#ASKEAWORLD 1

The #ASKSEAWORLD

A Mass Media Ethics Case Analysis

Jasmin Jackson

University of Indianapolis
#ASKEAWORLD 2

Situation

In 2013, a documentary film titled Blackfish took the world by storm when it reviled

disturbing facts about SeaWorld. In the film, Blackfish tells the story of Tilikum, a performing

killer whale that killed several people while in captivity. The film complies shocking footage

and emotional interviews to expose Sea World, a multibillion dollar sea park industry for their

true practices (Blackfish 2016). As one can assume, this exposure created several issues for the

companys reputation. One must consider how the public and shareholders advocated for the

wellbeing of the animals. People for the ethical treatment of animals, also known as PETA,

created a website encouraging activist to speak out. Activist spoke out about their frustration and

devastation of Sea Worlds actions brought to the community and sea life. A womens life and

orcas wellbeing were placed aside for the companys profit.

#ASKEAWORLD 3

Values

The first value to consider within this case is, every company should value constructive

criticism, and companies should not hide from or ignore potentially damaging information. A

value this case lacks was transparency, transparency outwards when organizational members

can observe events and developments outside the organization, and transparency inwards when

people outside the organization can observe what is going on inside its formal boundaries

(Christensen et al. 2008). While transparency is a general managerial concern, holding promises

of operational efficiency and control (e.g., Berggren & Bernshteyn, 2007), it has a special place

in the context of contemporary public relations where transparency is often regarded as a

precondition for trust, collaboration, dialogue, insight, accountability, rationality, and freedom

(Kent & Taylor, 2002). In this particular case, we are dealing with transparency inwards. The

public viewed Sea Worlds attempts to deescalate the situation as a lack of transparency, in other

words not telling the whole truth or attempting to cover up reality. This could also be viewed as,

Sea World wanted to do something, but that their only true interest in deescalating was to profit

financially rather than doing what needed to be done to obtain ethical obligations.

Courage to face ones accusers honestly and openly is a value that all self-respecting

companies should have. The cardinal virtue of courage is certainly called for in such a setting.

Ignoring critical reports or viral rumors might be more reflective of cowardice (ignore them, and

maybe theyll go away; delete negative posts without direct responses), while orchestrating

corporate group responses to an informal opinion poll might reflect more of a sense of bravado

than courage (Christians 2017).

Principles
#ASKEAWORLD 4

In the textbook, we learn that about Aristotles Mean, which is Moral virtue is a middle

state determined by practical wisdom. In other words, the basic concept is negotiated

compromise between two extremes or the two sides must negotiate a compromise in good faith.

(Christians et. al. 2017). Aristotles Mean is the most relevant when analyzing the Askseaworld

case. When Aristotles mean is considered, its intended purpose is to consider both sides and

essentially make the best of a bad situation. In this particular case, Sea World was exposed for

their unethical practices. The public and animal rights activist wasnt going out without some

sort of compromise and ownership for the reality of several decades of ill treatment of animals.

The bottom line is that people were being injured or killed and Orca whales were living in

distress. Aristotles virtue ethics as a system that flows from both the nature of the act itself

and the moral character of the person who acts (Wilkins 2008), this is why SeaWorld resorted to

their own online movement Askseaworld. Sea World opened online forums designed for

activist and the public to be able to ask questions regarding the ethical treatment of animals and

keep updated on new reinvented SeaWorld. However many reported their comments or post had

been taken down, or deleted without any reply or acknowledgment. Oddly enough, other posts

were answered. Upon further investigation we learned, the publics acceptance of this site was

minimal. The lack of transparency created serious doubt to the public. In the Aristotelian sense,

the way to behave ethically is that (1) you must know (through the exercise of practical reason)

what you are doing; (2) you must select the act for its own sakein order to flourish; and (3) the

act itself must spring from a firm and unchanging character (p. 8). The public viewed Sea

Worlds actions as a desperate attempt to resolve the conflict was shady. Several of the questions

asked within Sea Worlds were coming from similar IP address, which can only imply Sea World

was posting their own questions to fit a personal agenda.

#ASKEAWORLD 5

Loyalties

There are a couple loyalties that stand out the most in regards to whom will be affected

the most on decisions in this case. Seaworld.com displays a mission statement, which in this case

acts as part of their royalties. Their mission statement states To apply basic physiological

research efforts and state-of-the-art reproductive technologies toward wildlife species

management and conservation. Research is performed to gain an understanding of the

relationships among reproductive endocrinology, anatomy, behavior and physiological events

such as ovulation and parturition. This knowledge is applied to cooperative captive management

practices, in collaboration with government and non-government organizations, to facilitate both

natural and assisted breeding strategies. Our cooperative management practices enable

zoological institutions to maintain maximal genetic diversity and optimal social environments

within captive populations. Tools developed through ex situ research on reproductive monitoring

and assisted breeding can be integrated into in situ population management and conservation

strategies. A lot of their mission is to please their own company while also satisfying the

concerns of the public. SeaWorld has a responsibility for employee and customer safety. This all

could be considered a form of cooperate social responsibility of SeaWorld. SeaWorld has a

loyalty to its shareholders, whose shares are losing their worth. The Orlando-based company

posted a loss of $11.9 million, or 14 cents a share, in the fourth quarter, compared with a loss of

$11 million, or 13 cents a share, in the year-earlier period. The 2016 loss exceeded analysts

forecasts (Weisburg 2017). Obviously these financial issues throughout shareholders creates a

loyalty in a sense that SeaWorld now has to prove their company can come back from their

decline. They owe loyalties to shareholders.

#ASKEAWORLD 6

Final Judgment

SeaWorld was correct in trying to strive for a mean between completely ignoring the

blackfish documentary and trying to silence those that created the document with lawsuits.

However, they were wrong in their approach, which only led to the lack of transparency that the

park could not be trusted by many former customers and sponsors. With this being said, there are

a few things to consider when exploring the final judgment of this case. There should have had a

press conference rather than using newspaper and a corporate run website where they could

avoid tough questions. The park did take the initiative to provide information from its

veterinarians and caretakers in advertisements and websites but should have asked for questions

and about concerns on a different platform. The textbook mentions, Identifying a primary critic

in its newspaper advertisement is justifiable from a virtue perspective, justice requires that the

accused be allowed to face ones accuser. This basically was SeaWorlds way of solely blaming

PETA (Christians).

References

Erik Berggren, Rob Bernshteyn, (2007) "Organizational transparency drives company

performance", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 Issue: 5, pp.411-417, doi:

10.1108/02621710710748248

Christians, Clifford G. (2017). Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Print.
#ASKEAWORLD 7

Christensen, L., & Langer, R. (2008). Public Relations and the Strategic Use of Transparency:

Consistency, Hypocrisy, and Corporate Change. Conference Papers -- International

Communication Association, 1-40.

Entertainment, SeaWorld Parks &. "Seaworld Cares." SeaWorld Cares

"Home." Blackfish. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Kent, M., Taylor, M. (2001). Toward a dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations

Review 28.

The Power of Crisis Management: Understanding the Role of Public Relations. (2016).

Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 116-117.

Weisberg, L. (2017, February 28). SeaWorld reports lackluster revenues and a drop in

attendance. Los Angeles Times.

"Where Happiness Tanks." SeaWorld of Hurt. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

Wilkins, L. (2008). Foreword. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,23(4), 263-263.

doi:10.1080/19388070802525472

Wyatt, W. N. (2008). Being Aristotelian: Using Virtue Ethics in an Applied Media Ethics

Course. Journal Of Mass Media Ethics, 23(4), 296-307.

doi:10.1080/08900520802519836

Zimmerman, Tim (2010). The Killer in the Pool. https://www.outsideonline.com/1924946/killer-

pool?page=all
#ASKEAWORLD 8