By The Spring 2025 Media Dilemma Students
Is Meta Silencing Critics to Protect Its Image?
By Emily Ammon
Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, claims to champion free speech but its actions suggest otherwise. When former executive Sarah Wynn-Williams published a tell-all memoir exposing the company’s questionable practices, Meta responded not with transparency, but with aggressive PR tactics to discredit her.
Rather than addressing the serious concerns raised in her book, the company launched a campaign to silence her, raising concerning questions about Meta’s commitment to open dialogue and accountability.
Wynn-Williams, who previously served as Meta’s global policy director, published Careless People, a book detailing what she describes as a toxic culture within the company.
She claims that Meta’s leadership ignored human rights concerns, allowed sexual harassment by senior executives, and even developed censorship tools to comply with the demands of the Chinese government.
The book struck a chord with the public, selling 60,000 copies in its first week and becoming a bestseller.
But rather than engaging with these serious allegations, Meta went on the offensive, using well-worn PR strategies to undermine Wynn-Williams and her credibility.
Instead of taking accountability, Meta dismissed the book’s claims as “false and defamatory.”
The company pointed to a non-disparagement agreement Wynn-Williams had signed when she left, using it to restrict her from promoting the book or discussing its contents further.
Additionally, Meta released a detailed rebuttal of her claims, sought to highlight positive employee testimonials, and worked to discredit her credibility which are tactics that have been used before against other critics.
According to Vanity Fair, this response follows a familiar PR strategy: attack the messenger rather than address the message.
Meta’s aggressive response to Careless People raises serious concerns about its approach to free speech.
While the company positions itself as a defender of open dialogue, its legal threats and PR attacks suggest otherwise.
If Meta is willing to go to such lengths to silence a former employee, what does that mean for the broader conversation about its role in shaping public discourse?
This isn’t a one-time incident either.
Meta has been criticized in the past for limiting speech on its platforms, especially when it aligns with government interests.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, it removed content based on guidance from public health officials, a move that some saw as necessary while others saw as censorship.
More recently, the company decided to shut down its third-party fact-checking program, a change that critics worry about could make misinformation even harder to combat.
Meta’s response to this book is part of a larger trend in corporate crisis management.
Instead of acknowledging real issues and working to fix them, many large companies focus on controlling the narrative and discrediting their critics.
This approach might help them in the short term, but it ultimately erodes public trust.
If Meta truly values free speech, it should be willing to engage in an open conversation about the concerns raised in Careless People, rather than trying to silence them.
If not, it could end up proving the very criticisms made by its former employee and many others to be true.
As Meta continues to have enormous influence over global communication, its actions speak louder than its PR statements.
The big question for Meta is whether it will be open and responsible or will it continue to keep using its power to control the conversation.
Beaten and Booted: United Airline’s PR Disaster
By Ryan Butler
He had a ticket. He had a seat. And yet, he was ripped from it, dragged down the aisle, bloodied and disheveled.
The world watched in shock as Dr. David Dao, a paying passenger, was forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight in April 2017.
The viral video sparked outrage, exposing the airline industry’s harsh overbooking policies and igniting a public relations disaster that United was extremely unprepared for.
United’s strict overbooking policy prioritized employee needs over passenger rights.
The airline’s initial response made things even worse when CEO Oscar Munoz called the incident a “re-accommodation,” failing to take blame.
As videos of the incident spread across social media, customers voiced frustration not only with United but with the airline industry’s broader overbooking practices. After the backlash, United made several changes.
It revised its overbooking policies to prevent seated passengers from being removed and raised voluntary compensation limits to $10,000.
The airline also reduced law enforcement involvement, training employees in de-escalation instead of relying on security. These policy shifts were designed to ensure a less confrontational approach when handling overbooking situations.
United overhauled its customer service training too, focusing on respect, problem-solving, and handling conflicts without escalation. These measures aimed to rebuild trust and prevent future incidents.
Additionally, United introduced new internal guidelines to ensure that passengers who had already boarded would not be removed, a practice that had previously caused frustration.
The incident forced airlines to rethink their overbooking practices. Competitors like Delta and American Airlines quickly adjusted their policies to avoid similar fallout.
The industry also saw increased consumer awareness regarding passenger rights, pushing airlines to be more transparent about compensation and rebooking policies.
While government regulations remained generally unchanged, the incident demonstrated the power of public pressure for companies to make changes.
Some airlines began offering significantly higher compensation to incentivize passengers to voluntarily give up their seats rather than relying on involuntary removals.
Additionally, airlines invested in better procedures to help predict and manage overbooking situations more effectively.
Since 2017, United has worked to repair its image. The airline introduced more transparent policies and focused on corporate responsibility.
Its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including flexible rebooking and safety measures, reflected a shift toward customer-centric practices.
United has also invested in sustainability and diversity initiatives, aiming to distance itself further from past controversies.
The United Airlines case highlights the risks of neglecting customer experience.
Public relations aren’t just about managing crises; it’s about building trust. Companies that fail to respond quickly and appropriately to the public’s concerns risk damaging their reputation.
Overbooking isn’t just about airlines being greedy, however. It’s a way for them to keep flights full and stay profitable, especially since passengers sometimes cancel or don’t show up.
That said, what happened to Dr. Dao was extreme, and it sparked much-needed outrage.
Since then, United has made changes, and it’s clear that this incident made them, and the whole industry, take a hard look at how overbooking impacts passengers.
Is PR truly the bad guy?
Bryan Avanzato
It’s a known fact that many people have a low opinion of PR, but few truly know what PR does. Some don’t even know what it stands for. (It’s public relations.)
Stewart Ewen called his authoritative account of the profession PR: A History of Spin. PR people spin the truth. They manipulate. They lie. At least that is the perception.
There is this stigma around PR that they want to make our lives absolutely suck at work.
Which obviously isn’t the truth because PR is trying to benefit us as workers. The article from Oregon proceeded to add “Public relations is the strategic communication function within an organization that is responsible for thinking holistically about the relationship between the organization and the various stakeholders.
You might have one campaign or initiative that’s targeting high school boys, but it’s PR’s responsibility to think of all the people connected to that audience”.
In the world of PR there can be many dilemmas, and they need to know their audience and make sure that they have their audience accounted for.
PR takes on a role in marketing in a way. They are not trying to make our lives living hells but enhance our workplace environment.
A lot of young people wonder why they would major in PR if it’s such a bad job to have. The reasons why are quite simple actually; a lot of the PR workers are former journalists.
A lot of them get a degree in journalism and or broadcasting.
So, you get that as your degree and then work as PR, or you can go out into the world and become a broadcaster and or a journalist. Don’t ever think that PR doesn’t exist in those jobs too because it does.
The students who get a major in PR are those that work very hard and want to help people.
PR workers get put in some hard situations sometimes and people blame them for handling it as “bad” as they did. Take the issue we saw with Papa John’s pizza.
The former CEO said a racial slur on a zoom meeting and then tried to defend himself.
It was PR’s job to advise him to do what they thought was best. That’s a situation that is hard to win as a PR representative.
But PR had to make the best of that situation and that’s what they did.
To be in PR is a hard job but the stigma around it is because those that don’t know what they do want to make their job a lot harder than it is.
As workers we end up making PR’s job a lot harder. PR works hard and they also do what they think is best in the situation at hand.
Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter Faces Cancel Culture Backlash After Using Offensive Term in a Training Media Call
By Braden Travaglini
Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter was asked, by his public relations team, to remove his name, image and likeness from the company. They also asked Schnatter to step down as chairman for using an offensive term in a training media call.
In the meeting, Schnatter called one of his team members the n-word. Because of this Schnatter is facing the backlash of cancel culture.
Which is when someone breaks the norms of society, all the members of that society radicalize and outcast that individual.
Schnatter faces life ruining cancel culture issues along with lawsuits against Laundry Service, and ad firm, in which Schnatter won a preliminary arbitration denial which will bring the lawsuit to a bench trial.
Public relations are the bridge between the general consumer public and companies that have a desirable product.
Although Schnatter’s actions are inexcusable by any means, I still feel that his public relations team, led by Paul Raab, still has an obligation to preserve and protect not just the reputation of the company but of Schnatter as well. I believe this because PR teams must follow an ethical code that involves loyalty, advocacy and fairness.
PR teams should be loyal to their clients and not abandon ship when times get rough, they should also try to help advocate for their client that it was a mistake or that’s not the kind of guy Schnatter is.
PR teams should also be fair in how much news gets leaked into the media, especially with today’s cancel culture.
PR teams should be fair in trying to preserve the reputation of their client because they have loyalty to said client.
Even if the client is an open racist.
But to the other point, if Schnatter, or the next CEO of Papa John’s are continually racist then society should radicalize and outcast that company.
If Schnatter is going to be an open racist and smear his own reputation, then that’s on him.
It’s okay to cancel companies because companies can be built, rebuilt and rebranded. Societies need to cancel companies that support negative morals like racists and sexist.
If we don’t, big companies might start to weave their thoughts and intentions into the public’s daily life through social media, advertising and public relations.
But as a human, once your personal and professional reputation are smeared your life is pretty much over and it should only be over if you’re continually doing the wrong thing, not just a one-time slip up, to which Schnatter was an open racist.
The Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni Dispute
By Krayee Pour
What started as excitement around It Ends with Us has turned into a legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
Lively claims Baldoni crossed professional and personal boundaries improvising unwanted kissing scenes, entering her makeup trailer uninvited, and making inappropriate comments.
She also accuses producer Jamey Heath of contributing to a toxic environment, citing an instance where he allegedly showed her a video of his wife giving birth.
Baldoni denies it all and is suing Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist for $400 million, claiming they’re trying to ruin his career. His legal team insists behind-the-scenes footage contradicts her claims, particularly regarding the supposedly improvised kiss.
If the footage proves the scene was scripted and agreed upon, it complicates the narrative and raises questions about the accuracy of Lively’s accusations.
There’s no denying that Hollywood has a long history of power imbalances and blurred lines on set, and that’s why cases like this are so difficult to navigate.
On one hand, Lively’s allegations highlight concerns about consent and professionalism in the industry.
On the other, Baldoni’s strong rebuttal and his decision to take legal action suggests he believes he can prove his innocence. It’s easy to get caught up in public opinion, but the reality is that none of us have all the facts yet.
Public reaction is split some believe Lively without question, pointing to the industry’s track record of mistreating women, while others are skeptical, citing the high financial stakes and
potential inconsistencies. Social media has already made its verdict, but ultimately, it’s the courts that will decide.
Whatever happens, this situation forces Hollywood to take another hard look at its approach to consent, boundaries, and accountability on set.
The truth may not be as clear-cut as some want it to be, and until all the facts come to light, all we can do is wait and watch how it unfolds.
What Really Ended with Us?
The tall, blonde, beauty from Gossip Girl, Blake Lively, was on the set with the tall dark and handsome Justin Baldoni from Jane the Virgin for what was supposed to be a powerful, raw, and emotional film adaptation from author Collen Hoover’s book “It Ends with Us”.
The story follows a woman who gets into a relationship that moves fast with the “perfect” guy that starts out good but as time goes on, he becomes more aggressive and controlling over her.
In the end she is left to make the decision to break the cycle of abuse for the best future for herself and their child. The film was made to advocate for those who feel stuck and scared to leave their unhealthy relationships.
To help anyone who may not know what the drama is all about between these two co-stars, here is a brief breakdown of everything.
Allegedly, it all started back on the set of the movie “It Ends with Us” and then rose suspicion at the premiere in August of 2024, when fans noticed how Baldoni and Lively were not photographed or did any press together, causing speculation that both stars did not get along.
Also, during that time a lot of old and new videos were resurfacing Lively that shined a negative light on her making her look rude towards interviewers, other co-stars, and even some fans.
Just four months later, in December of 2024, The New York Times published an article claiming that the actress was accusing her “It Ends with Us” co-star and director Baldoni of sexual harassment and that him and his PR team put together a smear campaign against her to attempt to damage her image.
To be honest, during the promotion of the film Blake Lively did have some questionable responses, that left many people who read the book and know how deep and important the story is questioning if she even knew what movie she just starred in was even about.
In most interviews when asked about the seriousness of the film she would tend to deflect when answering, for example, in one interview for the movie Lively and one of her other co-stars are interviewed by Jake Hamilton (Jake’s Takes (0:30).
It starts by questioning Lively on how someone who may have been in a similar situation like her character in the film and would want to talk about it with her be able to approach her to, she responds by trying to joke about giving them her address, number, or sharing her location and then talks about her zodiac sign.
Which made a lot of fans unhappy with her for not taking the question seriously since the film was made to advocate domestic violence survivors.
A lot of people were also upset with how she tried to market the film to audiences by saying, “Grab your friends, wear your florals and head out to see it.” , making it seem like it was just a typical romance movie.
After the release of some of her interviews for the movie, a lot of clips from older interviews began to resurface showing how ignorant and impolite she was towards others.
Between the new and old interviews many people were beginning to become furious with her and started to give her hate, fast forward to December Lively files a lawsuit against Baldoni claiming that him and his PR team put together a smear campaign to attempt to damage her image.
Co-founder of Wayfarer Studios Justin Baldoni and his studio bought the rights of both of Colleen Hoover’s books “It Ends with Us” and the squeal “It Starts with Us” in 2019.
Many people online are speculating that the author of the books choose sides between the two co-stars considering that just like Livley, Hoover was nowhere to be seen with Baldoni during the premiere and promotion of the film.
Honestly, when thinking back to the promotion of the movie it felt like he was rarely seen and when he was seen, he was usually by himself talking about it along with answering all of the serious questions that Lively seemed like she couldn’t answer.
After the lawsuit and the allegations against Baldoni were made public, at the end of last year he denied the allegations and countersued Blake Lively. However, just when fans thought that it was weird that Lively and Baldoni were not seen interacting with each other during the premiere and promotion of the film, it got even crazier when in January he revealed that he and his family were held in the basement during the premiere in New York.
In the photos that he shared you see his family being photographed by folding chairs and tables along with cases of water and sodas. Even though he was in the basement for the premiere of his movie along with deal other issues behind closed doors, he managed to not let it bother him and still showed kindness to one of his fans that had a chronic illness, Baldoni was following this fans journey for a while and invited her and her husband to the premiere of the film.
Her name was Gabbie_warrior_queen on social media, and she unfortunately passed away just a few months after the premiere.
Over the past few months, Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively’s legal battle has raised concern over the public relation industry considering that PR’s goal is to maintain and help enhance their client’s reputation.
Whether or not Lively’s accusations are right, both Baldoni and Lively would be technically damaging both of their images no matter who is right or wrong, both actors’ reputation will be ruined one way or another.
No matter what, there are always three sides to the truth Blake Lively’s side, Justin Baldoni’s side, and then there is the truth which won’t really be known until March of 2026.
The Fog of War: How Misinformation Shapes Modern Conflicts
Trey Edmonds
News plays a crucial role in wartime scenarios. Both military and civilian use is essential to spreading information about war progress, planned offensives, and unfortunately, the brutal aftermaths.
But what happens when that information is twisted to be used in favor of the one spreading it?
The tactic of misinformation during wartime can be a powerful maneuver requiring no guns, tanks, or weapons as it takes advantage of one of humanity’s most potent weapons known to humanity, the human mind.
The psychological side of war is a part not commonly spoken about and not just the minds of those fighting.
The thoughts of the people back home can often significantly influence what is happening on the battlefield.
One of the most recent cases of wartime information came during the Red Sea Campaign involving the Houthi rebels based out of Yemen.
Taking place around July 2024, a powerhouse of US Naval power, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Aircraft Carrier, was attacked and sunk by these Houthi rebels.
However, this entire story was a complete fabrication by a Yemeni-based group and posted to social media.
The story was confirmed a lie when the Aircraft Carrier made it home safely on July 14th, 2024, without a scratch in sight.
This has not been the first time the Houthi rebels have spread false rumors, and they have been doing so for about a decade at this point. In the case of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, this isn’t even the first time the group has claimed to have sunk the great ship.
It shows promising results if anyone wonders if their extensive misinformation campaign works.
According to Maritime data, the Houthis have effectively discouraged commercial ships from traveling through their territories.
Although the Houthis have sunk at least three confirmed ships, their attacks are generally futile and cause very little damage.
Even if they bend the truth to make it seem as if their attacks have been effective. They have even been seen to go as far as to claim that attacks were successful even when they would completely miss.
In the beginning, the Houthi rebels would only attack ships associated with Israel but quickly progressed to attacking all vessels coming to and from Israel.
The US and associated nations have continued to try to protect commercial ships going into Israel but have found considerable difficulty in protecting these ships while trying to stay as unassociated as possible.
The media has a critical role to play in global conflict. Americans have been blessed with the freedom to see whatever we want on whatever platform we please.
It’s hard to imagine the limited information citizens of other countries have lived through their entire lives.
Journalists covering these conflicts must walk an ethical tightrope regarding what they should and shouldn’t release.
Governments and the military also have an ethical dilemma in informing the public about wartime progress while staying relatively secretive so as not to give away too much information to possible opposition.
The common phrase “there are no winners in war” stands true in media. Ethical gray areas are constantly entered, and lines are permanently crossed.
At the end of the day, Journalism is there to inform and educate the citizens who are all involved in the conflict either directly or indirectly.
