DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
SPRING ARBOR UNIVERSITY
COMMUNICATION, LAW AND ETHICS (COM 370)
COURSE SYLLABUS, SPRING B, 2002 (Sec. 1)
(Monday-Friday, 1:30-2:30pm)
Professor
Classroom
Office Number
Phone
E-mail
Office Hours
Robert Woods, J.D., Ph.D.
Sayre-Decan Hall, 202
Sayre-DeCan Hall (SDH), 2nd floor, Suite 207
750.6490 (or x 1490 if on campus)
rwoods@arbor.edu
Tues., 2-5, Thurs., 3-5, or by appointment
Communication Department’s mission statement: Our mission is to produce
confident, creative, capable Christian professionals for a world where the mastery of communication skills
and technologies is essential
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
Study of the relationship of media and society, in light of the media’s public service
obligation. Students will be led to develop ethical decision-making processes related to
mass media processes and activities.
COURSE GOALS
This course is a junior-level course designed to help you apply ethical principles to
situations you will encounter as professional communicators and as media consumers
through a critical process of reflection and deliberation. You will explore on-the-job
problems and moral dilemmas in journalism, advertising, marketing, entertainment
programming, organizational life, and between persons --working toward ethically
justifiable and biblically responsible solutions.
TEXT AND REQUIRED RESOURCES
 Christians, C.C., Fackler, F.M., Rotzoll, K., & McKee, K. (2001). Media Ethics.
Cases and Moral Reasoning (6th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. (ME6)

Bok, S. (1989). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage
Books. (BOK)

Packet of selected readings (PSR) for COM370, available for purchase from
Instructor. It is referenced as PSR in the course calendar.

Instructor’s Website: Dr. Woods’ Communication Resource website
(http://www.arbor.edu/~rwoods). Once there, click on COM 370. My site will
includes handouts, assignment guidelines, assessment rubrics, and the like. It is
referenced in the course calendar as “Instructor’s website.”
1

You should own ONE of either style book (APA or MLA):
1) American Psychological Association (1995). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
2) Gibaldi, Joseph. (1999). MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (5th
edition). New York: Modern Language Association.

Recommended Readings and Resources: included in the Appendix.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
As a result of this course students will:
1) learn to recognize ethical issues present in professional situations
2) develop analytical skills through application of decision-making techniques
3) learn to tolerate disagreement as to “correct” procedures and techniques
4) develop “preventive ethics” through stimulation of their moral imaginations
5) investigate process of moral development and reasoning
6) seek to understand the impact of media decisions on society
7) derive more complete understanding of various philosophical orientations to
ethics
Achievement of these objectives will be measured by class participation, case
discussions, effective writing, and other assignments described below on page 3. You
will be able to apply the concepts discussed in class to specific examples of public
communication practice.
MISSION STATEMENT
Spring Arbor University is a community of learners that will continue to embrace the
liberal arts, to keep Jesus Christ as our perspective for learning, and to participate fully in
God's transformation of the world around us. Spring Arbor University, an evangelical
Christian university affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, is committed to excellence
in liberal arts, professional, and graduate studies. Through the influence of an affirming
academic community where a faculty of Christian scholars integrates faith with
experiential learning, students develop intellectually, grow as persons, and are challenged
by the call to vibrant Christian service. (NOTE: for a full statement of SAU’s mission, go
to the website at: http://www.arbor.edu/univ_mission.htm)
INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND LEARNING
In keeping with the mission of Spring Arbor University, the broad areas of mass
communication, media and culture, as well as particular topics, research, theories,
questions and issues will be addressed from the standpoint of our Christian faith and
biblical truths. This will be accomplished in a number of ways. You are encouraged to
regularly consider all that is covered and assigned in this course from a biblically-based
perspective; a Christian worldview, especially since this viewpoint is often missing from
research, readings and other materials you will encounter in the course. As we undertake
this task, please recognize that students taking this course may represent many different
denominations and traditions. They and their beliefs should be consistently respected. On
2
the other hand, since Spring Arbor University is a Christian institution, all that we
undertake in this course will be through the lens of a Christian faith and under the
assumption that there are core tenets regarding the Christian doctrine to which all
denominations and traditions agree.
ASSIGNMENTS/ASSESSMENTS/GRADE BREAKDOWN
In addition to class discussion/participation described below (see No.4), you will need to
complete three core assignments (two individual, one group): (1) Website Resource
Notebook (individual); (2) Media Ethics Film Critique (Individual) and (3) Media Ethics
Symposium/Panel/Forum (Group). You will also have to complete two additional
assignments of your choosing (You Choose No. 1 and You Choose No. 2), which may be
either individual or group depending on the circumstances. As a whole, the assignments
(along with class discussion/participation) are designed to accomplish the course goals
and objectives (as outlined above), stimulate interaction, and provide opportunities for
independent work and focus on individual interests. Each of these assignments is
described in some detail below. They will be elaborated upon once the course is
underway. There is no final exam.
1. Website Resource Notebook (WRN) (200 points): Each week (excluding the first
and last) you will compile three (3) www resources (websites, articles, case materials,
etc.) related to required readings in our Media Ethics (6th ed) book. You will provide
a brief annotation for each resource describing how it relates to or otherwise
supplements our readings and how a student might use the resource to better
understand the subject matter. Each annotation should be about 200 words in length.
That means I’m looking for quality, not quantity in terms of analysis. Watch
redundancy and avoid unnecessary verbiage. Your resource links and annotations
should be posted in your own resource folder in Blackboard (which I will create).
Blackboard is the web-based educational discussion forum we’ll be using throughout
the semester. You can access this by going to the Instructor’s Website or simply
logging on at: www.blackboard.arbor.edu:8890. At the end of each week I’ll evaluate
your three links/annotations and provide any necessary feedback by replying in your
personal Blackboard folder. Feel free to comment on your colleagues’ sites at any
time throughout the week. More will be said about this assignment during the first
week of class. You should be prepared to volunteer at least one site during each class
if called upon by the instructor. I’ll award points for each week’s annotations based
on the following: (1) 3 sites posted each week, (2) each site posted was clearly
relevant/related to our readings in Media Ethics; (3) each annotation was about 200250 words, (4) each annotation provided a clear description of the resource, (5) each
annotation went beyond description to provide an analysis of how the resource might
help a student better understand media ethics. Knowing these criteria in advance
should help you evaluate your progress and maximize your points for the resource
notebook.
2. Media Ethics Film Critique (MEFC) (200 points): This assignment should provide
some interesting case studies and discussion regarding how various media values and
ethical principles may or may not be at work. You should choose one of the films
listed on the Instructor’s Website (for e.g., The Insider, Wag the Dog, Broadcast
3
News, Up Close and Personal, All the President’s Men). Note: You may suggest
other films not mentioned on the list. HOWEVER, if you do select a film not listed
above, I must approve it before you may begin your analysis. After you have chosen
your film, analyze the film’s story, characters and content in terms of what they
demonstrate about media ethics in light of our readings. You should again use the
Potter Box (PB) as your analytical framework. I will expect to see each component of
the PB discussed in your paper. I also expect you to include as part of your analysis
the following: (1) the portrayal in the movie of the media’s role in society, its core
values, ethics, and loyalties, and (2) the portrayal of the public’s perception of the
media and its values. More will be said about this assignment throughout the
semester. Note that you must have received final approval of your film no later than
Week 4. I’ll even set up a viewing time in the new media room in the library (bottom
floor) if more than one of you wishes to view the same film. Once you have
undertaken your own analysis in the way described above, develop a paper (no more
than 5-7 pages) (does not include title page or references) that contains your analysis.
A grading rubric will be posted for this assignment on the Instructor’s Website to
help you organize as you write and to make sure you address specific assignment
requirements. APA or MLA style should be copiously followed. The paper should be
submitted to me on or before March 22 (Friday). Hand in one hard copy and email me
a copy of your paper as well.
3. SPF (Symposium/Panel/Forum) (200 points): Working in a small group, you will
examine both sides of a controversial issue or case (to be approved by the instructor)
related to media ethics and present a symposium/panel discussion. Directions and
guidelines for this assignment (along with a grading rubric) will be provided on the
Instructor’s website. This presentation is due on April 29, the last day of class. Your
topic must be approved no later than week 9. You must participate in the SPF to pass
this class. Formal dress is required. I may invite formal guests to attend the SPF
depending on the nature of the topic. We may even invite a viewing audience via
videoconference.
4. Class Discussion/Participation (200 points): I call this assiduous discussion in class
and Blackboard (ADC&Bb). Points are awarded at the discretion of instructor for
honorable and worthy verbalistic contributions in class (live) and in Blackboard
(asynchronously). Since this is a small, seminar-style class you are expected to come
prepared to do more than just listen to me talk for an hour. In other words, while the
instructor will present necessary lecture material to establish the foundation for
discussion on material and issues related to media ethics, the course is intended to be
participatory in nature wherein learners will share responsibilities for
accomplishing a common goal. You should come well prepared with comments and
questions related to the material you read. You may even be assigned on occasion to
do mini-presentations of concepts discussed in class.
Depending on your progress and understanding of the material, and depending on the
nature of material, some weeks we may meet for an entire session using Blackboard.
If we do meet in Blackboard for a particular class session on a regular basis,
4
posting/reply requirements will be established. If you do not meet the established
posting/reply requirements, you will be counted absent for that day. A primary
purpose of Blackboard discussion is to provide a forum for meaningful interaction
about particular topics or issues related to course content and readings. Discussion
may revolve around questions I pose, particular content in the course texts, relevant
journal or periodical articles or other materials, or specific, short assignments, tasks
or exercises the group may be asked to undertake. A deadline for participating in
these discussion assignments will be given in each instance. Don’t view Blackboard
as a less rigorous activity for interacting with the subject matter. In many ways, it
requires more time and greater reflection than the type of discussion we do in class.
And it allows me in many ways to better assess your critical analysis and thought
processes and provide more tailored feedback.
Note that class participation also includes your participation when we have Guest
Speakers live in class or in Blackboard. Using Blackboard gives us a great
opportunity to continue our dialogue with experts in the field (including the authors
of our text) from around the country.
Note that your class participation includes your assigned reading. At the end of the
semester you will sign a sheet indicating that you have read all required readings. If
you have not read all required readings for whatever reason, you need to indicate at
that time which readings you have not completed.
Finally, please note that your “Class Participation” also includes your verbal and
nonverbal communication in class, which includes but is not limited to your attitude
and professionalism. There are specific criteria that I will use to calculate your
participation in this class (see Class Participation—Behaviors and Disposition, at the
end of the syllabus, page 14). These criteria can also be found on the Instructor’s
website. Go over them before our second class session.
YOU CHOOSE No. 1 & No. 2
Select from the following assignments to make up the rest of your points:
5. Reaction Paper (100 points): Comment on a case in Media Ethics (6th ed.) (at
variance with published comment) or describe and comment on a case of your own,
either first-person or a case of compelling interest to professionals in your field. You
should use the Potter Box (PB) as your analytical model. We’ll be discussing the PB
in detail during the first several weeks of class. This should be well-researched, well
thought-out 3-5 page research paper, not including references. Follow APA or MLA
style guide. This paper is due during week of You Choose No. 1 or No. 2. A grading
rubric will be posted on the Instructor’s website.
6. Read Exciting Books (100 points): Read Exciting Books (REB). Students may
contract with the Instructor to read a non-syllabic book (a book not required for this
5
course, not previously read by you, and not now being read by you in conjunction
with any other course). Required: a 3-page critical review of a book, due on contract
date. No REB contracts issued after Week No. 4. Contracts considered only in
advance of reading. Successful reviews use the first page to describe the book's chief
argument, the second page to advance your own position on the book's thesis, and the
third page to articulate how the book advances or retreats from progress in
professional ethics, whether reporting, management, or whatever. Points awarded
depends on length and difficulty of the book, and quality of the report. A variant
called REC (Read Exciting Chapters) is available for worthy portions of several
books.
7. Pick a Recommended Reading: (100 points): PRR: the same basic idea and
requirements as REB (No. 6 above). Select substantive readings from recommended
readings list in Appendix. If shorter readings are selected, you may be required to do
more than one.
8. Ten (10) Minute Instructor (100 points): for a TMI, student recommends a tenminute presentation designed to teach relevant content of the book. Student(s) must
first submit a two-page summary of their deliberations/presentation to the instructor
for approval. The instructor’s feedback and comments guide the TMI in preparing for
class presentation. Due on contract date.
9. Publish Your Opinion (100 points): Get an ethical opinion of at least 150 words
(letter to editor, editorial, essay etc.) published in a legitimate vehicle of public
communication (with which you are not affiliated—that means no SAU publications).
10. Explore Christian Ethics (100 points): Present four selections from world-class
Christian ethicists. Probe moral and ethical theory in depth. This should be a 4-6 page
research paper, APA or MLA format. One draft due half way through the semester. It
will also be accompanied by a 10 minute oral presentation in class due on contract
date.
11. Focused Public Argument (100 points): FPA may be initiated by any student who
desires class time (9 minutes) to present an ethical argument or position, to argue for
a norm, to advance his/her position on a question or dispute. To secure time, submit
your proposal first to the instructor. The instructor will evaluate the petition and
recommend action.
6
ASSIGNMENT
POINTS
Website Resource Notebook
Media Ethics Film Critique
SPF (Symposium/Panel/Forum)
Class Participation/Discussion
You Choose No. 1
You Choose No. 2
TOTAL POINTS
YOUR SCORE
200
200
200
200
100
100
1000
POINT RANGE
GRADE
PERCENTAGE
940-1000
910-930
880-900
840-870
810-830
780-800
740-770
710-730
680-700
640-670
610-630
600 or below
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
94-100%
91-93%
88-90%
84-87%
81-83%
78-80%
74-77%
71-73%
68-70%
64-67%
61-63%
< or = 60%
CLASS ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION
Attendance: Much of this course involves participation. It is vital for you to be an active
part of the learning process. Consider attendance mandatory. You know when you have
your class scheduled, therefore, there are NO EXCUSED ABSENCES. The only
exception, of course, is a University sanctioned trip during the time of this class. I will
need prior notice of this or you will be counted absent. And, of course, I realize that other
“extenuating circumstances or unavoidable absences” may arise on rare occasions. These
circumstances should be discussed with me in advance to the extent possible and
supported by documentation after the fact. It is within the instructor’s discretion to
determine whether such “extenuating or unavoidable circumstances” fall within the
exception to the “No Excused Absences” policy. Do not assume that documentation
alone will “excuse” the absence.
If you have more than three (3) absences you will automatically be withdrawn from the
course. Absences that fall within the exception stated in the paragraph above will not be
counted toward the three. However, having more than one absence that has been allowed
for “extenuating or unavoidable circumstances” may SIGNFICANTLY lower your
participation points and final course grade. And depending on the circumstances, having
more than three of these “allowable” absences may result in your withdrawal from the
course.
Sign-up log: Your official presence/absence in class will be recorded by signing the
attendance log book. Students who have not signed the log book at the beginning of class
(1:30 pm) will be counted tardy. Be sure to sign the log even if you come in late so I have
7
an official record of your attendance for that day. If you sign the log book at any time
after 1:30 pm you must add the time next to your name (for example, John Jones, 1:33
pm). Being late (tardy) for class will reduce your participation grade and overall course
grade. If you are tardy for any class you must come to see me after class.
Participation: I’ve already explained this above under the Assignments/Assessment
section, so I won’t dwell on it too much here. My redundancy here should give you a clue
as to how important it is for your success in this class. Remember, participation is another
way to earn points that may make the difference between a half or full letter grade in the
final grade computation. Disruptive/discourteous behavior such as sleeping or talking
while the instructor or guest is lecturing or a student is delivering a presentation may
result in points being deducted from your grade and/or dismissal from class. Note that
participation requires you to be aware of both your verbal and nonverbal communication.
Negative verbal and nonverbal communication may reflect your attitude and disrupt
others from learning. Bringing your books and syllabus to each class session is
considered part of your participation grade. At this level of undergraduate learning,
participation is based on more than merely “talking” – i.e., answering questions posed by
the instructor or volunteering your well-supported opinions and comments. Such things
are definitely an important part of participation, but not the whole picture. I won’t always
inform you each time that points are deducted for such behaviors. Again, see the
“Dispositions and Behaviors” on page 14.
LATE WORK/ASSIGNMENTS
Unless otherwise noted in class, each assignment must be received by me at the
beginning of class on the day it is due. You will be well aware well in advance of all
assignments and their due dates, so late assignments will not be accepted. However, I
may accept your late work and consider it part of your overall class participation and
commitment to the learning experience. I will provide feedback on late work. In the case
of emergency or other extreme or unavoidable circumstances in which official
documentation is provided, the professor has the discretion to make exceptions to this late
work policy. Emergencies or extreme circumstances in this case as in all others do not
include such items as “the printer malfunctioned” or “my computer crashed” or the
“email went crazy” (Note: Documented server problems verified by computer services
may excuse late quizzes). It is therefore important to back-up all your work on disk. Save
all work to your student drive.
ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR EXPECTATIONS/STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Honesty: I expect you to do your own work and formulate your own ideas. All work
must be original and written by you. Students caught cheating or plagiarizing will
automatically fail the course. Being caught cheating or plagiarizing may also result in
your dismissal from the University. It is your responsibility to know what plagiarism
involves. Ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism is no defense. If you are uncertain, you
are strongly encouraged to ask your professor. When it doubt, check it out.
Grading: You will be graded according to certain criteria that will be discussed in class.
I’ll also include assessment rubrics on my site (the Instructor’s website) to give you an
8
idea of what I am looking for when you make presentations or speak. These sheets will
function like “checklists” to help insure that you maximize your points. If you have any
questions as to what will be expected of you, it is your responsibility to ask the instructor.
In-class assignments will be unannounced until the day of class. These assignments will
relate to the classwork and will often involve small group interaction. They could relate
to a film or video I show during our time together. If for some reason, you are not in class
on those days, you will not be able to make those assignments up. If you have any
questions or concerns, do not wait until your grade has suffered. Please discuss them
with me during office hours.
Documented Disabilities: If you have documented disabilities or you are having trouble
completing your assignments, make arrangements to meet with me or call me. The
Learning Center is a resource here on campus that can benefit students in need of special
assistance in a variety of areas. Please do not assume that your disabilities, if any exist,
have already been communicated to me by your advisor or any other involved party.
RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO MODIFY
The instructor has attempted to provide information, which, at the time of preparation for
publication, most accurately described the policies, procedures, regulations and
requirements of the university and this course. However, the instructor reserves the right
to alter or change any statement contained herein without prior notice. If any such
changes are made, the instructor will inform the class during the official class time of any
specific additions/deletions made. The final (“official”) version of the course syllabus
with any changes made after the first day of the semester can be found on the
Instructor’s website. It is the student’s responsibility to examine the online version of the
syllabus after the instructor has informed the class of any changes to the syllabus to
verify the changes and requirements.
9
SCHEDULE OF READINGS/COURSE CALENDAR
NOTE: reading assigned for each week is due at the beginning of each week (Monday) unless otherwise
indicated.
Week
1 (1/30-2/1)
2 (2/4-2/8)
Topic
Assignment Due
Introduction to the course, review of syllabus, 3x5
cards, navigate Blackboard, course website,
worldview framework.
Reading: BOK, Introduction;
HANDOUT: “Bumper Stickers
and Ethical Systems” (F)
Advice for the pilgrim: develop a personal plan for
this course this week. What do you want to read?
Is a group project your thing? What's your final grade
to be? Planning will make your life happier two
months from now.
Moral Sources; Strategy for Decision-making: the
Potter Box (discussion + video)
(F) 1 WRN (Note: only one WRN
due this week, usually you will
have 3 due by the end of each
week).
Bright Ideas: View Bill Moyer's video series on The
Public Mind, a three-part (three hour) masterpiece
exploring public relations and news reporting;
Investigate the background of a famous photograph.
For the Quang Duc photos consult William M.
Hammand, United States Army in Vietnam. Public
Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1962-1968
(Washington, D.C.: Center for Military History,
United States Army, 1988).
3 (2/11-2/15)
Great Reading: Arthur Holmes, Fact, Value, and God
(Eerdmans, 1997), Ethics: Approaching Moral
Decisions (IVP, 1984), Shaping Character (Eerdmans,
1991). For a starter-upper in moral theory, Steve
Wilkins, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics (IVP,
1995).For international, intercultural, Thomas Cooper,
ed., Communication Ethics and Global Change
(Longman, 1989), or Clifford Christians, ed.,
Communication Ethics and Universal Values (Sage,
1997).
Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Confucius’ Golden Mean
Bright Ideas: Consult back issues of Media & Values,
the Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
Journalism Quarterly, or Journal of Communication
for articles on investigative reporting.; Ask the SAU
paper’s editor about policy on naming students in the
paper. Compare to the policy of your hometown
paper.
10
Reading: BOK, Chapter 1; ME6,
Introduction: Ethical Foundations
and Perspectives
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: BOK, Chapter 2; PSR,
“Nichomachean Ethics,”
Confucius’ “From the Doctrine of
the Mean” (M); ME6, Cases 5, 8,
14, 50, 62, 67 (W, F)
(F) 3 WRNs
4 (2/18-2/22)
5 (2/25-3/1)
6 (3/4-3/8)
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Reading: BOK, Chapter 3; PSR,
Kant’s “Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals” (M);
“Unqualified Absolutism” and
“Conflicting Absolutism” (W)
ME6, Cases 7, 9, 14, 59 (F)
Utility’s Greatest Good; Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Great Reading: Richard Posner, Economics of Justice
(Harvard, 1983), Chapter 2. For a Christian approach
to consequentialism, Stephen Layman, The Shape of
the Good (Notre Dame, 1991). Also try Greene and
Elffers, The 48 Laws of Power (Viking, 1998).
News: Business Pressures, Truthtelling, Reporters and
Sources, Social Justice, Invasion of Privacy
Great Reading: Roy Beck, On thin Ice: A Religion
Reporter's Memoir (Bristol, 1988), Margaret Patterson
and Robert Russell, Behind the Lines: Case Studies in
Investigative Reporting (Columbia, 1986), Sue Curry
Jansen, Censorship: The Knot that Binds Knowledge
and Power (Oxford, 1990), Paul Simon, Freedom's
Champion: Elijah Lovejoy (SIU, 1995), Gerry
Spence, From Freedom to Slavery (St. Martin's
Griffin, 1995), Paul Weaver, News and the Culture of
Lying (Free Press, 1994).
7 (3/8-3/17)
8 (3/18-3/22)
9 (3/25-3/29)
SPRING BREAK
Advertising Ethics: Special Audiences, What to
Advertise, How to Say It, Media Consideration
Public Relations: Public Communication, Telling the
Truth in Organizational Settings, Conflicting
Loyalties, The Demands of Social Responsibility
(F) 3 WRNs
(F) Movie Selection
(F) If REB as “You Choose 1 or
2,” must have selection by end of
week. Any other contract dates
for “You Choose” assignments
due by this point as well.
Reading: BOK, Chapters 4-6, 12;
PSR, Mill’s “What Utilitarianism
is” (M); ME6, Cases 3, 6, 72;
PSR, Rawls’ “A Theory of
Justice” (W, F)
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: BOK, Chapter 11,
ME6, Part 1, read all, focus on
cases 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15-18;
(M, W) PSR, “Enlightenment
Individualism” (Chpt. 2) and
“Communitarian Ethics” (Chpt.
3) (F)
(F) “You Choose No. 1” must be
completed before Spring Break –
you may also manage to complete
No. 2 depending on your schedule
and our contract date.
(F) 3 WRNs
Catch-up, get ahead
Reading: ME6, Chapters 6-9;
Possible PSR or handout TBA.
(F) Media Ethics Film Critique
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: ME6, Chapters 10-13;
Possible PSR or handout TBA.
(F) 3 WRNs
(F) SPF Topic
11
10 (4/1-4/5)
Entertainment Ethics: Violence, Censorship,
Obscenity
11 (4/8-4/12)
Communication that hurts reputation; Words that
invade privacy
12 (4/154/19)
Words that sell, steal, and silence; Words that breed
hatred
13 (4/22-26)
Using the Bible in communications ethics
Great Reading: Hill, “Just Business: Christian Ethics
in the Marketplace,” Rossi and Soukop, Mass Media
and the Moral Imagination (Sheed & Ward, 1994),
Christians, Ferre, Fackler, Good News: Social Ethics
and the Press (Oxford, 1993), Wes Pippert, An Ethics
of News (Georgetown, 1989), Edmund Lambeth,
Committed Journalism (Indiana, 1992), Lesslie
Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society
(Eerdmans, 1989).
14 (4/29)
15 May 1-3
Reading: ME6, Chapters 14, 17,
HANDOUT: Wartella, “The
Context of Television Violence,”
(M, W); For definition of
obscenity read Miller v.
California 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
(USSC) (F) -- NOTE: All legal
cases may be found at
www.law.cornell.edu
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: For communication that
hurts read New York Times v
Sullivan 376 U.S. 254; BOK,
Chapter 9 (M); For words that
invade privacy, read Florida Star
v BJF 491 U.S. 524; ME6, Cases
19, 20, 21, 22 (W, F)
(F) “You Choose No. 2” due on
or before Friday of this week.
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: For words that sell, steal
and silence read Hazelwood v
Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260; ME6,
Cases 23, 34, 66 (M, W); For
words that breed hatred read
R.A.V. v City of St. Paul 112 S.
Ct. 2578, HANDOUT: Chicago
Tribune, website article (F)
(F) 3 WRNs
Reading: PSR, “Christian Ethics
in a Transitional Age”
(Introduction), “Christian Ethics
and the Ethical Task” (Chpt. 1);
BOK, Chapters 8-9 (M);
“Rethinking Media, Religion and
Cutlure”; “Studies in Christian
Ethics” (vol. 13, no. 1) (W); “The
Sacredness of Life,” PSR,
“Communication Ethics and
Universal Values,” Clifford G.
Christians (F).
(F) 3 WRNs
SPF
SPF
Final Exam Week
12
ACADEMIC POLICIES
Academic Honesty:
The Spring Arbor University community of teachers and scholars affirms that the biblical
principles of truth and honesty are absolutely essential. Indeed, the Bible contains
numerous admonitions against false witness, dishonesty and cheating. Upholding the
standard of academic integrity with its reliance on honesty is a responsibility of both
faculty and students. Conduct that violates academic integrity includes:
 Dishonesty. This is lack of integrity exhibited through lying, cheating, defrauding
or deceiving. Examples of dishonesty include: copying from the quiz of another,
allowing one's own quiz/exam/paper to be copied, reading a quiz online prior to
reading the chapter, giving or receiving unpermitted aid on a quiz or paper, or
exam, use of unauthorized aids, submitting the same work product in more than
one course without the express permission of the instructor(s), or disclosing or
accepting information if one takes a test at a different time than other students in
the same course.
 Plagiarism. This has already been noted above, but it is worth stating again. This
is stealing or using the ideas or writings of another as one's own. It involves
failure to acknowledge material copied from others or failure to acknowledge
one's indebtedness to another for the gist of important thoughts in a formal
statement, written or oral.
Charges of violating academic integrity shall be handled according to established student
discipline procedures published in the University Catalog, the Student Handbook, and
any other applicable rules/guidelines and regulations relevant to such violations.
Course Evaluation:
Course evaluations will be administered according to the Department of
Communication’s schedule for such evaluations. The results of the course feedback
surveys shall not be made public but will be available to the instructor, the dean, and
those involved in personnel decisions. After grades have been submitted, the evaluations
will be made available to the instructor. The instructor will also have an opportunity to
comment on the rating received. These comments shall be taken into account by the
persons or groups charged with making or advising on personnel decisions.
Summaries of the information from student course feedback forms may be used for
accreditation and statistical purposes as long as the information does not reveal the
identity of the individual faculty member.
Incomplete Grades/Withdrawal from Course Grades:
The Department of Communication follows the Spring Arbor University Catalog
guidelines regarding incomplete course grades, in-progress grades, and withdrawal from
course grades. Refunds of tuition are handled in accordance with current Spring Arbor
University guidelines for add/drop refund rules.
Integration of Faith and Learning:
Students should demonstrate their ability to integrate Faith and Learning by appropriately
applying Biblical principles to explain or to provide enlightenment on particular concepts
or practices in class discussions, papers, and exams as the case may be.
Grading:
The following grading system shall be used for courses in this program:
Grade Quality Scale: A; A-; B+; B; B-; C+; C; C-; D+; D; D-, F.
13
Writing Standard:
Students are expected to write in a manner that is appropriate for the undergraduate level
of scholarly activity required in this course. The syllabus should state the criteria used to
evaluate writing in students' work including, but not limited to, correct grammar, proper
spelling, and sentence structure.
Return of student work:
Students should expect their work to be evaluated and returned within the time-frame
established by the professor in the course syllabus. Students should have adequate
opportunity to review and reflect on corrections in order that they might improve on their
next course submissions.
14
Standard
Effective Communication Skills
Listening
Effective Communication Skills:
Speaking
Effective Communication Skills
Writing
Class Participation
Behaviors and Dispositions
Acceptable—Meets Standard
Listens purposefully and attentively
Follows instructions
Uses active listening skills in class discussion
(vs. does not pay attention in class: reads, sleeps or whispers
during student, instructor, guest speaker presentations)
Values diverse opinions by tactfully interacting with others (vs.
uses slang, vulgar or disrespectful language, or shows lack of
tact when expressing opposite opinion).
Keeps discussion on the topic.
Voice projection is appropriate for the setting (vs. voice
projection is too low or too high for setting).
Usually uses language and grammar appropriate (vs.
frequently makes grammatical errors).
Relatively error free written communication, using vocabulary
appropriate to the audience.
Type or level of errors does not interrupt meaning (vs. multiple
sentence structure or spelling errors that interrupt meaning on
multiple written assignments)
Good organization and development of ideas.
Assignments or presentation show care and thoughtfulness;
follows instructions (vs. assignments or presentation show lack
of thought, are incomplete or sloppy).
Work is turned in on time according to guidelines given in
course syllabus (vs. multiple assignments are late with or
without excuses or arrangements).
Attendance is punctual and shows high level of commitment to
the class.
Meets deadlines without excuses (vs. blames others and/or
instructor for failure to meet criteria of assignment.
Presentation of class work
Completion of work
Attendance and punctuality
Accepts responsibility for actions
Incorporates changes based on feedback (vs. refuses to revise or
make improvement)
Apologizes when necessary.
Treats others with respect. Exhibits self-control. Uses tactful
language in difficult situations. Relates to others in socially
acceptable ways.
Maintains emotional stability when interacting with
students or professor.
(vs. uses inflammatory or disrespectful language or gestures;
overly sarcastic, incidences of argumentativeness and
combativeness, interrupting others, uncontrolled crying or
sullenness)
Neat and clean appearance that is appropriate to the setting.
Group work is shared equally by all members (vs. group
members report student is not meeting or doing his share of the
project; does all the work or excludes members).
Work is original and sources are properly cited (vs. relies on
others for class assignments)
Professional appearance and behaviors
Collaborates with others
Responsible for own work
15
APPENDIX
LIST OF RECOMMENDED READINGS AND RESOURCES
 Historical and Theoretical Foundations
Stephen Clark, Aristotle’s Man, ch. III. 2, pp. 84-97 (“Doctrine of the Mean”)
Alasdair MacIntrye, A Short History of Ethics, 2nd ed., ch. 7 (“Aristotle’s Ethics”); Ibid.,
ch. 12 (“British 18th-Century”); Ibid., ch. 14 (“Kant”)
Matthew Kieran, Media Ethics: A Philosophical Approach (New York: Praeger, 1997)
Shelly Kagen, Normative Ethics (Westview Press, 1998)
Jay Black, ed., Mixed News: The Public/Civic/Communitarian. Journalism Debate.
Erlbaum, 1997.
Norman Daniels, ed., Reading Rawls, ch. 2 (“The Original Position”).
Arthur Dyck, On Human Care: An Introduction to Ethics, ch. 3.
Rosemarie Tong, Feminine and Feminist Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.
Daryl Koehn, Rethinking Feminist Ethics: Care, Trust and Empathy (Routledge, 1998).
Elliot Cohen & Deni Elliot, eds., Journalism Ethics: A Reference Handbook. ABCCLIO, 1997.
John C. Merrill, Journalism Ethics: Philosophical Foundations for News Media. New
York: St. Martin’s, 1997.
Ralph Olliges, “The Social Impact of Computer-Based Communications,”
Communication Research Trends, 16:2 (1996).
Daniel Bonevac, et al., Beyond the Western Tradition: Readings in Moral and Political
Philosophy, 1992.
Larry Leslie, Mass Communnication Ethics (Houghton Mifflin, 2000), section II 15.
Stephen Darwall, Philosophical Ethics (Westview 1998)
Thomas W. Cooper, Communication Ethics and Global Change (New York: Longman,
1988).
Jack Rogers and Forrest Baird, Introduction to Philosophy: A Case Study Approach (NY:
Harper & Row, 1981).
16
Christians, “Review Essay: Current Trends in Media Ethics,” European Journal of
Communications 10:4 (1995), pp. 545-558.
John Hare, The Moral Gap. Oxford University Press, 1996, ch. 1.
Clifford Christians “An Intellectual History of Communications Ethics,” in Bart Pattyn,
ed., Media Ethics: Opening Social Dialoge (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), pp. 15-46.
Sissela Bok, Common Values, University of Missouri Press, 1995.
Robert L. Holmes, Basic Moral Philosophy (Wadsworth 1993)
Thomas W. Cooper, A Time Before Deception: Truth in Communication, Culture and
Ethics (Clear Light Publishers 1998)
Henry Sidgwick, Practical Ethics (Oxford University Press 1998)
Cees Hamelin, The Ethics of Cyberspace. Sage, 2000.
 Journalism Ethics
PhilipElmer-Dewitt, “Electronic Superhighway,” Time, April 12, 1993.
Edward J. Epstein, “Journalism and Truth,” Commentary, April 1974, pp. 36-40.
Louis Hodges, “The Journalist and Privacy,” Social Responsibility: Journalism, Law,
Medicine, IX, 1983, pp. 5-19.
Neil Hickey, “Was the Truth Buried at Wounded Knee,” TV Guide, Dec. 1, 8, 15, 22,
1973.
Walt Harrington, “In Ricky’s Wake,” The Washington Post Magazine, 7 June 1987, pp.
14-21, 42-43.
Edmund Lambeth, Committed Journalism, 2nd ed., chs. 6-10.
Garrison Keillor, “The Royal Family,” Leaving Home (New York: Viking, 1987), pp.
139-145.
David Gordon and J. M. Kittross, Controversies in Media Ethics, 2nd ed. (Longman
1999)
Jay Rosen, What Are Journalists For? (Yale 1999), ch. 3
Michael Hoyt, “The Wichita Experiment,” Columbia Journalism Review, July/August
1992, pp. 43-47.
17
Jay Rosen and Davis Merritt, Public Journalism: Theory and Practice, Kettering
Foundation Occasional Paper, 1994.
Paul M. Lester, ed., Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media, Praeger,
1996.
Francis P. Kasoma, Journalism Ethics in Africa, Nairobi: ACCE, 1994.
Gene Goodwin & R. Smith, Groping for Ethics in Journalism (Ames: Iowa State
University Press, 4th ed.).
Michael Moss, “The Poverty Story,” Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 1987,
pp. 43-54.
James Ettema and Theodore Glasser, Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism
and Public Virtue (Columbia, 1998).
Ira Rifkin, “Covering Conflict: How the News Media Handles Ethnic Controversy,”
Media and Values, No. 43, Spring 1988, pp. 8-10.
Julienne Newton, The Burden of Visual Truth: The Role of Photojournalism in Mediating
Reality. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001.
Mario Gonzalez and Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, The Politics of Hallowed Ground: Wounded
Knee and the Struggle for Indian Sovereignty (Illinois, 1998).
Matthew Kieran, Media Ethics: A Philosophical Approach (Praeger, 1997).
Phillip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, 3rd ed.
(William Brown, 1998).
Daryl Koehn, Rethinking Feminist Ethics: Care, Trust, and Empathy
(Routledge, 1998)
Pippa Norris, digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet
Worldwide. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Arthur Miller, An Enemy of the People.
Don Fry, “The Shocking Pictures of Sage,” Washington Journalism Review, April 1988,
pp. 35-41.
 Advertising Ethics
Claudia Mills, “Is Advertising Manipulative?” Report from the Institute for Philosophy
and Public Policy, 9:2/3, Spring/Summer 1989, pp. 12-15.
18
Nat Henhoff, “Would You Run This Ad?” Business and Society Review, Summer 1975,
pp. 8-13.
Kim Rotzoll, “Advertising and Ethics: Observations on the Dimensions of a Cluttered
Battleground,” Advertising Working Paper, January 1989.
Christians and Rotzoll, “Advertising Agency Practitioners’ Perceptions of Ethical
Decisions,” Journalism Quarterly, Autumn 1980, pp. 425-431.
Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, rev. ed.
“The Children’s Advertising Review Unit: Self Regulatory Guidelines for Children’s
Advertising,” The Better Business Bureau (www.bbb.org/advertising/caruguid.html)
Rotzoll, et al., Advertising Working Papers, “Papers on Advertising and Ethics.”
Kenneth Goodpaster, “Should Sponsors Screen for Moral Values?” Hastings Center
Report, December 1983.
Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business “Ethical Issue in
Advertising,” ch. 7, pp. 445-522.
Kim Rotzoll, “Gossage Revisited,” Journal of Advertising, 9:4 (1980), pp. 6, 14.
Michael Phillips, Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising (Quarum, 1997).
Ivan Preston, The Great American Blow-up (University of Wisconsin Press, 1996).
Kim Rotzoll, “The Ethics of Health Care Advertising: Reflections and
Recommendations,” January 22, 1987.
Herbert J. Rotfeld, Adventures in Misplaced Marketing. Quorum Books, 2001.
“Advertising and Professional Ethics,” Perspectives on the Professions, 19:2, Spring
2000, pp. 1-10.
Quentin Schultze, “Poets for Hire: The Ethics of Consumer Advertising,” Media
Development, 3/1987, pp. 2-4.
Robert Entman and Andrew Rojecki, “Advertising Whiteness,” in their The Black Image
in the White Mind (University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 162-181.
.
 Public Relations
Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano
Philip Seib and Kathy Fitzpatrick, Public Relations Ethics, Harcourt Brace, 1995.
19
Marvin Olavsky, “Inside the Amoral World of Public Relations: Truth Molded for
Corporate Claim,” Business and Society Review, pp. 41-44.
“Case Studies in Public Relations,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Fall-Winter 1985-86,
pp. 78-83.
Thomas H. Bivins, “Applying Ethical Theory to Public Relations,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 6:1987, pp. 195-200.
Marvin Olasky, Corporate Public Relations: A New Historical Perspective (Erlbaum).
Mark McElreath, Managing Systematic and Ethical Public Relations, 2nd ed. (Brown and
Benchmark, 1997).
“What Led Beech-Nut Down the Road to Disgrace?” Business Week, 22 February 1988.
Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication, 5th ed., 2002, ch. 9.
J. L’Etang and M. Pieczka, Critical Perspectives in Public Relations. London: Berkshire
House, 1996.
 Entertainment Ethics
Annette Hill, Natural Born Killer: Risk and Media Violence. University of Luton Press
(U.K.), 1999.
Richard Levinson and William Link, “A Crisis of Conscience,” TV Guide, 3 December
1977, pp. 6-11.
Violence on TV: Does It Affect Our Society,” TV Guide-Special Issue, 14 Jan. 1975.
Josina M. Makau and Ronald C. Arnett, eds., Communication Ethics in an Age of
Diversity, University of Illinois Press, 1997.
Kevin W. Saunders, Violence as Obscenity. Duke University Press, 1996.
Rivers, Schramm, Christians, Responsibility in Mass Communication, 3rd ed., ch. 7.
Cynthia A. Cooper, Violence on Television. University Press of America, 1996.
Christians and Rotzoll, “Ethical Issues in the Film Industry,” in Bruce Austin, Current
Research in Film Volume 2 (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1985), pp. 225-237.
“Diversity,” Poynter Report, Summer 1999, pp. 6-13.
Charles Taylor, et al., Multiculturalism. Princeton (1994).
20
Andrew Sullivan, “What’s So Bad about Hate?” New York Times Magazine, 26
September 1999, section 6.
Larry Gross, et al., Image Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
Final Report of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. Nashville, TN:
Rutledge Hill Press, 1986.
Clay Calvert, “Hate Speech and Its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective,”
Journal of Communication, Winter 1997, pp. 4-19.
Ethnic Diversity: Challenging the Media,” Media and Values, Spring 1988.
Walter Kendrik, “Prides and Prejudice: The Meese Commission’s Dirty Mind,” Village
Voice Literacy Supplement, Sept. 1986, pp. 10-11.
Samuel Fleischacker, The Ethics of Culture. Cornell University Press, 1994.
Ellis Cose, “The News Media and Race: Getting Beyond Obvious Truths,” The 1994-95
Ruhl Symposium on Ethics in Journalism, University of Oregon.
Christians, “Social Ethics and Mass Media Practice,” Communication Ethics in an Age of
Diversity, ed. J. Makau and Ronald Arnett, University of Illinois Press (1997), pp. 187205.
“Multiculturalism: An Anthropological Perspective,” Report from the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy.
Stacia Brown, “Virtual Hate,” Sojourners, 19-23, 65.
Robert H. Burger, “The Meese Report on Pornography and its Respondents: A Review
Article,” Library Quarterly, 57:4 (October 1987), pp. 435-447.
Norman Denzin, The Cinematic Society: The Voyeur’s Gaze. Sage, 1995.
W. James Potter, On Media Violence. Sage, 1999.
`
Barrie Gunter, Dimensions of Television Violence. St. Martin’s. 1985.
Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography. (Harcourt
Brare, 1996)
Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki “Prime-Time Television” and “Race at the
Movies” in The Black Image in the White Mind (University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp.
144-161, 182-204.
21

Summary and Conclusions
Irving Janis, Victims of Group Think, pp. 2-13, 184-206.
Wendell Berry, “Think Little,” Whole Earth Catalog
Christians, “Social Responsibility: Ethics and New Technologies,” in Richard
Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication, 4th ed., 1996, pp. 321-336.
Christians, “Self Regulation: A Critical Role for Codes of Ethics,” in E. E. Dennis and D.
M. Gillmor, Media Freedom and Accountability, Greenwood Press, 1989, pp. 35-54, 179188.
Clifford Christians, “Enforcing Media Codes,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
Summer/Fall 1985, pp. 14-21.
“The People’s Communication Charter,” (www.waag.org/pcc).
Christians, Ferré, and Fackler, Good News: Social Ethics and the Press (Oxford 1993),
ch. 3.
Christians, “Justice and the Global Media,” Studies in Christian Ethics, 13:1 (2000), pp.
76-92.
Christians, “The Sacredness of Life.” Media Development, 45:2 (1998), pp. 3-7.
Christians, “Ethics, Economics and Innovation: The Future of Accountability,” Media
Development, 2/1999, pp. 12-15.
Christians and Traber, Communication Ethics and Universal Values (Sage, 1997), ch. 1.
22