The Corporate Morality Mask

Several corporations have been moralizing to customers and using corporate power to censor information and influence politics in the name of better practices for quite some time. These corporations have altered their business practices to use social issues for influencing potential customers, limiting worker behavior and thought, and shaping legal policies in a psychological attempt to make customers believe a corporation has moral ethics or is worthy of emulation. This ridiculous proposition can be unmasked with every corporate spending report, do they spend most of their earnings on genuine attempts to better society for all people or do they plan events and reward loyal advocates for paying lip service to their mask of morality? Are they prone to extravagant displays of “benevolence” with media coverage and every possible manipulation of the event to advantage or do they just invest within communities without all the desired but unnecessary back patting and victory laps?

This modern commitment to public safety and a better future via censorship and demonization of opposing ideas is a well masked attempt for greater power. The value of human lives weighed by a corporation against the eventual recall of lethal products is a potentially instructive guide to the exact value corporations place upon any individual. If corporations truly cared about human lives why do they verifiably disregard them when it might harm their profits or reputation? Whether it was vehicle flaws, dangerous substances, slanderous lies, incompetence, malfeasance, or just plain greed, one behavior we can observe universally among corporations is they lie to protect their interests.i Actions speak louder than well-manicured public statements designed to evoke feelings using minimal effort. Thus, history and substantial behavior would support that corporations have ulterior motives behind nearly every action they undertake.

If actually bettering society is not the primary objective of some corporations what actually might be the reason for this modern change in tactics? “I think business has to pick up the mantle when governments fail you,” Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario told TIME…Young consumers are also more likely to patronize brands who business models claim to include social change.”ii ii iv v Thus, money, the entire reason a corporation exists and public influence which allows the expansion of corporate power are likely motives. This influence allows corporations to use social issues to mold customer perceptions by using ideology against them when benefiting profit margins. “It sometimes becomes more important to believe and to express things because they are beliefs held by my peer group, than it is to say things because we think they are true or false.”iii Yet even when a person is member of the group promoted, they can be marginalized because of dissenting views, as time proceeds the will of a corporation and its supporters might become one and the same.vi

To possibly ascertain what precisely some corporations hope to gain we must look at the most dominant social narratives present within a society the corporation might benefit from using to its purposes. One modern subject of extreme use to some business entities is based on political and social disputes within American society, just a handful of events can be used to generate long-term benefits for any corporation that manipulates them properly. The media, both conservative and liberal, often use loaded words and framing of information to prevent a neutral perspective on substantial issues and this preexisting bias potentially clouds any reader’s perception of the actual facts of the matter based on the desires of the corporation authoring it. Eventually the ceaseless production of inherently flawed information can render a calcified narrative that is prone to dismiss opposing information without assessing factual criticisms that challenge the accepted ideology. Every media source desires to present that it is credible and unbiased at every turn but the facts themselves do not support that belief. The vast majority of corporate media groups are for profit businesses and they have a clear desire to attract every possible viewer to assure continued advertising dollars. This need for profit can and regularly does overcome any ethical standards the average company once possessed just ten years ago with the accelerating influences of technology and politics. This process can in many cases harm a viewer’s sense of factual reporting based on ideological doctrines reinforced by endless confirmation bias via media sources and such methods can limit not just the consideration of new opposing facts but ideas as well.

Another potential motivation for businesses to desire the appearance of moral superiority according to reporter Matt Taibbi is using morality policing to prevent “toxic environments” and hire consultants who conduct very expensive “moral” training. “The corporation wants a gold star that it can show to the public to say that it’s fixed its problem, but it also sets up a new culture wherein essentially there is some sort of a permanent ongoing review of the entire company and that can also have utility because it’s a useful way of getting rid of troublesome employees” with internal anonymous complaints. This system easily allows the corporation employing it to remove anyone who strays from what is set up to be the moral standards, even if such a violation is fabricated by an unknown complainant for unproven reasons. He continues stating in regard to corporation’s seeking to influence social issues they are merely using superficial means to distract from the larger issue of corporations usually opposing structural reform programs that would benefit society and specifically minorities at large but cost businesses more in taxes and spending.

Unfortunately, the corporate media’s commitment to scientific facts is not as strong as many imagine, especially when those facts contend a desired political action or allows opposing ideas. We can observe the clear double standard in public reactions fueled by media sources regarding protests. While public gatherings and protests occurred for different reasons in different places, they all increase the potential infection rate of the coronavirus, a drastically increased rate from past numbers, but most only decried the protests they did not ideologically agree with and did not apply such anger toward people who politically agreed with them. Yet the result is the same for those exposed, the ideological flavor of the gathering is irrelevant to the virus, it does not care why you expose yourself and those it kills being transported from gatherings back to innocent members of the public. This evaporation of concern unless an opposing group ignored the science is telling and would support facts have become a secondary concern to many in comparison to feeling morally superior.vii viii The endless support of corporations to enable anti-scientific behavior that feels right is the essence of their public disregard for individual health and lack of commitment to uncomfortable facts.ix This can be observed in the past by reviewing corporate denials on the long-term dangers of harmful activities like smoking or drinking, environmental damage from illegal practices, and when businesses foster opposing “scientific” opinions that defy logic by means of risk denial to attack legitimate science.   

Modern media corporations often provide merely tabloid style content designed to illicit the largest amount of emotion with the least amount of useful content. While indeed there are social issues of importance that should be addressed seriously with extreme care, unfortunately the best some major sources offer is a daily moralizing by use of single instances woven into a tapestry of outrage similar to an Orwellian three minutes of daily hate. We are told what hate and contempt is acceptable and under what circumstance rather than dissecting the roots of all related hate displayed and the ignorance it rests upon. This creation of people ideologically linked to business entities is a disturbing trend as some foolishly identify with institutions whose primary concern is generating money and not providing reliable information to consumers. The push by several media companies seeking to observe unacceptable behavior in almost every corner of society necessitates its creation at times whether intentional or not to continue the ideology founded upon this being the case. Facts cease to matter, the ideology becoming dominant is the primary goal and evidence not supporting it becomes sinful or morally unacceptable.x xi This high-minded stance however is not universal in its application which is displayed by CNN host Don Lemon reportedly asserting that “black lives only matter when they are taken by police”. This ideological blindness can allow opportunists using popular social justice narratives to exploit them and further allow fringe opposition groups to delegitimize reasonable dissent over injustice.xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii

Media corporations clearly have a set ideological agenda that values people only in as much as their narrative is served by the subjects of a story. For instance, some media companies are still offering enduring coverage about a white woman who called the police falsely on a black man two months ago, this act of harassment could land the woman in jail for her false report.xix Conversely, the at least eighteen people that have been killed amid sometimes illegal and repeatedly violent nationwide protests have received no enduring coverage.xx xxi Due to the ongoing coronavirus health regulations most likely did not even receive a funeral ceremony in which all who loved them could attend, but this is not regarded as newsworthy of enduring coverage by some outlets. In this comparison we can observe that what could have occurred is seemingly more important to supposed news sources than addressing the actual murders and surrounding ongoing lethal events targeting innocent people. The idea of implied racism and a white woman lying about a black man is to some more important than white and black criminals murdering the innocent amid chaos because it damages ideological beliefs. The deaths are relegated to less consequential reporting because the larger media ideology seemingly does not care about people that do not fit their narrative of injustice.  

What does this obvious disconnection from upsetting facts present of the deeper goals of related corporate media? Do corporate leaders consider that increasing public disgust in a twenty-four-hour media cycle will eventually have results beyond just increasing their viewership? I have a feeling they might be able to understand the connections between endlessly demonizing individuals in the press and growing violence between them and other groups. This is a familiar pattern because most of the existing major news, entertainment companies, and politicians from both parties spent decades offering an image of black Americans that is far different from the current one. The role such companies and people undertook in popularizing stereotypes like crack babies, super-predators, and welfare queens and the consequences of these past reports now is apparently a touchy subject.xxii xxiii xxiv xxv xxvi Perhaps those individuals they offer as the average person in any group based upon biased and even false information depending on the media source and its agenda might be part of the problem then and now. This is compounded by rich celebrities and well-placed members of the public using corporations as some variant model of behavior to impart a dangerous iconoclasm toward anything that opposes the latest ideology. This false mask of morality does not benefit the average person; however, it does conceal the reprehensible actions of several corporations who value the appearance of morality above true ethical behavior. Yet eventually all masks slip to expose what lies beneath.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Charles Lewis, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity, Public Affairs, pp. 327-331
ii. Alana Semuels, November 21, 2019, Why Corporations Can No Longer Avoid Politics, Time Magazine, time.com
iii. Alyssa Rosenberg, May 30, 2019, The Myth of the woke corporation, Washington Post, washingtonpost.com
iv. Joel Kotkin, July 13, 2019, The dangerous rise of the woke corporation, Orange County Register, ocregister.com
v. Paul Tassi, July 4, 2020, Microsoft and Sony Are Suspending Facebook Advertising, But It’s Less Noble Than It Sounds, Forbes, forbes.com
vi. Fiona Smith, March 2, 2020, ‘Woke’ companies: Do they really mean what they say?, The Ethics Centre, ethics.org.au
vii. Sarah Rahal, May 3, 2018, Metro Detroit station bans Kanye songs after slavery comments, The Detroit News, detroitnews.com
viii. Berkeley Lovelace Jr., Noah Higgins-Dunn, Jasmine Kim, Will Feuer, June 2, 2020, Doctors have tips to reduce the risk of catching the coronavirus during George Floyd protests, CNBC, cnbc.com
ix. Bryan Walsh, June 10, 2020, Scientists caught between pandemic and protests, Axios, axios.com
x. Michael Powell, July 6, 2020, Are Protests Dangerous? What Experts Say May Depend on Who’s Protesting What, The New York Times, nytimes.com
xi. Michelle R. Martinelli, June 23, 2020, FBI announces noose found in Bubba Wallace’s garage had been there since 2019; no federal crime committed, USA Today, usatoday.com
xii. Bruce Haring, June 12, 2020, Jussie Smollett Judge Says No to Double Jeopardy Claims in New Criminal Charges, Deadline, deadline.com
xiii. Emma Nolan, July 7, 2020, Terry Crews and Don Lemon Clash in Heated Black Lives Matter Debate, Newsweek, newsweek.com
xiv. Kristen De Groot and Claudia Lauer, April 27, 2018, Cosby confined to his home as team decries ‘public lynching’, Associated Press, apnews.com
xv. Greg Norman, May 16, 2018, NJ school board member accused of trying to ‘manipulate’ cop, calls police chief ‘skinhead’, Fox News, foxnews.com
xvi. Dana Branham, January 24, 2019, 5 things to know about Sidney Gilstrap-Portley, the Dallas man who posed as a teen at Hillcrest High, Dallas Morning News, dallasnews.com
xvii. Walter Williams, Saturday April 11, 2020, Manipulation through racial hoaxes, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, triblive.com  
xviii. Katheryn Russell-Brown, February 25, 2019, As Racial Hoaxes Go, Jussie Smollett’s Case is a Strange One, The Atlantic, theatlantic.com
xix. Cerase, A., & Santoro, C. (2018). From racial hoaxes to media hypes: Fake news’ real consequences. In Vasterman P. (Ed.), From Media Hype to Twitter Storm (pp. 333-354). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
xx. Jan Ransom, July 6, 2020, Amy Cooper Faces Charges After Calling Police on Black Bird Watcher, The New York Times, nytimes.com
xxi. Deadly unrest: Here are the people who have died amid George Floyd protests across the US, June 8, 2020, Fox 6 News, fox6now.com
xxii. ‘Killed a baby:’ 8-year old girl killed in Atlanta shooting, July 5, 2020, Associated Press, apnews.com 
xxiii. Crack Babies: Twenty Years Later, Tell Me More, May 3, 2010, National Public Radio, npr.org
xxiv. Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, (2008). The Perceived Realism of African American Portrayals on Television, The Howard Journal of Communications, library.uorgegon.edu  
xxv. Perry L. Moriearty and William Carson, (2012). Cognitive Warfare and Young Black Males in America, University of Minnesota Law School, scholarship.law.umn.edu 
xxvi. Michael Messing, October 1, 1989, Crack’s Destructive Sprint Across America, The New York Times Magazine, nytimes.com
xxvii. Jeremy Lybarger, July 2, 2019, The Price You Pay: On the life and times of the woman known as the welfare queen, The Nation, thenation.com

Related Podcast
The Corporate Morality Mask Ripped Off