expanding the philosophical base

Expanding the Philosophical Basefor Ethical Public Relations Practice:Cross-Cultural Case Application ofNon-Western Ethical PhilosophiesKoji Fuse, Mitchell Land, & Jacqueline J. Lambiase

Western philosophical approaches, such as utilitarianism, have informed journalism

and public relations practices in the West with little regard for non-Western frameworks.

To rectify the ethnocentrism of ethical reasoning prevalent in Western public relations

practices, we discuss two non-Western philosophical foundations: the palaver-tree concept

from Africa and Confucianism from Asia. By focusing on the philosophical base as the first

step of the ethical decision-making process, the final part of this paper applies these two

non-Western approaches to a U.S. crisis-management case, comparing and contrasting

their values with utilitarianism, as well as demonstrating their utility in the West.

Keywords: Confucianism; Palaver Tree; Public Relations; San Francisco Zoo;

Utilitarianism

Western ethical practices for centuries have been rooted in Greco-Roman rational-

ism, Judeo-Christian religions, or Enlightenment-based frameworks, using moral

standards such as Aristotle’s golden mean, the agape concept, Kant’s categorical

imperative, Mill’s principle of utility, and even the ‘‘anything goes’’ doctrine of

ethical subjectivism and relativism. Some journalism and mass communication

Koji Fuse (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 2000) is an Assistant Professor in the Frank W. and Sue

Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas, where Mitchell Land (Ph.D., University of

Texas at Austin, 1990) is an Associate Professor and the Dean. Jacqueline J. Lambiase (Ph.D., University of Texas

at Arlington, 1997) is an Associate Professor in the Schieffer School of Journalism at Texas Christian University.

The previous version of this article was presented at the AEJMC Midwinter Conference in March 2009 in

Norman, OK. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and editor Brain L. Ott for their

helpful comments and patience. Correspondence to: Koji Fuse, University of North Texas, Frank W. and Sue

Mayborn School of Journalism, 1155 Union Circle, #311460, Denton, TX 76203, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Western Journal of Communication

Vol. 74, No. 4, July–September 2010, pp. 436–455

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2010 Western States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2010.492823

scholars contend that among those frameworks, utilitarianism has emerged as the

dominant philosophical foundation for ethical reasoning in Western media practices

(e.g., Christians, Ferre, & Fackler, 1993, p. 76; Lambeth, 1992, p. 8; Ward, 2007,

p. 151). Enlightenment libertarianism, which is the underpinning of the utilitarian

philosophy, guarantees the individual always takes precedence over community

and society (Christians et al., 1993, pp. 24–25; Merrill, 1997, p. 3), insisting more

on the individual’s right to freedom of expression than on his or her responsibility

to respect the rights of others as message receivers.

This philosophical focus on individuals and their respective rights is so deeply

ingrained in U.S. journalism culture that despite calls for more global perspectives,

mainstream practices of ethical reasoning have been West-centric. One barometer of

such Western philosophical dominance is ethics education in journalism and public

relations. Since public relations education is often rooted in journalism programs

and since many experienced public relations practitioners, including such early pio-

neers as Ivy Ledbetter Lee and John W. Hill, first worked in news media (Cutlip,

1994), journalism and media ethics textbooks often include similar West-centric

approaches to dilemmas of both reporting and public relations practices (e.g., Bivins,

2004; Bugeja, 2008; Christians, Fackler, McKee, Kreshel, & Woods, 2009).

Admittedly, some leading U.S. textbooks on journalism and mass communication

ethics do discuss Islam and Buddhism in independent entries (e.g., Christians et al.,

2009, pp. 16–18; Leslie, 2004, pp. 121–124). However, many either make passing

remarks on other non-Western philosophies in an Orientalist, or ontologically

and epistemologically distinct but ideologically conquerable, manner (see Said,

1994, pp. 2–3) as if they do not merit serious consideration (e.g., Bugeja, 2008,

pp. 26–29, 99; Leslie, 2004, p. 66) or display an utter disregard for them as if they

do not exist (e.g., Day, 2006; Patterson & Wilkins, 2008; Plaisance, 2009; Smith,

2008). Even when Confucianism occupies some space for exposition, it simply

amounts to an addendum to Aristotle’s virtue ethics (e.g., Christians et al., 2009,

pp. 14–15; Merrill, 1999, pp. 11–12). A notable exception is John C. Merrill’s

(1997) Journalism Ethics: Philosophical Foundations for News Media, which offers a

contextualized explanation of non-Western philosophical frameworks. As discussed

above, however, journalism ethics textbooks in general deal perfunctorily with

non-Western philosophies or ignore them altogether, perhaps because of their

perceived exotic nature. In this way, Western philosophies maintain their primacy

in discussions of professional journalism and public relations practices.

Yet, many Western ethical approaches fall short when applied to the reality of our

complex and multicultural world. Their focus on freedom, on the individual, and

on definitions of ‘‘individual’’ may shortchange considerations of community and

responsibility. For instance, after numerous Muslim protests worldwide, the free-

speech defense of Danish newspaper cartoons, which presented Prophet Muhammad

in offensive depictions, is a hackneyed apologia frequently expressed by journalists

and public relations practitioners working for these Western media organizations

(see Christians et al., 2009, pp. 69–72; Rose, 2006). Moreover, the lexical defense

of using the word ‘‘refugees’’ after the Hurricane Katrina disaster, coinciding

Western Journal of Communication 437

with the words ‘‘poor’’ and ‘‘Black,’’ indicate a lack of compassion and a trace of

racism on the part of reporters and on public information officers working for local,

state, and federal agencies (Hull, 2005, p. 23; Nunberg, 2005; Sommers, Apfelbaum,

Dukes, Toosi, & Wang, 2006, pp. 40–44). Then, what alternative philosophical foun-

dations are available for use by public relations practitioners and other journalists?

Are they useful for ethics analyses and ethical practices in the Western world?

How might these alternative philosophical perspectives be applied concerning the

public statements and community relations of a domestic organization?

To answer these questions, we briefly review two non-Western philosophical

foundations: the ‘‘palaver tree’’ concept (Land, 1992; Murray, 2000) and Confucianism

(Confucius, 1979; Mencius, 2003; Xun Zi, 2003). In sub-Saharan Africa, the palaver tree

stands for more than group discussions and problem solving; it represents the culturalist

idea of communication within the context of community. In the other non-Western

philosophical foundation, Confucianism focuses on practicing rituals as a way to support

a just, orderly society. While indigenous to two separate cultures, these standpoints meet

in their privileging of community and society, rather than of individuals and rights.

In order to focus on the palaver tree and Confucianism as philosophical bases for

application in the Western world, this project will use the Point-of-Decision Pyramid

Model (Land, 2006, pp. 31–35). Using this Western model as a framework—since it

is the only model that starts with the philosophical base—provides a way to connect

and to analyze both Western and non-Western approaches. Within the model, these

two non-Western philosophical foundations, along with utilitarianism as an example

of a dominant Westernized ethical stand point, will be part of a comparative analysis

of a U.S. crisis-management case involving a West Coast zoo. Through case

application, we attempt to elucidate multiple paths to ethical decision-making. These

alternative pathways will shed light on ethnocentric processes embedded in ethical

decision-making, moving from theory to praxis to demonstrate that non-Western

philosophical foundations may serve effectively to inform public relations,

community relations, and other media communication in the West.

Non-Western Philosophical Foundations for Media Ethics

Contrasting utilitarianism and communitarianism in binary opposition prevails in

media ethics literature (e.g., Christians et al., 1993; Land, 2006; Merrill, 1997), but

expanding the philosophical base requires reassessment of this common bifurcating

classification scheme, because it forecloses the possibility of theoretical expansion. In

addition, using communitarianism as an overarching megatheory not only focuses on

the community but also maintains individual autonomy (e.g., Christians et al., 1993,

p. xi; Land, 2006, p. 24); this process unfortunately consolidates distinct philosophies

and arbitrarily disregards their unique traits.

For example, even Western-focused scholars do not necessarily agree on

which theorists are libertarian or communitarian. Should John Rawls’s (1999) veil

of ignorance be considered as communitarian because it attempts to ‘‘bring

happiness or other benefits—material, spiritual, emotional, or psychological—to

438 K. Fuse et al.

those around us’’ (Merrill, 1997, p. 35) or libertarian because his notion of distribu-

tive justice still reflects abstract individualism, dismisses their social-group member-

ships as politically irrelevant, and subjugates love and benevolence as ‘‘second-order

notions’’ (Graham, 2000, p. 209; Kidder, 1995, p. 141)? Or, did Aristotle place

priority on the community over the individual (Barney, 1997, p. 74) or have ‘‘great

respect for the individual’’ in stark contrast with Plato (Merrill, 1997, p. 33)? Thus,

instead of subsuming many philosophies under one conceptually equivocal rubric

of communitarianism, this section discusses the palaver tree and Confucianism as

discrete non-Western philosophical frameworks.

The Palaver Tree

In sub-Saharan Africa, various forms of the archetypal indigenous democratic insti-

tution called palaver or palaver tree have existed, although modern political systems

adopted from the West have increasingly marginalized them. UNESCO journalist

Jasmina Sopova (1999) describes the palaver as a traditional key sociopolitical

institution of free, democratic debate, which brings the elders together to reach a

resolution through consensus. According to her,

The palaver is an assembly where a variety of issues are freely debated and impor-tant decisions concerning the community are taken. Its purpose is to resolve latentand overt conflicts in certain highly specific situations. The participants usuallygather under a ‘‘palaver tree’’ where everyone has the right to speak and air theirgrievances or those of their group. A complainant may opt to be represented bya griot (a poet, storyteller and traditional singer), or some other spokesman.(Sopova, p. 42)

Yet, the palaver is characterized by not only the ‘‘right to speak’’ in discussion but

also the ritualistic function of communication for community formation and main-

tenance. In fact, the unique procedures of ‘‘free debate’’ in the palaver signify an ideal

harmonious community, which differs from the marketplace of competing ideas to

supposedly engender the ultimate, best truth. Cameroonian historian Thierno Mouc-

tar Bah (1994) considers the palaver as an indigenous peacemaking technique

because its participants use sayings and aphorisms full of historical wisdom intended

‘‘to restore unity and harmony in order to effect a reconciliation of hearts and

minds’’ (p. 14).

Based on his personal experience of living in Africa and watching his native friends

resolve controversies through lengthy discussions, Land (1992) offers the following

explanation of the phenomenon:

For centuries, sub-Saharan Africans engaged in collective communication inthe cool shade of the sacred baobab or mango trees in their villages. Beneath thepalaver tree misunderstandings were resolved and critical community issues werediscussed under the leadership of the village elders. Villagers explained their pointsof view and together, through group consensus, reached a final decision. But thepalaver tree stood for more than group discussions and problem solving; it beck-oned the villagers by means of the sacred talking drums to join in harvestcelebrations and other festivals and rites of passage. (p. 10)


Indeed, ‘‘Long before Europeans set foot on African soil, inhabitants of Cote

d’Ivoire understood the meaning of communication—of myths, rituals, drama,

and interpersonal and group interaction—because they lived communication within

the context of community’’ (Land, 1992, p. 10). Although the palaver tree has yet to

materialize women’s wider participation, it does provide a discursive framework for

working out diverse social needs, such as sorting out marriage alliances, solving

crimes, deliberating over a sale, or settling community disputes, as well as a model

democratic institution during the period of transition to a modern political system

(Sopova, 1999).

For instance, the palaver-tree concept was ubiquitous in the multinational and

multilevel negotiation process of ending the early 1990s Malian civil conflict, con-

cluding its ensuing 16-nation Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and

Manufacture of Light Weapons in West Africa. Murray (2000) argues that the palaver

tree possesses the following three uniquely African characteristics:

1. Time as ‘‘a servant to the process.’’ No sense of urgency should dictate the palaver

tree. Meetings can go over their scheduled time, requiring a readjustment of the

whole schedule, and each participant must possess an extraordinary amount of

patience to listen to speakers. Growth, rather than completion, is the key word

to symbolize the palaver tree: ‘‘The need to ‘finish it on time’ will be subordinated

to the need to let it continue to grow and develop’’ (p. 275).

2. All-inclusive participation. Despite some hierarchy among the participants, parti-

cularly deference to the elders, ‘‘There is plenty of room available for everyone

who wants to be heard’’ (p. 275). Wide openness and full participation—for

example, inviting neighboring nations to join in discussions to solve Mali’s

domestic problems—indicate an active contextualization of a problem.

3. Systemic treatment of problems. Decomposing an issue into its smallest elements

and treating them as independent problems are antithetical to the palaver tree’s

ideal. An issue must be seen holistically from diverse vantage points: The ‘‘West

African mind tends to see problems as systemic and tries to hold issues related to

problems together in creative tension.’’ (p. 276)

In Ethiopia, one form of the palaver is the debo—a mutually beneficial aid system

in which the men of the community get together to help a neighbor carry out a major

task (Sopova, 1999). The concept of ‘‘mutuality’’ is a hallmark of the palaver-tree

model. Paris-based Malagasy journalist Soahangy Mamisoa Rangers (1999) discusses

another form of the palaver, which the indigenous people in Madagascar call

the fokonolona. It is ‘‘a kind of community assembly and a political institution

dating from pre-colonial times’’ (Rangers, 1999, p. 35). The fokonolona addresses

community needs such as schools and hospitals, decides collective projects for com-

munity improvement, and solves problems ingeniously and diligently without relying

on outside help.

Although starting with recognition of individual differences, dialogic ethics in the

West resonates with the palaver tree’s emphasis on community creation. For

example, Buber (1970) names two ways of connecting to the world as ‘‘I-It’’ and

440 K. Fuse et al.

‘‘I-You.’’ In the former, the subject ‘‘I,’’ as a detached observer, simply experiences

and uses the object ‘‘It,’’ and in the latter, the subject ‘‘I,’’ as an active participant,

encounters another subject ‘‘You’’ with both transformed by their relations. How-

ever, modern life, which is entirely structured based on the ‘‘I-It’’ mode, engenders

alienation. The solution is to experience a divine transformation—feeling affection

for everyone and everything—which enables us to view every other existence as

‘‘You,’’ complete our lives, and help others achieve the same fulfillment, which in

turn leads to building a genuine community.

However, even African politicians, particularly young African elites groomed in

‘‘White’’ Western ways, tend to dismiss the palaver as ‘‘old-fashioned’’ and promote

the Western models, including the legal and, by extension, the ethical codes that may

be unsuited to African conditions. Even today, rural Africans have a hard time

accepting the premise that models from outside ‘‘can override sacred customs inher-

ited from their ancestors’’ (Sopova, 1999, p. 42). In fact, the term palaver denotes ‘‘a

conference or discussion, as [originally] between African natives and European

explorers or traders,’’ but its secondary meanings involve pejorative connotations

harbored by Europeans: talk, especially idle chatter, flattery, or cajolery (Agnes,

2008).

Confucianism

Chosen as the official state philosophy in 140 B.C. during the former Han Dynasty

(206 B.C.–A.D. 24) and later incorporated into the civil service examination curricu-

lum until the 1905 abolition of the examination system, Confucianism had and still

has been by far the most influential ancient Chinese school of thought (Hu, 2007).

Confucius or Kong Fu Zi (551 B.C.–479 B.C.) founded the school and took in many

disciples.

The ultimate goal of Confucian philosophy was to unify the war-ravaged ancient

China under one virtuous sage-ruler by restoring authentic rituals prevalent in the

early Zhou Dynasty (1122 B.C.–256 B.C.), making everyone internalize those rituals

best for reciprocal interpersonal relationships, and thus creating a harmonious

society.

However, because Confucius was born into a poor aristocratic family, he had no

direct knowledge about proper rituals in royal court; his teachings simply mixed

common knowledge among the intelligentsia with his creative imagination. Not only

did he fail in his delusional dream of ruling a unified China, but also he was never

employed by any feudal lords, which led to the frustration he expressed in The

Analects (Asano, 2004, pp. 110–124). Nonetheless, Confucianism has left indelible

marks on the psyche and lifestyles of East Asians.

First, Confucius strongly believed in the power of li, , which is translated into

rituals, proprieties, morals, and social norms to reestablish an orderly society.

Examples of li included ceremonial rituals, rules of etiquette, and even fashions.

Confucius expected that practicing li would restore order and peace in society

because those rituals and rules were designed for each appropriate relationship


and class. In other words, li would put people into hierarchical categories or a place

in society (Yu, 1998, pp. 326–331). Then, how should a ruler govern common

people?

Leading them by example rather than by law is the cornerstone of the ‘‘rule of

virtue’’ to inculcate li in people, who would internalize it through habitual practices.

Confucius stated the following:

Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the commonpeople will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them byvirtue, keep them in line with the rites, and they will, besides having a sense ofshame, reform themselves. (Confucius, trans. 1979, book 2, para. 3)

Second, interpersonal relationships are the hallmark of Confucianism. The term

wulun, (five cardinal relationships), includes those of (a) ruler and minister,

(b) father and son, (c) husband and wife, (d) elder and younger brothers, and (e)

friend and friend. Each relationship is reciprocal. For example, the junior must show

xiao, (filial piety), such as respect and obedience, and the senior must exhibit ren,

(benevolence) (Fang, 1999, p. 116). Confucius had his own golden rule of recip-

rocity: ‘‘Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire’’ (Confucius, trans.

1979, book 15, para. 24).

Another key factor in Confucian interpersonal relationships is the concept of

mianzi, (face). Closely related to prestige and reputation, mianzi transpires

in the Confucian ideas of shame and harmony (Fang, 1999, p. 145). In fact, Mencius

or Meng Zi (371 B.C.–289 B.C.) declares that ‘‘whoever is devoid of the heart

of shame is not human’’ (trans. 2003, book 2, part A, section 6). Again, reciprocity

regulates the mianzi exchange to sustain a harmonious society: ‘‘The Chinese face

may not only be saved or lost but also be ‘traded’—to give and be given’’ (Fang,

1999, p. 146). It is therefore based on ‘‘the respect expected from the other party’’

(Wang, Wang, Ruona, & Rojewski, 2005, p. 318).

Finally, believing that human nature is innately good, Mencius echoed Confucius:

‘‘A benevolent man extends his love from those he loves to those he does not love’’

(Mencius, trans. 2003, book 7, part B, section 1). Therefore, ren must be uncon-

ditional. A person who follows li and bestows ren on people is junzi, (an

exemplary person). He knows the ‘‘Decree of Heaven,’’ and his rule would restore

order and peace.

Although Confucianism’s emphasis on strict obedience to seniors entailed its

philosophical rigidity, it never nullified the public’s right to overthrow or kill a des-

potic ruler who disregarded people’s needs and ruled harshly. For example, Mencius

contended that a ruler must possess the public’s approval for his rule. Confucianism

generally legitimated the ‘‘divine’’ right of the kings, but tyrannicide would not

be murder (Mencius, trans. 2003, book 1, part B, section 8). Similarly, Xun Zi

(ca. 312 B.C.–?) believed that the legitimacy of the ruler would rest on popular sup-

port (Xun Zi, trans. 2003, section 9, p. 39). No Confucian scholars came close to the

Western ‘‘contractarian theory’’ of justice and the state, but their arguments predated

Thomas Hobbes’s theories by 2,000 years. Similar to the work of Xun Zi, Hobbes’s

442 K. Fuse et al.

Leviathan allows subjects to change their allegiance in case their Leviathan, a powerful

person or party, fails to provide security (Moore & Bruder, 2008, pp. 335–339).

Confucian ethics revolves around li, with expectations that reciprocal interperso-

nal relationships sustained by li will contribute to establishing a harmonious society.

Like the palaver tree concept, Confucianism has been contested within Chinese polit-

ical culture and society in the last century, once falling out of favor during the Cul-

tural Revolution (Gregor & Chang, 1979); however, many Chinese still identify with

and practice a collectivist philosophy. A recent study of attitudes among more than

200 Chinese and American journalism students found that ‘‘U.S. students displayed a

strong sense of individualism, while the Chinese had the tendency of collectivism’’

(Zhong, 2008, p. 118).

Models for Ethical Decision-Making

The journalism and public relations literature on ethical practice has provided some

concrete models, most of which are unsatisfactory for case analyses. Some models

show a simple checklist of a dozen or so nonhierarchical criteria or questions (e.g.,

Black, Steele, & Barney, 1997; Brislin, 1992). Although seemingly convenient, they fail

to elucidate which criteria to consider first or weigh more heavily than others, thus

diminishing their pragmatic utility.

Other models specify a clear sequence of stages or steps. For instance, Ralph B.

Potter (1969, 1972) devised one of the most frequently discussed and applied heuris-

tic models for ethical decision-making across many disciplines, later called the Potter

Box, based on four elements: the empirical facts or definition of the situation,

theological or quasi-theological perspectives, decisions or affirmation of fundamental

loyalties, and modes of ethical reasoning (Potter, 1969, pp. 23–24; Potter, 1972,

pp. 108–109). Christians et al. (2009) have arranged those four elements in sequential

order—definition, values, principles, and loyalties—as a dynamic, multidirectional,

circular model (pp. 3–8). However, Baker (1997) points out that the process of iden-

tifying governing values in a given case is unclear, diminishing the model’s real-world

applicability (p. 201). Furthermore, while claiming that the four elements indepen-

dently change and thus make it impossible to predict ‘‘the final policy outcome or

the content of any one element from knowledge of any combination of other fac-

tors,’’ he contradicts himself by arguing shortly afterward that they are ‘‘systemati-

cally interrelated’’ (Potter, 1969, pp. 24, 27–28). Kidder (1995) also criticizes it as

leaning ‘‘heavily toward utilitarianism, emphasizing loyalties rather than principles

as the final arbiter in the decision-making process’’ and also as leaving unclear

‘‘the relation of such overarching ethical principles as Kant’s categorical imperative

or the Golden rule to this process’’ (p. 147).

Modifying the Potter Box, Mitchell Land (2006) has proposed the Point-of-

Decision Pyramid Model, which makes an assumption different from other stepwise

models. Although the Potter Box follows a sequence of quadrants and uses a

multidirectional, circular system (Christians et al., 2009, pp. 3–8), Land (2006)

regards as a weakness its lack of inherent or implied philosophical foundation


(p. 31). Other scholars are also critical of case-study journalism and public relations

ethics texts that superficially treat the philosophical foundations, which they argue

should inform ethical reasoning and behavior (e.g., Merrill, 1997, p. xiii; Plaisance,

2009, p. ix). Figure 1 is a simplified graphic representation of Land’s (2006) model

(pp. 33–34).

The Point-of-Decision Pyramid Model posits a philosophical worldview from the

start, offering utilitarianism and communitarianism as two alternative frameworks.

Communitarianism stands as a prominent ontological and epistemological challenge

to Enlightenment-bound, individualist theories, especially utilitarianism, so domi-

nant in Western journalism practices (Land, 2006, pp. 23, 32; see also Christians

et al., 1993). Predicating ethical reasoning on a firm philosophical foundation, the

model attempts to avoid reactionary responses to ethical dilemmas. Then, the model

suggests thinking interactively through three triangular panels—facts, principles=values, and stakeholders=loyalties—leading to the point of addressing the moral

dilemma and making a decision. Applied differently from those in the Potter

Box model, principles in this model mean truth, justice, freedom, humaneness,

and stewardship (Land, 2006, p. 25; see also Lambeth, 1992, pp. 35–47). Therefore,

principles and values, which now become interchangeable, are collapsed into the

same panel (Land, 2006, p. 35).

Figure 1 Mitchell Land’s Point-of-Decision Pyramid Model.

444 K. Fuse et al.

Most important to this current project is Land’s (2006) assertion that ‘‘the

decision maker first should consider the philosophical base as he or she moves from

an arrangement of the case facts through the prioritization of the principles and to

the list of stakeholders—primary, secondary and tertiary’’ (p. 34). The interactive,

dynamic deliberation of the three interlinked panels will help two sets of prioritiza-

tion of principles and stakeholders correspond to each other in light of case facts,

thus leading to a sound ethical decision. This project applies the Point-of-Decision

Pyramid Model in a specific case.

A Case Comparison of Western and Non-Western Philosophical Foundations

In this section, we apply utilitarianism, the palaver tree concept, and Confucianism to

the public relations efforts of a West Coast zoo. This U.S. crisis-management case

demonstrates the utility of non-Western philosophical foundations in the Western

world. Although determining a philosophical base is the initial step in this model

and a focus of the current project, we will first discuss case facts to avoid unnecessary

repetition for comparative purposes.

Case Background

The San Francisco Zoo, an 80-year-old institution perched on a breathtaking Pacific

Ocean overlook, serves the Bay Area through a public–private partnership of the city

and the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society (Peterson, 2009). A mild climate,

along with the allure of lush gardens, ensures a steady stream of visitors year round.

Recently, however, the zoo has struggled to maintain attendance and financial

stability after a zoo tiger killed a teenage visitor (Lagos, 2008a).

Around 5 p.m., Christmas Day of 2007, a Siberian tiger escaped from its enclos-

ure, killing a 17-year-old boy and mauling two young men with him. Within

30 minutes of the tiger’s deadly attack, police arrived at the zoo, found the victim,

located the tiger, and then shot the tiger, killing it (Fagan, Vega, & Rubenstein,

2007). Press accounts show zoo employees acted both sluggishly and heroically,

trying to overcome these deficits: near darkness; insufficient training for seasonal

workers; no public address system; missing keys for a weapons case; and lack of

top leadership due to the late hour of a major holiday (Cooper, 2008). For

instance, zoo employees had hesitated to call for emergency help, thinking the

two victims were fighting. Employees also initially blocked emergency personnel

from entering the zoo.

In the days following the killing, police and other authorities revealed damning

evidence against the zoo. The wall of the tiger’s enclosure—actually 12.5 feet—was

much shorter than claimed by the zoo, which offered five different measurements

of the wall to the public. To add more confusion to these public statements, the

zoo was inspected and accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which

recommends wall height to be at least 16.4 feet for such enclosures (Fagan et al.,

2007).


In addition to multiple incorrect public statements about the wall height, the

zoo’s first media relations efforts did not address the families of the victims nor

its commitment to safety for zoo visitors, except for closing the zoo during the inves-

tigation. Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo also began a campaign against the victims

themselves, even though police ‘‘consistently downplayed the idea that the victims

may have taunted the tiger’’ (Fagan et al., 2007). The zoo intensified this tone after

hiring a public relations firm to handle media statements.

Mollinedo made the first public comments from the zoo about the tiger escape

and death but failed to address the families of the victims: ‘‘My staff is taking it very

hard. I think we worked very hard to get the zoo’s reputation up to a higher level, and

a situation like this really can be quite devastating’’ (Wang, 2007). When the zoo

reopened 9 days after the attack, Mollinedo said, ‘‘All I know is that something hap-

pened to provoke that tiger to leap out of her exhibit,’’ suggesting blame lies with

victims (Burack, 2008). Just after the zoo’s reopening, public relations consultant

Sam Singer, hired by the zoological society after the attacks, is said to be the source

of information for national press accounts about the two young men injured in the

attacks possessing slingshots and using drugs and alcohol prior to their visit to the

zoo (Selna, 2008).

In mid-2008, the zoo director was dismissed by the board, with zoological society

board member and attorney Tanya M. Peterson taking over as interim director and

president. While costly improvements were made to ensure zoo safety, lawsuits were

filed against the city of San Francisco and the San Francisco Zoological Society

(Lagos, 2008b). In a message to society members in early 2009, she writes that,

‘‘We continue to learn from our past and apply it to our future through the formal

review and revision of our Master Plan’’ (Peterson, 2009, p. 3).

Finally, the historical context surrounding the deadly attack epitomizes the zoo’s

operations because it was not the first such incident: The same tiger mauled a

zookeeper on December 22, 2006. However, the zoo reopened the Lion House in

September 2007 for public feedings of lions and tigers as one of its biggest longtime

attractions (Yollin, 2007).

The ethical dilemma in this case seems to be silence of zoo’s officials about the

victims, as well as truth-telling between the zoo and the community it serves. In other

words, the principles of stewardship clashed with the principles of humaneness and

truth, leading to a breach of ethics in the zoo’s overall public relations management,

including both media relations and communication relations.

Utilitarianism Applied

The case facts indicate that zoo officials went into a ‘‘circle the wagons’’ mode to pro-

tect the zoo and its individual leadership from potential litigation. Thus, the zoo fol-

lowed a rather crude utilitarian model, applying the principle of stewardship in a

negative sense. This critique is reinforced by the reluctance of zoo employees to take

immediate action and the former director’s lack of sensitivity to the victims’ families

and officials’ subsequent attempts to cast blame on the victims. This reaction is often

446 K. Fuse et al.

typical, especially with organizations that value legal advice over sound public rela-

tions advice and reputation management. A robust crisis plan with full disclosure

and reputation management could have improved the zoo’s actions after the attack.

Principles and values

Zoo officials seem to have valued the principles of stewardship and liberty—freedom

to continue operating the zoo—above those of humaneness, truth, and justice.

Keeping the zoo open and protecting the zoo’s financial resources from potential

litigation trumped concern for victims and their families. The principle of truth took

secondary priority. Reporting erroneous measurements of the height of the enclosure

walls may indicate a desire to avoid making costly improvements. The aftermath of

the killing in 2007 and an earlier mauling of a zookeeper by the same tiger in 2006

focused scrutiny on other weaknesses in the zoo’s operations, management, crisis

planning, and internal and external communications.

Stakeholders and loyalties

Many of the zoo’s stakeholders, including administration, staff, and patrons, were as

unprotected as zoo visitors because of unfocused management, the resolve to remain

operating no matter the conditions, and the lack of crisis planning. Attention to the

interests of any of these stakeholders should have ensured a safe environment at the

zoo for people and animals, not to mention a more sound future for this institution.

As the tragedy unfolded, the principle of humaneness and justice should have risen to

the fore, demonstrated by the zoo officials’ expressing sorrow and concern for the

victims and their families. Rather than circle the wagons around the zoo’s insiders,

that wagon train should have encircled the victims who became insiders because they

were the zoo’s customers at the time of the tragedy.

Over time, the zoo did take appropriate action. In 2008, the zoo improved

enclosures making them more secure for its animals, created new signage within

the zoo, and added a public address system; Peterson spent time fostering dialogue

with community members and zoo employees by having an open-door policy (Lagos,

2008b). San Francisco Zoological Society board chairman Nick Podell, quoted by

the San Francisco Chronicle, was optimistic about improvements after ‘‘a horrific

communication and morale crisis’’ caused by ‘‘a tragic, tragic event’’ (Lagos,

2008b). In February 2009, the zoo settled the case with the family of the teenager

who was killed; defamation and injury cases concerning the other two victims are still

in litigation.

Decision

Despite some later improvements on its actions and communications, the zoo

basically followed utilitarianism to protect its interests, to limit its legal liability,

and to return quickly to operations, despite the reality of at least one unsafe enclosure

after misstating the height of enclosures many times. Setting itself apart from its own


visitors, the zoo director and subsequent spokesman placed blame on a few victims,

one a dead teenager.

The Palaver Tree Applied

This model as a philosophical base would inform the research and objective-setting

stages of building a crisis communication plan and managing the reputation of a

large institution with many stakeholders. This perspective encourages consensus

building, mutuality, and dialogue unbound by a rigid application of Western con-

cepts of time, and released from other dialogic forms of Western discourse, which

often leads to debate-styled winners and losers, or a Platonic dialectic of a more

powerful speaker sitting in judgment and=or asking questions of less powerful

participants.

Thus, the palaver-tree framework could mean inviting members of the community

to join more directly in the San Francisco Zoo’s operations and decision-making.

Included in this partnership are city leaders, both public and private, and in its most

ideal form, the San Francisco Zoological Society could embrace the largest meaning

of that term ‘‘society.’’ In addition, the palaver-tree framework would engage com-

munity leaders on the board in order to ensure they are included for their ideas

and not just for their dollars, and that board members get involved in crafting a

proactive crisis communication plan. In the event of a crisis, the zoo’s director should

bring in community leaders to help implement and talk through the crisis plan.

A thorough proactive investment in the zoo’s safety features, communications flows,

and personnel morale might have avoided the tragedy in the first place; by systemi-

cally viewing these parts of the zoo’s environment as a whole rather than handling

them discretely, the zoo may have been able to maintain its overall image in better

fashion after the crisis.


The palaver-tree framework seeks to restore unity and harmony in an effort to

effect reconciliation. It would follow, then, that the zoo’s director would take

actions and make public statements on the basis of these values. At the outset,

the director should express profound grief to the victims and their families. To

reinforce the concept of community, the director should assemble as many board

members as possible from the San Francisco Zoological Society to express unity

and solidarity during this difficult time. The principle of debo would also be impor-

tant to implement. If a climate of mutuality seems to have been established with the

community, the victims, and their families, then zoo administrators, personnel, and

board members should be represented at the hospital or funeral of the victims.

Their presence would communicate the principle of debo and create the context

for interaction and community building. Certainly, the principle of debo

would not have resulted in the zoo’s decision to unleash a public relations firm

to continue blaming victims.

448 K. Fuse et al.


The village, or community as a whole, would be considered the primary stake-

holder to whom loyalty is due. Certainly, before joining the circle around the

imaginary baobab tree, hierarchies do exist. Everyone knows who the chief is,

who the workers are, and who are the privileged families or not-so-privileged

domestics and foreigners in the village. But once a matter merits convocation of

the palaver, even in a figurative sense, all other stakeholders—the San Francisco

Zoo, the zoo director, the victims and their families, and the public at large—

become coequal participants, and the palaver consensus-building healing process

begins. All stakeholders would be viewed as coequal members of the community,

thus deserving of respectful consideration of opinions through the process. Listen-

ing, too, is part of this respectful process.

Particularly germane to this case, the palaver-tree perspective avoids assigning

blame as a preliminary response to the crisis. Rather than seek to cast doubt on

the victims’ possible role in provoking the tiger, zoo administrators would prefer

to wait patiently on the results of an investigation, which should be conducted by

the community of zoo personnel and advisory board members as well as the police.

If public opinion tends to be extremely sensitive or negative, then a police investi-

gation should be followed with an investigation by an outside entity such as the

zoological accrediting body.

Zoo administrators would also take the initiative to engage with the victims and

their families and friends through an intermediary if necessary. Mutually respectful

and concerned dialogue would be pursued immediately so that families and friends

of the victims feel that their grief is understood and taken seriously by the San

Francisco Zoo. Therefore, stakeholder priority would begin with the victims and

their families, followed by the community at large and ending with the zoo’s animals

and personnel. Still, all those gathered figuratively around the baobab tree would

be coequal members during the aftermath of the tragedy, and thus prioritizing

stakeholders may be moot.

Decision

The palaver tree approach, if used during times of normal operations without the

presence of crisis, would have nurtured consensus building in the zoo’s daily opera-

tions and crisis planning. Once this approach was adopted, its benefits would extend

to times of crisis, so that all stakeholders would be considered when public statements

were made and investigations begun.

Confucianism Applied

Principles of li (ritual), wulun (relationships), and ren (benevolence) would all

improve media relations and other communication once a crisis occurred, providing

a framework for responses to victims, zoo visitors, surrounding community

members, journalists, and other stakeholders. These rituals of relationships, suffused


with benevolence, would guide the tone of statements and fact-finding, from initial

actions of zoo personnel through the resolution of responsibility.


Indeed, the principles of truth, stewardship, humaneness, justice, and freedom—

while important—would be balanced with the values or principles of li, wulun,

and ren if Confucianism had guided the zoo’s subsequent actions and statements.

The primary decision-maker in this case is the zoo’s director, who is the one with

the authority and opportunity to resolve the ethical dilemma. The director, acting

on the basis of Confucianism, would first want to lead by example, using

time-honored rituals and moral actions, rather than strictly by the perceived need

to protect the zoo and himself from legal action.

At the same time, management would make decisions to minimize actions that

unnecessarily create chaos or confusion in the community—those that lead to broken

relationships and thus threaten the ideal of harmony. The zoo’s director would view

his relationship with visitors as one of protector, so much that even if visitors had

taunted an animal, it shouldn’t be able to escape and harm visitors. Certainly, if

the zoo had measured its role as one of protector, it would not blame visitors when

that protection failed.


Applying the principles of li would assure that the San Francisco Zoo understands

and embraces its social responsibility of serving the general public, especially the

people of San Francisco, through a unique public–private partnership. However,

the perceived need to save money and the failure to be truthful in its reporting of

the enclosures’ height exemplify the zoo’s misapplied stewardship, which created the

conditions for undermining the principles of li.

Applying the principle of wulun, which calls for reciprocity in relationships to pre-

serve harmony and unity, would have led the director to publicly apologize to the

victims and their families and to express profound sorrow at their loss. Moreover,

the principle of ren, which is to project love and beneficence on others, would suggest

following the Western ritual of expressing concern, such as sending flowers, sym-

pathy cards, and possibly visiting the victims and their families at the hospital and

funeral home. Thus, stakeholder priority would begin with the victims and their fam-

ilies, followed by the general community, the zoo’s personnel, and the administrators.

Decision

Confucianism would have prompted the zoo director Mollinedo to acknowledge his

relationship as protector of zoo visitors, initiate and maintain open communications,

and restore harmony by showing genuine sorrow and concern for the victims and

their family and friends.

450 K. Fuse et al.

Conclusion

Contemporary public relations and journalism ethics education in the United States

reflects the strong influence of White Eurocentric philosophical precepts over other

perspectives. This influence, joined with a deep-seated Orientalism, limits serious

investigation and application of non-Western philosophical foundations (see Said,

1994). The present paper applied the philosophical foundations of the palaver tree

and Confucianism, perhaps for the first time, to a crisis-management case to demon-

strate their utility in the United States and potential effectiveness globally for public

relations management.

As our case analysis and comparative applications show, the San Francisco Zoo

followed a utilitarian path to protect its own interests in the face of a tiger’s deadly

attack. Although the zoo did improve its actions and communications over time, it

experienced many months of working to reconstruct its reputation after a devastating

utilitarian response to the crisis. Ironically, its hardball tactics to protect itself and to

disengage from the community did not spare the zoo from lawsuits and settlements,

which were the ostensible reasons for its individualist actions.

Using the precepts of the palaver tree would have engendered a more positive

forum for creating a crisis-management plan, for sharing the zoo’s operations with

the general public, and for discussion after a crisis occurred. These actions before

and during a crisis provide a new perspective for how crisis planning, media relations,

and other communication forums could be improved by following collectivist

approaches.

The ritual of the palaver tree’s wide-ranging, holistic discussions before and during

a crisis could have been made more effective if combined or considered along with

the tenets of Confucianism and its emphasis on relationships and its own rituals.

Confucianism would have dictated that the zoo’s director demonstrate his steward-

ship, acknowledge his role as protector, exhibit openness in his communications, and

maintain harmony by extending sincere apologies, instead of placing blame on the

victims.

Conversely, this incident at the zoo, along with the institution’s reinstatement of

public tiger feedings just a few months before the 2007 killing, offers evidence of

the ways that utilitarianism cannot serve the interests of visitor and employee

safety. When a zoo’s administration expends more energy continually to attract

larger numbers of visitors and to increase memberships, which indeed is in service

to the greatest number, then individual visitor and employee safety will suffer. In

other words, marketing should not trump safety. When a zoo’s mission is built

through palaver-tree consensus and Confucian relationships, then its long-term

viability through safety and compassion for visitors and animals will be better

served. In this sense, the best instincts of public relations with an emphasis on

relationship building should be seen as essential to counterbalance the aims of

successful, but detached, marketing.

The primacy of the philosophical base over other elements, such as actors,

facts, and loyalties, in the ethical decision-making process resonates with the


fact that as some scholars (e.g., Land, 2006, p. 34; Merrill, 1997, p. xiii)

argue, deep moral philosophy, whether we are conscious of it or not, informs

our ethical reasoning. Although fact-finding is the reasonable first step for class-

room case studies, we are always pressed to make split-second decisions in our

daily lives without the benefit of hindsight. And organizational life is compli-

cated and messy during crisis. In this sense, Land’s (2006) Point-of-Decision

Pyramid Model is a prototype to equip ourselves with various philosophical

foundations in order to squarely face real-world ethical dilemmas and reach

sound decisions. The ultimate goal of bringing diverse philosophical foundations

into the model’s philosophical base is to augment the number of ‘‘tools’’ in our

ethical toolbox and enhance our skills in creative moral imagination. The project

has just begun; a call for ‘‘a commitment to the common human good’’

(Christians, 1997, p. 21; see also Strentz, 2002) is too early to make. The current

research does, however, make a first step at clearing space for different philo-

sophical bases for ethical decision-making in media studies. These standpoints

for consideration of journalism ethics would serve a true global pluralism by

recognizing non-Western philosophical foundations as viable options to actively

resolve ethical dilemmas.

Clearing space for the perspectives of the palaver tree and Confucianism in

the Western world of public relations and journalism in general would be a difficult

task, but that task could be made easier by using a familiar framework, even though

it is adopted from the binary discussion of utilitarianism and communitarianism.

Certainly, use of this framework limits the current project through the borrowed

vocabulary employed and this model’s many Western assumptions. Yet the frame-

work may also be seen as providing a bridge for discussion about how to consider

and embrace more culturally different approaches. The contributions of these two

particular non-Western ethical philosophies for decision-making before, during,

and after an organization’s crisis communication planning are clear. Both assist with

important community relations at all phases of interaction, with the palaver-tree

model helping especially to bind communities and build conversation habits before

crisis and with the Confucianism model especially enabling rituals of harmony and

healing after a crisis.

Future research must continue to explore other regions of the world, such as Latin

America, Southeast Asia, the Asian subcontinent, Central Asia, the Middle East, and

Oceania, as well as U.S. domestic cocultures of, for example, Native Americans and

African Americans, not only to investigate their philosophies but also their models of

ethical decision-making. However, simply introducing those non-Western philo-

sophical foundations and decision-making models in classroom and academic jour-

nals is like shouting in the wilderness, thus perpetuating the one-way influence of

Eurocentrism on the rest of the world. Instead, textbook authors and researchers alike

must apply them to Western, particularly U.S., communication practices to eradicate

a hidden Orientalist frame of mind and promote cross-cultural philosophical

exchange for reaching sound ethical decisions that possess high acceptability in the

globalized world.

452 K. Fuse et al.

References

Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2008). Palaver. Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Indianapolis,

IN: Wiley.

Asano, Y. (2004). Shoshi hyakka [The hundred schools of thought]. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Bah, T. M. (1994, October). Traditional peacemakers. UNESCO Sources, 62, 14. Retrieved

December 24, 2008, from MAS Ultra—School Edition database.

Baker, S. (1997). Applying Kidder’s ethical decision-making checklist to media ethics. Journal of

Mass Media Ethics, 12, 197–210.

Barney, R. D. (1997). A dangerous drift? The sirens’ call to collectivism. In J. Black (Ed.),

Mixed news: The public=civic=communitarian journalism debate (pp. 72–90). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bivins, T. (2004). Mixed media: Moral distinctions in advertising, public relations, and journalism.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1997). Doing ethics in journalism: A handbook with case studies

(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brislin, T. (1992). ‘‘Just Journalism:’’ A moral debate framework. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,

7, 209–219.

Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Bugeja, M. (2008). Living ethics: Across media platforms. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burack, A. (2008, January 2). Tiger was provoked, says San Francisco zoo director; Zoo reopens

Jan. 3. The San Francisco Sentinel. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.sanfranciscosen-

tinel.

com/?p=8744

Christians, C. G. (1997). The common good and universal values. In J. Black (Ed.), Mixed news:

The public=civic=communitarian journalism debate (pp. 18–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., McKee, K. B., Kreshel, P. J., & Woods, R. H., Jr. (2009). Media ethics:

Cases and moral reasoning (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Christians, C. G., Ferre, J. P., & Fackler, P. M. (1993). Good news: Social ethics and the press.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Confucius. (1979). The analects (D. C. Lau, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Cooper, A. (2008, March 19). New report: Zoo understaffed, unprepared day of fatal tiger attack.

The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.

Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The unseen power: Public relations. A history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Day, L. A. (2006). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Fagan, K., Vega, C. M., & Rubenstein, S. (2007, Dec. 28). Height of zoo’s tiger exhibit wall doesn’t

meet national standard. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.

Fang, T. (1999). Chinese business negotiating style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gregor, A. J., & Chang, M. H. (1979). Anti-Confucianism: Mao’s last campaign. Asian Survey, 19,

1073–1092. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Graham, K. M. (2000). The political significance of social identity: A critique of Rawls’s theory of

agency. Social Theory and Practice, 26, 201–222. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from Academic

Search Complete database.

Hu, S. (2007). Confucianism and contemporary Chinese politics. Politics & Policy, 35, 136–153.

Retrieved June 17, 2009, from Wiley InterScience database.

Hull, D. (2005, October=November). What’s in a name? American Journalism Review, 27, 23.

Retrieved January 9, 2009, from Communication and Mass Media Complete database.

Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical

living. New York: Harper.


Lagos, M. (2008a, June 30). Hunt for new S.F. Zoo director on back burner. The San Francisco

Chronicle, p. A1.

Lagos, M. (2008b, December 21). A changed S.F. Zoo, a year after tiger mauling. The San Francisco

Chronicle, p. A1.

Lambeth, E. B. (1992). Committed journalism: An ethic for the profession (2nd ed.). Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press.

Land, M. (1992). Ivoirien television, willing vector of cultural imperialism. Howard Journal of

Communications, 4, 10–27.

Land, M. (2006). Mass media ethics and the Point-of-Decision Pyramid. In M. Land &

B. W. Hornaday (Eds.), Contemporary media ethics: A practical guide for students, scholars

and professionals (pp. 15–38). Spokane, WA: Marquette Books.

Leslie, L. Z. (2004). Mass communication ethics: Decision making in postmodern culture (2nd ed.).

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Mencius. (2003). Mencius (Rev. ed., D. C. Lau, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Merrill, J. C. (1997). Journalism ethics: Philosophical foundations for news media. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.

Merrill, J. C. (1999). Overview: Foundations for media ethics. In A. D. Gordon & J. M. Kittross

(Eds.), Controversies in media ethics (2nd ed., pp. 1–25). New York: Longman.

Moore, B. N., & Bruder, K. (2008). Philosophy: The power of ideas (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Murray, A. (2000). Under the palaver tree: A moratorium on the importation, exportation, and

manufacture of light weapons. Peace and Change, 25, 265–81. Retrieved December 24,

2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Nunberg, G. (2005). When words break down. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://people.

ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/looting.html

Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2008). Media ethics: Issues and cases (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Peterson, T. (2009). Director’s message. Zoo views: San Francisco Zoological Society 2007 annual

report & special 80th anniversary issue (p. 3). San Francisco: San Francisco Zoological Society.

Plaisance, P. L. (2009). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Potter, R. B. (1969). War and moral discourse. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press.

Potter, R. B., Jr. (1972). The logic of moral argument. In P. Deats Jr. (Ed.), Toward a discipline of social

ethics: Essays in honor of Walter George Muelder (pp. 93–114). Boston: Boston University Press.

Rangers, S. M. (1999, March). Madagascar: A waning tradition. UNESCO Courier, 52, 35. Retrieved

December 23, 2008, from http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_03/pdf/courier.pdf

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rose, F. (2006, February 19). Why I published those cartoons. The Washington Post. Retrieved

January 9, 2009, from LexisNexis Academic database.

Said, E. W. (1994). Orientalism (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Vintage Books.

Selna, R. (2008, January 7). Sam Singer, zoo’s crisis controller, keeps his cool when heat is on.

The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.

Smith, R. F. (2008). Ethics in journalism (6th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Dukes, K. N., Toosi, N., & Wang, E. J. (2006). Race and media

coverage of Hurricane Katrina: Analysis, implications, and future research questions.

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 39–55. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from

Academic Search Complete database.

Sopova, J. (1999, May). In the shade of the palaver tree. UNESCO Courier, 52, 42. Retrieved

December 23, 2008, from http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_05/pdf/courier.pdf

Strentz, H. (2002). Universal ethical standards? Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17, 263–276.

Wang, A. (Anchor=Reporter). (2007, December 26). SF Zoo to remain closed on Thursday.

KGO-TV San Francisco [Television news]. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://abclocal.go.

com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=5854999

454 K. Fuse et al.

Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Ruona, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005). Confucian values and the

implications for international HRD. Human Resource Development International, 8,

311–326. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Ward, S. J. A. (2007). Utility and impartiality: Being impartial in a partial world. Journal of Mass

Media Ethics, 22, 151–167.

Xun, Zi. (2003). Xunzi (B. Watson, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Yollin, P. (2007, September 7). Zoo reopens Lion House for public feedings 10 months after

mauling. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. B1.

Yu, J. (1998). Virtue: Confucius and Aristotle. Philosophy East and West, 48, 323–347. Retrieved

June 8, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Zhong, B. (2008). Thinking along the cultural line: A cross-cultural inquiry of ethical decision

making among U.S. and Chinese journalism students. Journalism & Mass Communication

Educator, 63, 110–126.


expanding the philosophical base

Documents