Some interesting topics to discuss!

[Connor]

I found quotes in a book that I have that I thought were very interesting:
“Professional communicators have an extremely critical role in preserving a democratic society, and therefore must not yield their autonomy to examine and act on moral dilemmas.

Indeed, the argument for communicators maintaining moral autonomy is made compelling by the rights granted to them in the first Amendment. However, when some communication professionals unthinkingly follow conventions, rules or orders, they actually give up their First Amendment freedoms.”
What do you all think of this quote?

"The issue of rights provides a compelling mandate for professional communicators to distribute information in a manner that brings rights violations into the sunshine of public scrutiny. In this sense, protected by a First Amendment right to be left alone, communication professionals are the guarantors of individual rights in two crucial ways: Providing Information and Public Scrutiny."
What do you all think of this quote?"

“My moral goal should be to do good, but if I cannot do good, I should not do unjustifiable harm.” In light of this ethic, respond to the following case: When a member of my close-knit church group, who is also a highly visible African American business figure in the community is arrested for soliciting a prostitute, my hierarchy of values springs to action if I am an African American newspaper editor. Also explain the use of power in this case."
What do you all think of this quote?

Also, have you ever heard of the concept of the “Beacon on the Hill” both personally as well as professionally for a journalist. As a professional “persuader” (advertising or public relations) how might you demonstrate the concept of the beacon on the hill?

[Ranvier]

The responsibility of professional communicator, at least in my subjective opinion, is to present all the possible nuances of the topic that may not occur to an average member of the society or the target audience that would be concerned about the objective presentation of information. The moral goal in such instance shouldn't be to do "good" but to be as objective as possible and thorough in presentation of information. The premise should be to act as both the prosecutor and the defender but not the judge. The judgement should be left for the recipients of that information. It is a difficult task indeed to remain objective because the topic to be presented was already subjectively chosen.

With the example of the African American businessman, who is indeed a public figure for the African American community and presumably should adhere to the "higher moral standards" also has his rights as an individual to be just as human as everyone else. One should present the fundamental purpose and value of such community leader and discuss the nuances of whether the prostitute solicitation violated that purpose. If in fact the community leader was a religious figure or the "beacon on the hill" in regard to religious family values, then yes, prostitute solicitation would be pertinent to the public concern. However, for a business community leader, it shouldn't affect his public virtue of his purpose but become even grater opportunity to reflect that we're all human.

[-1-]

I believe that a communicator is a communicator is a communicator, whether he gets paid or not.

Professional communicators differ from amateurs, only by getting paid for it. They of course reach a larger audience, but then again, sometime and amateur reaches a vast audience. ("Why can't we all get along", "God is in the details," "The grass is always greener on the other side", "You should never eat anything bigger than your head".)

These days newspaper columnists are read widely, but their critics are read too, on publication websites where comments are allowed.

At any rate, I incredibly doubt that a professional communicator necessarily has a more developed or more valuable (although likely more valued) set of moral codes than an amateur correspondent. After all, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Janoska Laszlo, Goering, were all professional communicators, and God was not, was also Socrates not. Jesus never wrote a letter in his entire life, and he never got paid for his parables.

-- Updated 2017 March 14th, 8:29 pm to add the following --

I hear you, with regard to the first amendment rights.

In the movie "Life of Brian", the character teaches the multitude in biblical times:

"You must not listen to anyone telling you what to do!!"

Same paradox.

He also says:

"You are all individuals!"
"Yes, We are all individuals," answers the multitude in unison.
"you are all different!"
"Yes, We are all different," replies the multitude in unison. A little voice pipes up: "I'm not."

Two logical self-contradictions in six sentences. Pretty good by any standard, I'd say.

[ThalesOfAthens]

Indeed, the argument for communicators maintaining moral autonomy is made compelling by the rights granted to them in the first Amendment. However, when some communication professionals unthinkingly follow conventions, rules or orders, they actually give up their First Amendment freedoms.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This does not mean directly that this speech is towards the common good, it is the right of the individual to speak. In fact, it seems the first amendment is towards the empowerment of the individual to express themselves, perhaps in a contrary way to the general conventions.

This quote is imputing into the first amendment that it is also the responsibility of professional communicators to "take on the mantle of communication" of the individuals who are failing to communicate for themselves. While I agree with this sentiment, it is not really a statement of the first amendment that it is the responsibility of the well connected to communicate the needs and the desires of the less connected.

I would contend that this instead is a moral responsibility falling on the communicators themselves, outside of the rights of the first amendment, towards the protection of the oppressed or weak. When they fail to uphold this moral responsibility, they are not giving up their First Amendment freedoms, they are giving up their morals. The First Amendment is about rights, not responsibilities.