Ethics in Communication Studies
Within the Communication Studies Department at San Francisco State University, we understand ethics in relation to maintaining social and interpersonal communication through a moral lens, or anything pertaining to a moral compass. We observe different interactions as well as signs and symbols within today’s mass media controlled environment and consider whether or not they are good or bad, and right or wrong. The ability to sustain a moral high ground while instinctively acknowledging the difference between what is socially acceptable and unacceptable plays a large part within our ethical standards and discourse at SF State. In my perspective, I understand communication ethics as a means to observe the natural world and the human interactions in society with a sense of morality, and how our personal morals dictate our outlook on human communications.
Although the Communication Studies department at SF State understands that communication in ethics stems from the distinction of right and wrong within society, and understanding that difference is essential to our institution. The National Communication Association’s [NCA] () Credo for Ethical Communication states that, “ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live.” As we can observe through the NCA’s perspective on ethics, it’s not only distinguishing right and wrong within communications but also how it is affected by actions, thoughts, and events related to it’s discourse. In the credo, it also states that they “strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.” This exemplifies open-mindedness within the communications field, where we fully understand a certain action or event to see the ethics behind it and before we act upon those perspectives.
Within my own personal coursework within the Communication Studies department, I have come to acknowledge the ethics in communication and how its relevant in all aspects of our institution. At some point in every course taken at SF State, we have to distinguish the ethics within a given context to go about constructing and deconstructing its meaning and implications. If one fails to understand the communication ethics behind a given brand, that brand can be mistaken for something else or wont be taken seriously. In the NCA’s credo, it is written that they, “promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.” This kind of discourse essentially points us to one of two options, right or wrong, correct or incorrect, what is acceptable and unacceptable and what would happen after those distinctions are made. It is after we analyze the context at hand that we apply ethics to the conservation. An example can be drawn from a dog who fails to become toilet trained, what society deems as a “good” dog owner is one who has disciplined that dog to a point where it can tell the difference between the outside backyard, in which is typically deemed as the “right” place, and kitchen floor, understood as the “wrong” place to go to the bathroom. This example relishes in communications within our socially constructed norms while providing context to the idea of communication ethics. In ethical standards of human society, a “good” dog owner is one who is responsible and applies themselves towards the full potential of the pet and the well-being of the household. When looking at this example through an ethical lens, we see the dog owner as either good or bad. The actions and results of what the dog does tells us if the owner is good, and also what the dog does in response to the owner’s commands or requests tells us if the pet has a sense of the ethical standards set by it’s master. In retrospect to the NCA’s credo, we are providing communication resources and opportunities in order to maintain and fulfill human potential and well-being of the environment.
Throughout my coursework in the Communication Studies department at SF State, I have come to understand and acknowledge the many different aspects of communication ethics, especially within my intensive writing GWAR class involving the study of social semiotics with Timothy Wolcott. In this class, what helped me grow a sense of morality and develop a solid foundation for ethics was having to identify specific signs and symbols that were implemented onto an advertisement for the purpose of salesmanship and monetary capital. Not only did we distinguish between different signs and symbols in society, which is understood as social semiotics within communication studies, but we also wrote about how these messages provided by these ads influences its audience through subliminal messaging and different ethical and moral significances. In my project assignment in my GWAR class, I analyzed the cover of a popular magazine and identified the different social semiotics incorporated in it that affected its viewers, motivating them to either purchase the magazine and/or see certain implicit messages in society.
In my assignment relating to social semiotics, I studied a cover page of Hustler magazine back in 1978 under the publication of Larry Flynt. The page features a women’s bare legs with red high heels being pushed into a meat grinder, and onto a plate. This image is unethical or goes against what we deem as ethics, or what is right. There were also many provocative claims and statements anchored to the image, which provided context regarding toxic masculinity and objectification of women. In the assignment itself, I write that the person being processed onto the plate is a pink raw meat that embodies the publication’s claims which states, “we will no longer hang women up like pieces of meat.” That statement initially symbolizes the unethical generalization of women. There are many subliminal messages that relates to conveying a kind of negative connotation towards it’s audiences. More specifically, a negative connotation that goes against what is mentioned within the NCA’s credo of ethical standards for communication and the normative ethical standards set by today’s society. This is a clear example of the objectification of women, essentially on a hegemonic binary scale that degrades them down to uncooked, processed food. All of these signs and symbols are evidence that concludes the communications set forth by the 1978 magazine. These connotations are connected to the NCA’s credo that state, “we condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.” These images not only exemplify the objectification of people but also how unethical the publication was. It represents distortion and coercion through it’s labels that are anchored upon unethical practices.
What is distinctive in many discourses related to toxic masculinity and objectification that the Hustler magazine ad contains is its choice of language presented on it’s cover page, which is unethical according to the National Organization of Human Services. In the readings addressed on iLearn, the Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals understand communication ethics as, “respecting the dignity and welfare of all people; advocating for social justice; and acting with integrity, honesty, genuineness and objectivity.” In relation to the Hustler magazine cover, it doesn’t confide with anything represented within the guidelines established by the National Organization of Human Services. It is unethical because it doesn’t respect women nor does it respect the beliefs and practices of others outside of the gender binary; those of whom treat women not so much as objects but rather human beings. Within today’s society and San Francisco’s open and diverse environment, social justice isn’t represented in Hustler magazine’s 1978 publication because it is displayed both in explicit and implicit ways. Since the publication itself is directed towards women and how society should be treating them, it lacks social justice and provides negative ethical communication throughout it’s one cover page. There is no respect to the dignity of women’s rights and societal roles and it also doesn’t cater towards the welfare of the general public by disrespecting women, which goes against what is principled within the NCA’s credo for ethical communication standards.
In the Communication Studies Department at San Francisco State University, we understand ethics in relation to maintaining social and interpersonal communication through an ethical and moral perspective. We acknowledge different interactions in a discursive environment in social semiotics within today’s media and consider whether or not they are good or bad, and right or wrong. Communication ethic is what allows us to construct and deconstruct social meanings in any given context. In today’s society, it is imperative that we understand what the meaning of ethics in communication is to be able to properly sustain a respectable and healthy lifestyle to live.
Photo Credit: cover Portfolium image taken from Google Images.
Although the Communication Studies department at SF State understands that communication in ethics stems from the distinction of right and wrong within society, and understanding that difference is essential to our institution. The National Communication Association’s [NCA] () Credo for Ethical Communication states that, “ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live.” As we can observe through the NCA’s perspective on ethics, it’s not only distinguishing right and wrong within communications but also how it is affected by actions, thoughts, and events related to it’s discourse. In the credo, it also states that they “strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.” This exemplifies open-mindedness within the communications field, where we fully understand a certain action or event to see the ethics behind it and before we act upon those perspectives.
Within my own personal coursework within the Communication Studies department, I have come to acknowledge the ethics in communication and how its relevant in all aspects of our institution. At some point in every course taken at SF State, we have to distinguish the ethics within a given context to go about constructing and deconstructing its meaning and implications. If one fails to understand the communication ethics behind a given brand, that brand can be mistaken for something else or wont be taken seriously. In the NCA’s credo, it is written that they, “promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.” This kind of discourse essentially points us to one of two options, right or wrong, correct or incorrect, what is acceptable and unacceptable and what would happen after those distinctions are made. It is after we analyze the context at hand that we apply ethics to the conservation. An example can be drawn from a dog who fails to become toilet trained, what society deems as a “good” dog owner is one who has disciplined that dog to a point where it can tell the difference between the outside backyard, in which is typically deemed as the “right” place, and kitchen floor, understood as the “wrong” place to go to the bathroom. This example relishes in communications within our socially constructed norms while providing context to the idea of communication ethics. In ethical standards of human society, a “good” dog owner is one who is responsible and applies themselves towards the full potential of the pet and the well-being of the household. When looking at this example through an ethical lens, we see the dog owner as either good or bad. The actions and results of what the dog does tells us if the owner is good, and also what the dog does in response to the owner’s commands or requests tells us if the pet has a sense of the ethical standards set by it’s master. In retrospect to the NCA’s credo, we are providing communication resources and opportunities in order to maintain and fulfill human potential and well-being of the environment.
Throughout my coursework in the Communication Studies department at SF State, I have come to understand and acknowledge the many different aspects of communication ethics, especially within my intensive writing GWAR class involving the study of social semiotics with Timothy Wolcott. In this class, what helped me grow a sense of morality and develop a solid foundation for ethics was having to identify specific signs and symbols that were implemented onto an advertisement for the purpose of salesmanship and monetary capital. Not only did we distinguish between different signs and symbols in society, which is understood as social semiotics within communication studies, but we also wrote about how these messages provided by these ads influences its audience through subliminal messaging and different ethical and moral significances. In my project assignment in my GWAR class, I analyzed the cover of a popular magazine and identified the different social semiotics incorporated in it that affected its viewers, motivating them to either purchase the magazine and/or see certain implicit messages in society.
In my assignment relating to social semiotics, I studied a cover page of Hustler magazine back in 1978 under the publication of Larry Flynt. The page features a women’s bare legs with red high heels being pushed into a meat grinder, and onto a plate. This image is unethical or goes against what we deem as ethics, or what is right. There were also many provocative claims and statements anchored to the image, which provided context regarding toxic masculinity and objectification of women. In the assignment itself, I write that the person being processed onto the plate is a pink raw meat that embodies the publication’s claims which states, “we will no longer hang women up like pieces of meat.” That statement initially symbolizes the unethical generalization of women. There are many subliminal messages that relates to conveying a kind of negative connotation towards it’s audiences. More specifically, a negative connotation that goes against what is mentioned within the NCA’s credo of ethical standards for communication and the normative ethical standards set by today’s society. This is a clear example of the objectification of women, essentially on a hegemonic binary scale that degrades them down to uncooked, processed food. All of these signs and symbols are evidence that concludes the communications set forth by the 1978 magazine. These connotations are connected to the NCA’s credo that state, “we condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.” These images not only exemplify the objectification of people but also how unethical the publication was. It represents distortion and coercion through it’s labels that are anchored upon unethical practices.
What is distinctive in many discourses related to toxic masculinity and objectification that the Hustler magazine ad contains is its choice of language presented on it’s cover page, which is unethical according to the National Organization of Human Services. In the readings addressed on iLearn, the Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals understand communication ethics as, “respecting the dignity and welfare of all people; advocating for social justice; and acting with integrity, honesty, genuineness and objectivity.” In relation to the Hustler magazine cover, it doesn’t confide with anything represented within the guidelines established by the National Organization of Human Services. It is unethical because it doesn’t respect women nor does it respect the beliefs and practices of others outside of the gender binary; those of whom treat women not so much as objects but rather human beings. Within today’s society and San Francisco’s open and diverse environment, social justice isn’t represented in Hustler magazine’s 1978 publication because it is displayed both in explicit and implicit ways. Since the publication itself is directed towards women and how society should be treating them, it lacks social justice and provides negative ethical communication throughout it’s one cover page. There is no respect to the dignity of women’s rights and societal roles and it also doesn’t cater towards the welfare of the general public by disrespecting women, which goes against what is principled within the NCA’s credo for ethical communication standards.
In the Communication Studies Department at San Francisco State University, we understand ethics in relation to maintaining social and interpersonal communication through an ethical and moral perspective. We acknowledge different interactions in a discursive environment in social semiotics within today’s media and consider whether or not they are good or bad, and right or wrong. Communication ethic is what allows us to construct and deconstruct social meanings in any given context. In today’s society, it is imperative that we understand what the meaning of ethics in communication is to be able to properly sustain a respectable and healthy lifestyle to live.
Photo Credit: cover Portfolium image taken from Google Images.
