Why do you think so many people reacted so negatively to the sexual portrayal of two major
airlines?
I think that because of the context of the magazine, it was a type of media that was
unwarranted, and people did not want to consume while reading a business magazine. I think
that people who are reading that type of material are looking for a more intellectual approach
to business and want to receive the information without the unnecessary additions of a very
distinct point of view. Where if the magazine had a distinct style and was very clear on the way
it handled information in a respectful and professional manner, then having something that
completely changes that, can cause people to be upset because they go to that magazine for a
specific type of media. When an organization has a certain reputation for handling information
and then drastically changes that, the consumers will likely react negatively in some capacity,
because their expectations have not been met with the same things they had previously.
Was this move unethical or just in bad taste on the part of the editors of Business Week?
It is in poor taste, because of the audience it is unexpected and typically unwanted.
Wanting business information rather than a lewd depiction, it was unnecessary and use for
shock value and would deviate people from the important information of the merger and turn
the association to the portrayal rather than the actual information.
I would say that this falls under the lines of moral balance, in that the good outcome is
that people talk and discuss the merger, the bad secondary outcome is that people were
offended and disapproved of the way it was portrayed. This does begin to move to
Machiavellianism, in that it is a bad means to a good end, the bad being people are upset in the
style that the information was given, and the good ends is that people are talking about it and
people will remember it. The typical attitude of “good or bad, publicity is publicity” adds to this
in that people would rather communicate things in a way that will grab people’s attention for
shock value, rather than because it is interesting, and people wanting to take in that
information.
Using Andersen’s (2007) the audiences for ethics (sender, receiver, and society-at-large)
analyze this cover from an ethical perspective.
While looking at the source’s ethical choice and thinking about the ethical nature of
communication, I do not think the ethics were greatly considered in this case. When
communicating this, while the merger is at the forefront of the message, it is being
overshadowed by the sexual connotations that it created. This creates a perceived notion that
this company chooses to portray sexual acts in a professional setting and that it is along the
same lines as discussing a business decision.
Looking at the receiver’s ethical choice, it is the receiver’s responsibility to decide to
either accept or reject the message that is being sent by the source, and with this it was their
responsibility to speak out if they saw this behavior as unethical and were disapproving of the
information and how it was being presented. If the receivers did not like the information and
did not speak out that would also be unethical, and it would call into question the type of
business practices that the airlines had that they would not feel they had the responsibility or
the ability to speak out about something that did not align with their own sense of ethics.
While also looking at society at large, while there is no direct obligation to the situation
it still opens the door for people to reach in certain ways and for the society to negatively
perceive the situation. In a situation like this, a third party may only hear one side of the issue
and then have a negative perception of the company at large. Thus, resulting in negative
feedback and a more widespread dissatisfaction with the ad and the company.
Would this cover have received so many negative responses if it had been on the cover of a
fitness magazine, comic book, etc.…?
No because of the expectation of the media it is a case by case situation, when a
receiver understands the type of media they are consuming while some may find it offensive
still there is significantly less backlash.