluate their policies regarding live coverage, and MS-NBC is considering implementing a several-second delay for live shots.

Some found the apologies disingenuous. Media critic Howard Rosenberg, writing in the Los Angeles Times, put it this way: ” They’ll never admit it, perhaps not even to themselves, but Thursday was the day Los Angeles television stations finally got what they wanted. In their heart of hearts, this was it. Oh mama, was it ever. Not just another routine pursuit across freeways and a meek surrender. Not just some bumps and sideswipes. . . . This time it was the full payoff, the big public splatter. . . .”

Is there a moral to the story? There may be many, and in the sharp clarity of hindsight it is easy to condemn television stations for not cutting away from the scene after Jones grabbed his gun and his intentions became obvious. Clear, too, is the way in which L.A. stations allowed themselves to be used by a disturbed man with a demented message. It was no coincidence that Jones wrote his de facto suicide note in a medium visible to helicopters; he knew they would be there.

But one overarching lesson goes beyond the perils of video voyeurs gorging themselves on live shots. It is the problem of technology driving judgment.

“No safety nets, no editing process,” Rosenberg wrote. “Turn on the camera, and no control, just an abrogation of journalistic responsibility. Turn on the camera, and whatever happens zooms across the airwaves as wild and out of control as a scud missile.”

In other words, he wrote, television stations do it live “not because it’s necessarily worth covering, but because you have the machinery to do it.”

Such is the moral dilemma of separating the idea that “we can” from “we should.” And that’s a weighty problem when we deal with technology.

For example, in my field–journalism education–we have rushed to introduce students to new database technologies that can collate, sort, and apply information in ways that ultimately shred most veils of privacy. We talk excitedly about what we can do with this technology. We hardly talk at all about whether we should be doing what we’re doing.

The existence of the technology and the fact that there are no explicitly drawn rules against using it (not uncommon with a new technology that evolves before the rules do) seem to justify an anything-goes posture.

And the problem certainly isn’t limited to journalism. For instance:

• Industries know that technology can automate many processes and decisions, from replacing a worker at an assembly line to computer scanning a job applicant’s résumé for the appropriate key words. We can do it. But should we?

• The Internet can make available an unlimited menu of bizarre material appealing to every conceivable desire. We can do it. But should we?

• Computers and video displays can replace, at least for part of the day, person-to-person instruction in school. We can do it. But should we?

It is a mistake to view caution about the moral implications of technology as luddism. The staunchest proponents of nuclear power most certainly would wish that technicians at Chernobyl had not mixed up what they could do (defeat the safety mechanisms) with what they should do (keep the place from melting down).

The live shot–driven by the technology of minicams, microwave links, and news choppers–has become a staple of television news coverage, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In Los Angeles, live-breaking news about a traffic tie-up is news by almost any definition of which I am aware.

But when the events mutate into voyeurism, and the technology drives coverage without a journalistic hand on the wheel, we’ve gone where we shouldn’t.

In a week that saw the beginnings of what may be a major change in the worldwide auto industry asDaimler-Benz seeks to buy Chrysler, corporate responsibiltity tops theagenda. What are the responsibilities of a firm or organization? To whom are thoseresponsibilities owed? Several stories in this week’s news in ethics centeron those questions–and not always on obvious aspects of the dilemma.

We begin our report with a look at the aftermath of what began as live TVcoverage of a massive traffic jam in Los Angeles and evolved into an on-airsuicide. Carl Hausman, filling in for Rushworth Kidder, who is on assignmentoverseas, comments on how what began as an effort for TV stations to meettheir obligations to viewers turned into what some have characterized as abetrayal of their trust.

Topping our news summary is the settlement between Big Tobacco and the Stateof Minnesota–a case that may serve as a template for massive changes in thefuture of cigarette sales and the obligations of tobacco companies to thepublic.

A report out of Washington this week deals with an international issuerelating to corporate responsibility–global warming–and details asurprising new development in the effort to craft an international policy tocurb emissions of the gases thought to cause the climatic disruption.

Two stories this week deal with disputes over the obligations of firms andorganizations to compete fairly in the marketplace. Pepsi claims Coke isunfairly monopolizing the marketplace, and Pepsi last week moved the colawars to federal court. And low-level coaches won a victory over the NCAA intheir claim that the association unfairly capped their salaries.

From Taiwan comes a report on how the government is pulling the plug, atleast temporarily, on privatization of the petroleum industry there untilanticorruption safeguards are put in place.

In a story that stretches from the United States to Latin America to Europe, wereport on how a newspaper story kicked off a European Union call for a probeof a major fruit company.

Two stories this week deal with charges of misleading advertising. In one, abank was fined on charges of confusing investors; in the other, a departmentstore was penalized for running a “sale” that never seemed to end.

An unusual story this week from Los Angeles: A union that owns voting sharesin Mattel attempted to link executive salaries to the firm’s success inavoiding the use of child labor.

And a very unusual story from England concludes our report of the week inethics: An organic farmer is suing to stop the next-door planting of agenetically engineered crop, and an environmental group has joined the fightagainst what it calls the “Frankenstein foods.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Breaking ranks with many other industries, 13 major corporationshave joined with The Pew Charitable Trusts to form an alliance to fight globalwarming without harming the economy.

Membership in the new Global Warming Coalition includes Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, 3M, Toyota, and United Technologies.

The Associated Press reports that the formation of the coalition is seen assignificant because many of these firms had previously been skeptical aboutglobal warming and were staunch opponents of proposed restrictions ongreenhouse gas emissions, claiming that such curbs would devastate the economyand unfairly penalize industries in developed nations.

DEVON, England
A farmer is filing suit to stop the planting of a geneticallyengineered corn crop, claiming that the bioengineered crop planned for anearby field would contaminate his corn and cost his farm its officialcertification as “organic.”

The genetically engineered crop is to be planted on one of the more than 300test sites licensed by the British government. The suit is viewed as animportant test case in the struggle between organic farmers, who donot use processed chemicals, and high-tech farmers who use geneticallyengineered drought- and disease-resistant strains of grains and vegetables.

A spokesperson for an environmental group supporting the suit told the BBC that,”the government must call a halt now to the planting of these Frankensteinfoods, at least until a proper debate can take place about their impact on theenvironment.”

TAIWAN
Taiwan’s state-owned oil monopoly last week called a halt to its ownprivatization because of what it called inadequate safeguards against privatesector corruption.

Chinese Petroleum Corp. asked Taiwan’s parliament to enact laws regulating thefledgling private-sector petroleum industries.

Parliamentary concern over the petroleum industry here was recently sparked bybribery charges leveled against a Chinese Petroleum Corp. executive, and aseries of corruption allegations involving the firm’s operation of aKazakhstan oil field.

KANSAS CITY, Missouri
A U.S. District Court last week ordered the NationalCollegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) to pay more than $67 million in damages tonearly 2,000 coaches who filed a class-action suit after the NCAA’s 1991decision to cap the salaries of certain lower-level coaches at $12,000 peryear.

The NCAA claimed that the “restricted earnings” limit was an attempt to cutcosts and create more entry-level positions available to inexperiencedcoaches.

But the coaches, many of whom saw their earnings cut by the salary cap,charged that the move was an illegal attempt to freeze wages.

The NCAA plans to appeal the decision.

LOS ANGELES
Stockholders in the toy company Mattel last week overwhelminglyrejected a union proposal that would have linked executives’ salaries to howsuccessfully Mattel avoided using overseas child labor.

A Mattel spokesperson characterized the vote as an affirmation of the firm’scurrent anti-child-labor efforts, noting that Mattel has already canceledcontracts with more than a dozen companies, citing poor working conditions andthe use of child labor.

The union that sponsored the measure, Tennessee-based United PaperworkersInternational, does not dispute Mattel’s claims. But the union insists thatmore is needed to safeguard the rights of international workers.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota
Big Tobacco agreed Friday to pay more than $6 billion toreimburse Minnesota for cigarette-related health-care costs and to reformadvertising practices, settling a case that may have enormous implications onthe future of tobacco marketing.

The settlement, announced just hours before the case was to go to a jury, isexpected to make a national settlement with the tobacco industry–aproposition that looked shaky at best early in the week–more likely. Itmay also pave the way for future state suits against Big Tobacco.

In addition to the cash settlement, the tobacco industry agreed to reformsthat include an end to payments to film makers to include tobacco products inmovies, comprehensive bans on marketing to minors, restrictions on sale ofpromotional merchandise, and the dissolution of the industry-supported Councilfor Tobacco Research.

CINCINNATI
A member of the European Union (EU) parliament has called for aninvestigation into Chiquita Brands International’s Latin American operationsafter a sharply critical investigative report about the banana giant’sbusiness practices appeared last week in the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper.

The Enquirer charged that Chiquita inadvertently fostered drug smuggling dueto lax security on its ships, secretly controlled independent banana companiesin an effort to undermine unions, used physical force against workers, andexposed workers to toxic chemicals.

Chiquita blasted the report as “sensational and highly inaccurate.”

The European Union is currently debating a proposal from Chiquita to roll backEU measures that are seen as beneficial to small banana companies that competewith Chiquita.

NEW YORK
Pepsico Inc. has filed a lawsuit against arch-rival Coca Cola Co.,charging Coke with monopolizing the fountain soft drink market by forcingdistributors and the restaurants and movie theaters they supply to signexclusive contracts with Coke–losing the right to dispense Coke if theyalso serve Pepsi.

A Coca-Cola spokesperson called the suit “totally without merit.”

The suit, filed in a Manhattan federal court, alleges that Coke has usedmonopolistic tactics to “exclude competition” and garner a 90-percent share ofthe fountain soft drink market.

WASHINGTON, D.C.
NationsBank last week agreed to pay nearly $7 million in finesfor allegedly misleading customers into believing that investments inuninsured bond funds were as safe as federally insured investments.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged that NationsBank blurred theline between insured and uninsured investments in what SEC chairman ArthurLevitt, Jr. called a “very calculated effort” to deceive investors.

NationsBank did not admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement inorder to “put these matters behind us,” according to a company statement.

NationsBank was involved in a similar case last year, agreeing to a $29 millionsettlement with Florida and Texas investors who claimed they were not properlyinformed that their securities investments were subject to marketfluctuations.

OTTAWA
Canada’s largest department store chain, Hudson’s Bay Company, lastweek paid $420,000 in fines for running bicycle ads that implied the productwas on sale for a limited time only when the sale prices actually continuedwell past the advertised deadline.

The federal Competition Bureau, which monitors advertising in Canada, said thefine was the second-largest fine for misleading advertising ever imposed inCanada. The ruling capped a seven-year dispute over the ads.

A spokesperson for the bureau told the Associated Press that “consumers can beeasily misled by sales promotions that create a general impression of urgency”when in fact there is none.

In 1978, S. K. Chakraborty began thinking deeply about human values in the context of management. He now directs the Management Centre for Human Values at the Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta. Author of more than a dozen books–including Values and Ethics for Organizations: Theory and Practice (Oxford University Press, 1998)–he began his work in finance and accounting. He was interviewed for Newsline at his Centre in March by Bruce Lloyd, principal lecturer in strategy at South Bank University in London.

You have established a remarkable Centre here on this campus on the outskirts of Calcutta. How did it all happen?

It began about twenty years ago as a small individual effort, while I was teaching finance and accounting at the Indian Institute of Management. Working with both the Institute and on in-company training, I found many managers raising two questions. First, when it came to managing the human side of the organization, why did we always have to discuss ideas in terms of essentially American values? On the human side, at least, there was a tradition of indigenous Indian ideas that could be offered.

Second, why was it that beneath the surface of almost all organizations there appeared to be an enormous number of factors that were causing managers to operate suboptimally?

I came to the conclusion that the problem was due to not addressing the quality of the human being. Professional competence and professional skills [are not an] answer to being a good human being.

So we began to identify a skills/values gap, and we noticed that, although the combination of skills was changing fast and becoming more refined and focused, at the same time the values area was not being taken care of in any conscious way. It appeared that professional management was taking a more and more manipulative approach toward skills. This manipulating appeared to be taking place primarily because the values dimension in management was not openly and explicitly acknowledged. Inevitably, because of that, this area was not well managed.

The essential content of your work is in two areas: strategy and leadership. It is increasingly recognized that a first organizational priority is to embed effective values, as this will critically influence both the nature of the strategy that emerges and the effectiveness with which it is implemented. Are there elements of Indian culture that enable that importance of the sense of "being" to be more easily recognized than in other cultures, which appear more preoccupied with "doing"?

I agree. There are two aspects of any human role. One is concerned with "doing" and the other with "becoming." Unfortunately, most professionals seem to swing to the side of "doing" at the cost of "becoming." This is not good, either for the corporation or the individual. So we say, "Don’t be impatient. We will talk about the organization later, and we will talk about society even later, and about the world even later than that. First let’s talk about the individual."

We insist in our workshops that we cannot continue talking abstractly about organizations and society. We start with the individual. And at that level we have to reconcile "doing" with "being." If I am "doing" without "becoming," it is no good. It is defeating the purpose of human life.

In many ways the core organizational challenge today is how to reconcile the vested interests of the past with the strategic needs of the future. At a global level, the challenge is to establish some agreement around the core values. Many conflict situations around the world, such as Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, and even in parts of India, are between groups where there is relatively little difference in the core values, but where the historic structures and vested interests can ferment the differences to the point that they produce an almost infinite amount of conflict. How are we going to overcome some of these divisions?

I might be making a rather simplistic response to that point, but in the days to come, unless business and politics are to some extent spiritualized, these problems will never be solved. It is this combination of business, technology, and politics which is the real problem. Unless this combination can, over a period of time, get a little more spiritualized, a little more civilized, we are not likely to make progress.

Any business arrangement that is not profitable to the other person will in the end prove unprofitable for you. The bargain that yeilds mutual satisfaction is the only one that is apt to be repeated.

– B. C. Forbes (1880-1954)