PR255 In Da House

 Bowling Green  seniors re-created Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance https://www.tiktok.com/@arcadiasrlivingbg/video/7203101432105700654?embed_source=121331973%2C71011723%2C120811592%2C120810756%3Bnull%3Bembed_fullscreen&refer=embed&referer_url=iframe.nbcnews.com%2FNuLVBSY%3F_showcaption%3Dtrue%26app%3D1&referer_video_id=7203101432105700654

US Energy Department assesses Covid-19 likely resulted from lab leak, furthering US intel divide over virus origin.  https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/covid-lab-leak-wuhan-china-intelligence/index.html

     If I was Sleepy's, I would not have distributed the data that was given. It seems to mw that the data was not reliable to the consumers of it. I would have noticed that data was not honest to give to my consumers. If someone had noticed this sooner than later, Sleepy's could have got in trouble for being dishonest. In which we know that dishonesty can jeopardize a corporations reputation very quickly.      If New York Times was smarter, they would've not ran an article based on the research. As soon as the information is out to the public, the consumers can do their own research. Knowingly, that the research is a little flawed can ruin the NY Times reputation. I wouldn't want to give misinformation to my consumers knowing that they depend on reliable information, expectedly a corporation that is known to have reliable information. When people start to not believe the information, not just the consumers of  NY Times, but Sleepy's consumers will no longer go to t

     I believe Nancy Grace's was not ethical in the cases that she was apart of informing her audience. She used these cases to make her famous. She was not fair to the people that was innocent. She even used bullying tactics to berate some of the people in the cases she was informing her audience about. She should be charged for lying and ruining the lives of the people spoke about. I would say that Nancy Grace is a shyster. She is an unethical lawyer.      Nancy Grace's network, HNL were not honest with the things that Nancy spoke about. She was wrong multiple times and never did anything to inform others she was wrong. They let her say what she wanted to say. It led to a lot of misinformation, however Nancy, and her teams were drowning in money due to how much people tuned in. Hopefully when something happens like this that PR workers will be honest and teach ethics to their workers. 

Is Quitting unethical? What about quitting a job for a better one? Is conscious quitting unethical? https://tech.co/news/what-is-conscious-quitting

     In my opinion, Scott McClellan is responsible for being ethically irresponsible to his former boss and the White House organization. Even if he spoke up about the secreted things that Bush and the White House has done. He mainly spoke up out of pettiness and selfishness. His intentions was to get back at the people that battered him. If he really wanted to do the best ethical choice, he should've step down from his position and spoke about what was happening when it was happening.       McClellan never considered doing the right thing because he knew it was right either, he did it for money as well. Actions speaks a lot louder than words. McClellan speaking about the things that happened, showed a lot about his character and how he treat his so call friends. He does not treat them the way they want to be treated. 

 Who's in fault here?  Parents? Teachers? Both? Or neither? https://www.foxnews.com/video/6320866939112

 I believe that what was offensive about Backcheck's new release was that Backcheck didn't feel sympathetic towards the person that was killed, but more appalled that they were not used to get a background check on the alleged killer. Just because the company didn't use Backcheck, Backcheck assumes they could've prevented this tragic event. The one thing that Backcheck didn't considered is the many possible outcomes that happens in the real world. Just because someone uses Backcheck's product, doesn't mean it will prevent all murders.  Fleishman's handle the crisis pretty good. They took credit for the partnership with Backcheck, even though, Fleishman wasn't the one to release the inappropriate statement. Fleishman knew they still had a role in the incident and acknowledge their role. Even stating that their corporation reputation is better than this. 

Does religion cause war? Or does power cause war? I'll say power does. What do you think? 

     In my opinion, OWS was not successful. Success is measured by how far a person, group, or organization's ability to reach their goal. That doesn't mean that OWS cannot be successful, however the status of the OWS movement is still progressing in order to claim being successful.  The Occupy protest movement was designed to expose social and economic inequality in the United States and elsewhere by exposing greed, corruption, and the undue influence of corporations on everyday life. As OWS were able to have succeeded to call out the reputation of a few corporations, they happen to jeopardize their own reputation as well, by creating fake stories to keep consumers on their side.       Therefore, OWS thought they were not succeeding and begun to lie to there audience. This gives me the impression that OWS are hypocrites, and will do the same as the corporations they are fighting against. I would apologize to the people that reputations were ruin unethically, start the whole mo

Crews release toxic chemicals from derailed tankers in East Palestine   https://www.wtae.com/article/east-palestine-ohio-train-wreck/42768369#