In the past, food critics paid for their meals and were reimbursed by the newspaper/magazine. And most mainstream media food critics would go to exceptional ends to keep their identity secret. Their critique of the food would be unmarred by any special treatment from the restaurant chef or staff. End of story. But today everyone's a food critic, and with the rise in social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, and more, their reviews can be broadcast far and wide. Food critic anonymity has gone out the window with one Google search.
Recently, Time.com food critic, Josh Ozersky was dressed down by the Village Voice* NYT for not revealing in a column in which he extolled the benefits of having fancy chefs catering your wedding that the caterers at his wedding were doing so for free. The recent FTC rulings mandate that bloggers disclose when they're reviewing something they're not paid for, but those rules don't extend to bloggers operating under the leaky umbrella of a corporate parent.
In the proposed panel, Jane Goldman, editor in chief of CHOW.com, one of the most popular food websites, will bring some of the most influential people in the food industry and discuss this growingly important issue in food journalism. This panel will call out the spectrum of professionalism in online and offline food journalism and the issue around transparency reverberates through all aspects of online journalism and blogging.
From Monet to MTV, what practices connect the salons of Paris with Danger Mouse, NFL.com, and Facebook? More importantly, what's your place in that continuum? If you work with content, embrace your place in the ethical debate of creation and curation. It's nothing new—but it's time for user experience practitioners to acknowledge it.
Why? Both companies' and consumers' expectations of user experience have matured, promoting content strategy in interactive teams, efficient projects, and satisfying user experiences. Content strategists shape communication goals, hierarchy, and taxonomy. Innocent choices? Or politics, discrimination, and the dark side of design?
If you ignore these pitfalls of content strategy, what are the ethical implications? We'll discuss this through the lens of content correlation and "merchandising" on news sites, editing and mashing up to “create” anew, and curating in traditional settings like museums. From seemingly benign audits and style guidelines through published content packages, do curators create meaning? If so, how should content strategists confront similar choices?
It's been a breakout year for content strategy. Come hear why now we need to confront its ethical relevance—and learn about the missteps of teams that don't—through the lens of case studies and the perspective of the new publishing landscape.
Social media has seen rapid growth, but healthcare, a highly regulated and sometimes conservative industry, started as a somewhat reluctant player. Challenged with the need to comply with HIPAA guidelines as well as FDA marketing policies--even before the agency had addressed social media--healthcare organizations and their audiences were left to figure it out as they went along.
Led by some smart innovators, social health emerged in 2010 as a force to be reckoned with. Still, there have been missteps as well as successes, and many questions remain. Chief among them is the ethics of social media in healthcare, and how transparency may or may not be the ultimate cure-all. Two social health advocates--a leading social health consultant and an executive from one of the nation's premier hospitals--will lead an interactive discussion to explore the multifaceted challenge of social-powered ethics in healthcare.
Some of the topics they'll tackle include the birth of the fPatient, the over/under on disclosure, the friendly ghostwriter, and turning regulatory and legal into champions. Attendees will help shape the conversation and walk away with actionable strategies to apply to their social media efforts.
In this age of radical transparency, can corporations that mistreat their users or cause harm in the world get away with it? Does the market discipline companies so that responsibility is now an essential part of doing business? Or is corporate responsibility just a clever trick to gain a slight marketing advantage and defer state regulation? Is the first and only duty of a company to provide value to its shareholders? This debate will consider these issues through the lens of Google, the most significant promoter of a corporate moral ethos. It will consider the ethics of doing business in authoritarian places such as China, pursuing environmentally sustainable infrastructure, and treating labor fairly.
11th–15th March 2011