Both the transitory and high context nature of face-to-face communication are some of the features that contrast clearly with the characteristics of digital media.

As we speak to another person, our face, voice, and general physical posture aides the receiver interpret the message. On the other hand, digital written communication must be very clear and unequivocal if we intend to avoid all possible misunderstanding. In other words, sarcasm is not as effective when you text.

However, as digital technology advances, some of the differences decrease in magnitude. Twenty five years ago, the only way to communicate digitally was email. Nowadays, almost any person may be able to communicate with somebody else through video calls that carry much more paralanguage than an email.

Face-to-face conversations, assuming the message is not being recorded, are there one second and gone the next. We all have heard in one of our favorite lawyer shows the phrase “that’s hearsay”. That means that you are simply repeating what you heard someone else say, and you may even be making it up. You can’t prove they said it. Communication through digital media is not so fleeting. An email sent from one individual to another, may certainly be stored in servers, intentionally forwarded or accidentally printed. In any of those cases, a message that was intended for one person may reach hundreds or thousands more. I am sure Congressman Weiner is aware of such truth now.

Conversely, digital media affords a level of anonymity that may turn dangerous. Even though digital communication can be easily recorded and presented to an unexpected audience, the sender of such message has many ways to disguise his or her true identity. We have seen a clear example of this characteristic used for a good cause in shows such as To Catch a Predator. But in reality, the anonymity of digital media is often used for not so noble causes. In fact, online technology is a common tool in the horrific practice of human trafficking. Anonymity may also be used to exercise one’s right of free speech while protecting ones privacy.

After all this differentiating of digital and face-to-face communication, what is left to say about the details of analog and digital media? After reading Ess’ description of the two, I imagined digital media as a type of analog media on steroids. Basically, digital media is more faithful to the original content (be it a photo, a song, or a document) and allows for it to be carried in many different devices (you can upload a word document to your camera’s memory card or put a photo on a USB flash drive). Finally, as convergence increases you find yourself with a crazy expensive gadget that can read, reproduce, and create a myriad of information. Are you looking at one right now?

Moving on from the description of digital media I ask myself, what new ethical challenges have I faced as I interact more and more through digital media. And, are these challenges able to be resolved from my ethical framework formed before involvement with digital media? Well, that’s difficult to answer primarily because I do not recall having a pre-digital ethical development. Not that my moral standards are set in stone now, but I was not an adult by the time I was communicating through cell phones, emails, and chat sessions. However, I have never separated in my head the ethics of my non-digital and digital life. Lying (let’s start with a big one) is wrong whether it’s face to face or in text message. So is flirting with anyone other than my husband. What about being rude? I will admit it is easier to be rude online. However, I can say that I do not find it more justifiable. The ethical standard doesn’t change. The application becomes trickier. That is from an individualistic point of view; I am just examining myself.

But Ess, in Digital Media Ethics, considers also the global nature of digital communications. As the internet and other advances in telecommunications minimize the impact of distance around the world, we need to find a basic common ground among cultures that are radically different. Monism proposes a rigid set that seems to develop from a totalitarian attitude. Ethical relativism is strongly rejected by groups that assert at least some universal values, and the likelihood is that most people hold something they believe in as non-negotiable. Pluralism, somewhat Utopian in my view, tries to find the common ground of as many views as possible to reach a consensus and grow from there. It sounds almost like ethical democracy, don’t you think? If we can get most people to agree, even a significant majority, then we must have something valid. In light of the options, I would agree this is the best starting point. Ess, I believe, would push further to get us to think that we don’t have to choose one, but acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each view, consider it all and hold on to the good things.

In fewer words, there is certainly a correlation between ethical frames pre-digital media that are valid and useful for validating behavior in the digital era. However, as we encounter new situations that do not translate directly into our existing set of ethical statutes, an evolution of ethics is imperative and basically inevitable.