Case Study #5: Born Just Right by Lee Wilkins

Journalist Jenn Reeves began her blog Born Just Right after her second child,
Jordan, was born with a rare condition that required her right arm to be
replaced with a prosthetic limb. The blog was a catharsis for Jenn; she was
able to post about her familys experiences surrounding Jordans disability, as
well as create a community outlet for other parents to share advice and seek
guidance. However, maintaining a blog is no walk in the park; it requires
constant upkeep and a solid stream of posts to remain relevant. Jordan
identifies the similarities and differences between her voice as a journalist
and her voice as a blogger; while the latter is more emotional and singularly
focused, its also packed with information on the issues related to disabled
children and the programs that support their families.
Born Just Right is an exceptionally personal blog, exposing the reader to the
intimate details and emotions that define the Reeves lives. Despite this, it is
not an invasion of privacy as all information broadcasted is done so willingly
by the subjects. Jenn Reeves is curating all the material on the website if
she chooses to keep a certain issue private, the blog will not violate that
desire as she is in control of its content. Infringements of the tort of privacy
are concerned with the appropriation of information about another party; the
only person whose privacy could be alienated is Jordans. The blog exists as a
concern for her best interests, and the posts allude to the fact that she is
pleased to participate in creating an outlet to help parents with disabled
children. The blog has also helped her be sought out by programs that
improve her quality of life; thus, there are no major issues with privacy on
the Born Just Right blog.
While Jenn Reeves journalism background allows for some insightful
commentary in the case study, what makes the blog medium so great is its
accessibility. New media is so engaging because it is fueled by passion; one
doesnt need a specific degree, or an established platform, but the drive to
participate in cultural conversations. As Jenn pointed out, maintaining a blog
isnt quite the same as being a journalist, despite the fact that her journalism
background helped in hitting some of the benchmarks that make for a
successful blog. One must have a passion, an expressive voice that makes
for a compelling read, and the discipline to regularly update in order to retain
loyal readership. While the development of a successful blog requires certain
personality traits and academic strengths, it does not require specific
vocational training.
The case study goes onto describe how some blogs are commercially viable
entities; would the character of Born Just Right change if Jenn decided to
reorient it to be a profit-seeking venture? One must consider Jenns
conflicting loyalties; to her daughter, the community of parents who use Born
Just Right as a support network for their children, and herself. While the blog

is an effort to form a community, it primarily exists for Jenns daughter; so if

she needed to profit off of it to improve her daughters quality of life, it would
not change the integrity of her efforts. However, this doesnt absolve Jenn
from being responsible for the community she sought to support. The value
of the profit must be weighed against the expense her followers pay if she
sells out; given the vulnerability of her audience, she should still make
every effort to keep their best interests at heart.
From most ethical perspectives, Born Just Right is a commendable effort. The
Utilitarian would commend Jenns actions in that she is maximizing the utility
for all disabled parents; she noticed an information outlet that was missing,
and developed a forum to serve that purpose. Jenn couldve operated more
selfishly in seeking information and support for her daughters disability, but
she operated in a way that supported herself and the community. Similarly,
the Communitarian would support Jenns decision to contextualize her
individual issue as a communal struggle; Jenn uses her experiences with her
disabled child to better serve her community.
Case Study #6: Hate Radio: The Outer Limits of Tasteful
Broadcasting by Brian Simmons
Trevor Van Lansing is a shock jock who dominates the primetime airwaves in
a major U.S. market. His program is structured around the introduction of a
controversial topic and an open discussion with fans who call into the stationhowever, the conversation is often scathing and purposely offensive to
minority groups. There is debate over whether or not the entertainment
industry should provide a platform for a personality such as Van Lansing to
spew his controversial rhetoric. From an economic perspective, Van Lansing
is a bona fide money-maker; cancelling his program would be nonsensical.
Audience arguments are more divisive; on one hand, his program promotes
hate speech, but silencing him could be interpreted as an infringement on
his first amendment rights.
One argument presented in the article for keeping Van Lansing on the air is
that Van Lansing articulates a unique perspective on political issues; does
this mean his program would be less offensive if it were followed by another
program that offered a fundamentally different perspective? I would argue
no; as pointed out in the article, Van Lansings audience chooses to listen to
him. The fan base of a boisterous shock jock would not stay tuned when the
program concluded to hear a different perspective; the second show would
cater to a completely different audience. If Van Lansings audience did listen
to the second show, the show would be out of its element; it would be
competing with a program that prioritizes entertainment and emotional
appeal over logic-based belief formation. Van Lansings fans seek him out
either to be entertained or to reaffirm their existing beliefs; listeners with
these attitudes are not likely to be affected by a program that offers an
oppositional perspective.

The text asks the reader to consider the differences between lyrics in rap
music to the racist rants of talkshow hosts and whether or not we should
hold artists to different ethical standards. An artist creates work that reflects
reality, and the intention isnt inherently to change or influence opinion,
while a talk show host does the opposite. One piece of work is a reflection of
how things are, while the other is an argument of how things should be; this
also changes the way the receiver internalizes the content of the medium.
Eminems homophobic lyrics, for example, are not meant to change the
individuals opinion on gay people, while Van Lansings rants are meant to
establish and perpetuate hate for LGBTQ people. While Eminems lyrics are
objectionable, his lyrical content is not striving to persuade, so he and his
contemporaries should not be held to the same standard as Van Lansing.
Just because audiences are paying attention to Van Lansings program does
not mean he is relieved of his duty to act ethically. Van Lansing presents his
radio persona as a reflection of his real life persona, not a character, so his
on-air behavior should be held to the standards of which all members of
society are held to. As an entertainer, Van Lansings primary ethical loyalties
may be to his listeners and the company he works for, but he still has to be
held accountable for the basic ethical responsibility the democratic citizen
has to the greater community. There is a tipping point where the damage a
piece of entertainment causes outweighs the pleasure that can be derived
from the program.
The arguments for or against Van Lansings program should be expanded to
consider censoring objectionable language or imagery, a responsibility that
should be shared by the FCC and the station. The FCC makes great effort to
censor individual words, but not the attitudes those words imply. More efforts
should be made to limit dialogue that would be counter-productive to the
betterment of society, such as the violent, sexist, racist, and homophobic
content of Van Lansings show. And while the radio station may prioritize the
bottom line, this doesnt free them of their ethical responsibilities to the
listeners and community. If Van Lansing is encouraging attitudes that create
tension between cultural communities in the city, the radio station should
make efforts to reel him in.