http://www.stcrmc.org/documents/open/resources-codeforcommunicators In the Code for Communicators, attached above, the requirement to hold oneself responsible for "how well an audience understands my message" seems vague and does not encompass issues of interpretation, only understanding. An effective way to phrase the statement could potentially be: Hold myself responsible and accountable for the various ways that an audience could interpret my message, based on societal factors.

Consequences of "little deceptions" are certainly something that technical writers should consider when presenting content, especially when utilizing visual aids such as charts. Examples of extremely unethical and poorly represented charts have become the norm on Fox News, which is a severely biased right-wing news outlet. For example, here, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/28/1251247/-One-Fox-News-chart-that-will-mislead-you-about-welfare-and-jobs-in-three-different-ways Fox News utilized a chart to demonstrate how many more people are apparently on welfare. Instead of counting adults, they included children and infants as well, and used an inflated scale, in order to make it look like there are more people on welfare than people with full-time jobs. Although most people know that Fox is biased, it also takes away from the credibility of other news outlets and turns "the media" into a bad word.

I believe that small typography is often used to decrease readability in technical writing for pharmaceuticals. When a pharmaceutical company, such as mega corporation Gildead Sciences wants to sell a medication, they must highlight the benefits of the drug as much as possible, while limiting the attention given to negative side effects. Gilead Sciences is the current manufacturer of wonder-drug Harvoni, which cures Hepatitis C. Harvoni also sells for over a thousand dollars a pill, so a total three- month treatment cycle for Hep C would cost around $96,000. Because of this price, Gilead is especially calculative in presenting the side effects of Harvoni. For example, on their website below, the side effects are listed individually on the right side of the page, and they ask users to "scroll to continue" all the way to the bottom of the page, making it very tedious to read. http://www.harvoni.com/discover-harvoni/about-harvoni?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search%20-%20Harvoni%20-%20Decision&utm_term=%2Bharvoni&utm_content=Harvoni%20-%20Broad&gclid=CPnp47jpqdACFVIngQodmacI3Q&gclsrc=ds

These comments related to "Writer's Responsibility" relate back to the Purdue OWL article, In that article, it discussed the importance of accurately presenting information in graphs. I also noted that flowcharts can be tricky because an overwhelming or complicated flowchart can be so difficult to read that the information becomes virtually inaccessible. Here, the interviewees note that intentionally sabotaging the presentation of information in order to deceive viewers is completely unethical, as technical communicators are responsible for maintaining ethical practices.

Question 4 asked whether it was ethical to display strengths and weaknesses of an employee in different ways, in order to subtly hide the weaknesses. I believe the gendered difference in answers relates back to sexism in the workplace, which i mentioned on the first page. For example, womens' resumes are critiqued much harder than mens', particularly if a woman has a feminine and racialized name. Because of this, women are used to tweaking resumes to highlight positive traits and hide gaps in employment or low level jobs in ways that men don't have to. This experience led women to be more lenient in answering question 4. To read more about gender bias regarding resumes, the Clayman Institute for Gender Research has a great article: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

I hypothesize that the technical writing students would be less likely to declare a situation to be unethical, due to lack of experience in the field. At the same time, there is also the argument that the students would be more likely to declare a situation to be unethical because they would want to be especially careful as new technical communicators.

I disagree that deleting "unsightly or unsafe items" is unethical because of one photo that surfaced across the news this year. In Ohio, a police department shared a photo as a warning against the dangerous affects of heroin use. the photo included two parents in the front seat of a car, passed out due to heroin overdose, with a four year old child in the backseat. The photo that the police department shared did not blur the child's face out, and when the lack of privacy was called into question, they stated that the graphic photo was to be a warning. However, I found the photo offensive and "unsightly" because the identity of the child was not concealed, so he could carry the burden of the photo for years. To read more on the tragic story and photo, click here: (trigger warning: drug use, child abuse) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/east-liverpool-ohio-heroin-photo-police-department-releases-disturbing-photos-of-suspects-in-car-with-child/

Another challenge that technical communicators could face is the fact that their work is often interdisciplinary in nature. As "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication" noted in Unit 1, the interdisciplinary nature of technical communication allows for increased collaboration and sharing of differing ideas and values. However, this also may lead to a lack of consensus regarding what is considered ethical practice. For example, while lawyers may use "boilerplate" legal text at times, this would be considered unethical in other fields.

This is an extremely difficult question to answer. In part, it appears ethical at the surface level, because the intent is to be inclusive and non-ableist. At the same time, asking an able-bodied employee to pose in a wheelchair would be deceitful, and thus, unethical. I think an ethical design choice that would demonstrate inclusivity and a positive workplace for people with disabilities would be to subtly display accessible areas of the facility, such as wheelchair ramps and elevators.

I strongly believe that there are no biological cognitive differences between men and women, but I do believe this is directly related to the gendered socialization of the workplace. While men are applauded for being bold, assertive, and dominant, quite frankly, women are called "b*tches" for doing the same. Because of this type of socialization, I believe that women would be less likely to "call out" a situation due to an ethical issue, so as to not seem aggressive or mean.