A Matter of Ethics: Arguments and Counter-arguments.
Ethical Public Relations: Not an Oxymoron The PR desk can be a company's
conscience.
by Steven R. Van Hook, PhD
The Public Relations department is frequently the ethical heart of an
organization. Internal and external PR communications control of the
flow of good and bad news to the staff and community. The
PR team copes with company crises. PR pros sit at the elbows of top
officers drafting a company's mission statements, its strategies, and its
vision.
PR people are often put on the spot — if not to determine the morality
of a course, at least to help envision the fallout. Fortunately there are
valuable touchstone tools for finding our way.
We might dive deep into pools of ethical thoughts by such as Bentham, Kant, Rawls and
Machiavelli. Ethics theories range from Utilitarianism ("The greatest good for the
greatest number") to Deontology ("Do what is right, though the world should perish").
Or, more to the point, we can examine codes of standards through public relations guilds
such as the IABC. On a global scale, there's the International Public Relations
Association Code of Conduct adopted in Venice in 1961.
The CSEP project gathered 850 codes of ethics culled from professional societies,
corporations, government, and academic institutions. And we can exercise a quick reality
check courtesy of PR Watch, a watchdog group combating "manipulative and misleading
PR practices."
Throughout the many schools of ethics and conduct, there are some common threads.
For example: Don't lie. Ever. One thing we've learned well in recent decades is that the
uncovered cover-up frequently incurs more wrath than the original offense. Even the
highest potentates with all the levers at their power cannot keep a lid on a secret boiling
over.
Many people perceive public relations as something less than respectable — as clever
strategies to convince the public that what's wrong is right. Some see public relations
professionals as manipulators of the public mind, rather than conveyors of truth.
That is likely the reason most every code of conduct, especially those targeted at the PR
profession, stresses honesty above all else. Too often our conduct falls short of the code.
Spin substitutes for truth. Perception substitutes for reality. Victory substitutes for
success.
1
A Matter of Ethics: Arguments and Counter-arguments.
The shadings are subtle. The arguments are heated. The proponents are ostracized. But it
does matter, both in the big picture and the bottom line.
Theologians say it. Physicists say it. Even squinty-eyed comptrollers now realize it. In
our interconnected systems, everything matters to everything else. What we are is a
composite of our daily decisions, thoughts and actions, large and small. As business
writer John Ellis says, "The truth matters. Loyalty matters. Lies matter. Values matter.
You know a Dilbert company the minute you walk into it. Dilbert-company employees
know the exact calibration of corporate dishonesty."
An organization's ethics flow from the top down and back up again, and permeates
throughout the company mindset. A stranger off the street can sniff it out just by walking
in the door. Nothing is hidden, especially in this wired age where news — especially bad
news — gushes in an instant.
These matters must preoccupy the devoted PR professional.
We might remember, too, that public relations is a two way street: not only do we
represent our organization to the public, but we must also present the public back to our
organization. We should help our colleagues understand how the public perceives our
actions.
Just like little Jiminy Crickets, public relations professionals are often the conscience of a
company. It’s not always a popular spot to be in, but it is our duty. It's what we're paid to
do. And, as we sometimes confess to one another, it's what we largely love most about
our job.
Retrieved on June 18, 2009 from http://www.aboutpublicrelations.net/aa052701a.htm
2
A Matter of Ethics: Arguments and Counter-arguments.
In Praise of Secrecy: The ethical foundations of public relations.
by Peter O'Malley
O'Malley Communications
When pondering ethical matters in the abstract, there is a natural and powerful tendency
to want to reach personally comforting, and perhaps truly inspiring, conclusions, even if
it requires that we overlook the obvious.
Such appears to be the case with the Code of Professional Conduct of the Canadian
Public Relations Society. It preaches that ethical professional conduct for public relations
practitioners has something to do with promoting "honesty, accuracy, integrity and truth"
in public communications. While this notion might be truly inspiring, it nonetheless
ignores what public relations actually is all about -- namely, the advocacy and
dissemination of the partisan viewpoints of those who engage our services, for the benefit
of those who engage our services.
Contrary to what the CPRS Code says, the real basis for defining how we serve the public
good, and for our ethical professional behaviour, is not founded in any set of transcendent
values, however inspiring they may be. Rather, our ethics are embedded in the terms of
the contracts we freely enter into with the clients we choose to serve. As with lawyers,
the deal is not complicated. We agree to use our expertise to promote the interests of our
client -- as ultimately defined by the client -- within the parameters of the law, in
exchange for which they compensate us, usually in the form of cashable cheques.
In some specific instances, a client's true interest may lie in complete openness,
transparency and disclosure in their communications, and even in tub-thumping to draw
attention to their story and message. In such situations, we have every reason to be
candid, open and forthcoming. We may even get to hire brass bands, barkers and clowns,
balloons and airships to get the client's message out, thus fulfilling our sensible ambition
to be enlighteners of the public, with a mark-up.
In many instances, however, the client's interest may lie in seeing that particular facts
never see the light of day, and if they do burst forth for all to see, to minimize the impact,
duration and even the clarity of any resulting reporting and public communications. This
is called crisis avoidance, and damage control. As we all know, it constitutes a large part
of what we do for a living. It is also what many clients most value of our work as PR
practitioners.
In crisis situations where a client's real or perceived culpability in a matter is low,
damage control can be, and usually should be, approached in manner that may happily
promote "honesty, accuracy, integrity and truth". (Example: the Tylenol crisis, where the
company was seen to be a victim). In crisis situations where the client's perceived or real
culpability is high, however, damage control almost always means being highly selective
3
A Matter of Ethics: Arguments and Counter-arguments.
in what is said publicly, and in being very careful about when and where anything at all is
said. (Example: Bhopal, or the Exxon Valdez crisis.)
In all instances, on both practical and legal grounds, effective public relations means not
lying or defaming. But when perceived or real culpability is high, damage control
inherently requires that engaged PR practitioners not volunteer facts they may know
which may be true and may even be important to getting at the "truth" of the matter, but
the disclosure of which would be harmful to the client's interest.
And it frequently requires being steadfast in characterizing a "nearly empty" bottle as
being "almost full". We may like to call all this "focused messaging", but in plain
language, it means being highly selective in the presentation of information. Ultimately,
it may mean being disingenuously mule-headed, and even secretive. In many settings,
this may serve the client's interests, but it does not serve to enlighten the public.
If it is true that, as a profession, we are not, fundamentally and at all times, in the
"honesty, accuracy, integrity and truth" business, does it then follow that there is
therefore no ethical foundation for what we do? I say, not at all, because there are a set of
socially-sanctioned and important propositions around which to anchor our professional
conduct, once we move beyond the silly idea that we are really journalists, once removed
from the news copy.
Peter O'Malley is an Ottawa-based communications consultant who has been a
member of the Canadian Public Relations Society for 15 years, and has served on the
Board of Directors
of the Ottawa Society.
Answer all questions.
a. Compare and contrast both articles paying close attention to key points and
arguments. (1 typed page)
b. What are your views on ethics? Agree or disagree with one of the articles
providing your OWN viewpoints. (1 typed page)
To be submitted on March 21, 2011. (Hard copy or soft copy will be accepted)
Email to chevanesecampbell@gmail.com
4