![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
4th test, 32 / 38 and we appealed so we may get those last 2 points back next week. Appeal from last test gained us back one point - should have been more articulate :p.
Massive discussion about the David Jones sexual harassment case. Opinions about Kristy Kirk-Fraser's future employability varied considerably. On a personal level no, this doesn't inspire me to speak up about sexual harassment, it says to me that it has to get pretty bad before you speak and you'd better have really good proof if you want to go through the cultural slut shaming meat grinder.
We watched another clip from The Corporation - (Ch. 17) the one about journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who were fired by Fox News over a story Fox didn't want to air. My random notes!
TED talk by Philip Zimbardo on the nature of evil - author of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiments and subsequent discussion of heroic intervention.
I always interpreted this experiment, the Milgram experiments (electric shocks) and the Jane Elliot Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes exercise as a reminder that we do the 'normal' thing and we have to be conscious of that tendency. I think we are responsible for bringing our intelligence to situations with us.
My reflections: trust self, be willing to speak, do it kindly and (hopefully) skilfully.
Massive discussion about the David Jones sexual harassment case. Opinions about Kristy Kirk-Fraser's future employability varied considerably. On a personal level no, this doesn't inspire me to speak up about sexual harassment, it says to me that it has to get pretty bad before you speak and you'd better have really good proof if you want to go through the cultural slut shaming meat grinder.
- Were you inspired?
- Were you more likely to report something?
- Was it talked about at your work? Meaningfully?
We watched another clip from The Corporation - (Ch. 17) the one about journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who were fired by Fox News over a story Fox didn't want to air. My random notes!
- Reporters (Steve, Jane) 'they' were afraid of being sued and advertising dollars. This is news, this is important, people need to know. No story, rewrite story, accept bribe.
- Fox News: decide to pull the story and check it one more time (stern letters). Dave the Manager says I'd like you to pull it and would you tell anyone? We just paid 3 billion dollars, we decide what the news is. We will FIRE you. One week later, bribes!
- Monsanto: excellent marketing
- Federal govt: rubber stamped
- Canada: govt studied closely and rejected
- Five major corporations filed in support of the Fox appeal
- Acknowledging shared values - Fox reporters had shared values, they didn't share Fox's values and given they were working for them I'm a little confused about how big the split was.
- Choosing to act - Fox reporters chose to refuse the bribes and not to compromise the core of their story - in terms of being proactive I think they were a bit passive (but very astute in what they did do).
- Normalizing values conflicts - not sure this applies
- Defining professional purpose -heh, there seems to have been some lack of clarity between what Fox was as the professional purpose and what the journalists did. Possibly the title Investigative Reporters confused them, personally I think when they filmed the promo and did it with a smoke machine that they might have clued in just a teensy bit.
- Understanding the self - I liked how clear Jane and Steve were about what they were, and were not willing to do.
- Using one’s voice -
- Preparing responses - (reasons and rationalizations) I think, given they were looking to air a pretty controversial story it would have made sense to inoculate their management team and let them know it was coming - maybe find some allies early in the piece. I also think that once it was obvious the story wasn't going ahead with Fox, that it would have made sense to drop the story, hint someone who could run it and then re-evaluate working for Fox on your own terms. Of course it's easy to say that in hindsight :p
- I am looking! Blowing the Whistle says The primary source of protection for whistleblowers is section 16 of the Public Service Act. This section notes that a person performing functions in or for an agency “must not victimise, or discriminate against, an APS employee because the APS employee has reported breaches (or alleged breaches) of the Code of Conduct.” (Section 16 of the Parliamentary Services Act provides the same protection for persons performing functions in or for a parliamentary department established under that Act.)
TED talk by Philip Zimbardo on the nature of evil - author of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiments and subsequent discussion of heroic intervention.
I always interpreted this experiment, the Milgram experiments (electric shocks) and the Jane Elliot Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes exercise as a reminder that we do the 'normal' thing and we have to be conscious of that tendency. I think we are responsible for bringing our intelligence to situations with us.
My reflections: trust self, be willing to speak, do it kindly and (hopefully) skilfully.
no subject
no subject
- she must have done something to deserve it
- I bet she was flirting with him
- men just can't help themselves
*processes some more*no subject