Studying the ethics of PR

A lot of people, particularly non-PR people, believe that PR is basically immoral or at least amoral. Few things could be further from the truth. All PR people confront ethical issues all the time. Usually from dealing with explicit or implicit client expectations or demands.
Being ethical is more fundamental than just telling the truth - that's just entry level stuff. More deeply it is about the role of PR in society, particularly PR as advocacy. Some see PR as being akin to lawyering - putting forward the client's case. Fair enough, but what about a broader social responsibility.
The ability to communicate effectively has been a potent power in our civilisation for millenia and who knows way before we started to settle down in what is now Iraq and other fertile river regions but I digress.
Using that skill and the power that flows from it on behalf of others can be problematic in a broader societal sense.
That's why I was pleased to receive these three student essays the other day from my friend Allan Schoenberg who is Director of Corporate Communications at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and an adjunct professor at DePaul University.
Its good to see students grappling with these issues and trying to find ways of thinking about them which go beyond the more common - 'oh, its all spin' - responses from the professions critics.
Well worth a read.

Download pr_kate_coxr.pdf Download pr_punita_bhatt.pdf Download pr_shuraine_ramlal.pdf

technorati tags: PR public relations ethics
del.icio.us tags:  PR public relations ethics
icerocket tags:  PR public relations ethics

Comments

[Amanda Chapel]

Ethics problems in PR can be explained simply: either the PR guy is a weasel/thief or the client is a weasel/thief and the PR guy is facilitating that.

With regard to your claim, “Being ethical is more fundamental than just telling the truth”... technically you are just flat out wrong. It is that fundamental. Add the Golden Rule to the ability to be honest, and you’ve covered all possibly ethical dilemmas in PR.

If you find it more complicated than that... then regrettably you are part of the reason that general public looks at PR as unethical.

Regards,

- Amanda Chapel

[Renai LeMay]

hi Amanda,

actually I think it's a lot more complicated than that :) As a journalist a common problem we face is when to tell the truth -- and to who.

I would say that in both the journalist and PR professions, there is an ethical line that professionals face every day and worry about incessantly. Journalists have a poor reputation with the public also, but nearly all theh journalists I have met are highly ethical creatures and forced to be so by the demands of their jobs.

Kind regards,

Renai LeMay
ZDNet Australia

[Trevor Cook]

Amanda - I did say that telling the truth was entry level stuff by which I mean you can't be ethical without telling the truth but there is a lot more to advocacy than just telling the truth. Advocacy is an effort to persuade and to change behaviour.
If I am collecting money to help poor kids the best way to do it is to tug at the consciences of potential donors by using images of sad, starving kids.
I'm not lying by doing that but I also have to be committed to giving people a sense of what their money will be used for (remember Red Cross)
I also have to think about the consequences more broadly.
Blind people, and many others with a disability, hate these appeals to pity because although 'truthful' and 'effective' it tends to confirm the dependency view of people with a disability when they are trying to promote an image of themselves as independent.
So there is a dilemma between what brings in the most money for services and what reinforces a more positive image.
Similarly, tabloid journos always appeal to 'truth' when they do cheap exposes (to get ratings) and if the downstream consequences are unpalatable (eg the exposed commits suicide or something) they say 'oh well not our problem we just told the truth'.
Being simplistic and just telling the truth can sound fine but it can also be just plain simplistic and in some circumstances can be the refuge of a straight out scoundrel.
Regards
Trevor

[Amanda Chapel]

Renai - "actually I think it's a lot more complicated than that. As a journalist a common problem we face is when to tell the truth -- and to whom."

I am going to sound really sarcastic... what world is that? A journalist collects facts and connects the dots to tell a story. What part of that equation is at all ethically challenging.

Now on a Managing Editor level... if he/she is strategically using the publication to advance an agenda... that's problematic.

Trevor - First with regard to "If I am collecting money to help poor kids the best way to do it is to tug at the consciences of potential donors by using images of sad, starving kids," that's not an ethical dilemma.

An ethical dilemma arises considering the fundamental service PR provides. As I said above, journalism is collecting facts and providing a story. PR on the other hand is about devising an influential story and then setting out to secure facts. As a PR person, I can absolutely create a story that will convince you as to why you'd be motivated to invest in a certain stock. And absolutely given the appropriate funds I can find/invent the facts to justify that. It's called lying. And whether or not innocent investors lose there life savings investing in that stock, I the PR person still am culpable.

Bottom line: 99.9 percent of all PR is to direct, and as such limit, an audience's choice; as opposed to journalism which is to educate. Robbing someone of their choice is a pretty sure ticket to hell. The ONLY way a PR person avoids that... is if he/she actually drinks and believes in the swill they're pouring.

- Amanda

[Renai LeMay]

Hi Amanda,

just wanted to respond to your comment that journalism is simply about collecting the facts and reporting the story.

I think it's a lot more complicated than this. Simply deciding which story you're going to run in the first place is pretty complicated! With limited time, having to choose on an everyday basis between two or three different stories and decide which one is more important for your readers is an ethical decision.

Secondly, choosing what facts to report from whom is also an ethical dilemma.

And lastly ... there is always the issue of source/journalist confidentiality. Several journalists in Australia have recently gone to jail for protecting their sources' anonymity. Sure it was only their ethics that prevented them revealing their sources' names in court.

These are exactly the same ethical dilemmas that doctors and lawyers face with client confidentiality.

Cheers,

Renai

[Amanda Chapel]

I think we need to define "ethical dilemma." How is deciding which story an ethical dilemma? Complicated, maybe, but not a dilemma. Now if you’re taking money under the table to help you make that decision, that would be an ethical dilemma.

As to “choosing what facts to report from whom is also an ethical dilemma.” No. Again, unless your agenda is anything other than telling an honest story... there's no ethical dilemma.

And lastly, there's the issue of source/journalist confidentiality. Indeed, that may be a challenge but not a dilemma. At all times relevant in the examples you give the subject is an honest guy doing an honest job.

Now again, the basic PR equation is very different. It's build on manipulating facts. That’s the fundamental problem. Then throw a little cash on the table, now you've got an ethical dilemma.

- Amanda

[Trevor Cook]

Amanda

"A journalist collects facts and connects the dots to tell a story."

Are you kidding?

Trevor

[Philip Young]

Trevor,

For a moment I was taken aback by your assertion that for ethical PR 'just telling the truth' was 'just entry level stuff'. To an extent, you are right, in that the slippery and pluralist nature of truth (and truths) helps leads us on to more difficult notions about the framing of PR - is it about communication or advocacy? You then take the argument further still, into the societal implications of individual or corporate actions, which moves the debate beyond mere PR ethics to much, much broader areas.

The problem is that the entry level stuff is extremely difficult to deal with and to this extent I am not sure it is a completely helpful description. It is not like, say, learning to drive where 'entry level' might mean learning wehat the controls do, and once you have mastered that, you can move on to actually driving the car.

Anyone who thinks seriously about PR ethics has to continually refer back to notions of truth, and then make an even harder conceptual leap and try and engage with the dilemma of whether or not the PR is an advocate, paid to tell partial truths...

And there's the rub. While it is seen as indispensable to justice that a lawyer might represent Saddam Hussein in a trail that can only have one outcome, it is indefensible in the view of some people for a PR to frame truths in a way that would reflect well on the most societally ethical client.

[Trevor Cook]

Fair enough Philip, I take your point about 'entry-level' - its probably not an apt description.
What I was trying to get at was the idea that simply telling the truth is not the whole story.
Lots of arguments can be manifestations of the truth, but the way in which we construct and present 'truthful'arguments can vary a great deal in their impact.
Some ways of presenting a truthful case can be ethical and others can be ethically problematic.
In my example, putting a picture of a little blind girl on a card and a phone number to send money is truthful but also exploitative and possibly injurious to the position of the vision impaired in our society.
Justifying the ad as truthful seems to not go anyway to thinking about the deeper ethical issues involved.

[Trevor Cook]

Maybe I should have said that telling the truth is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of ethical behaviour in PR (and elsewhere)?

[Philip Young]

You are right! What makes it even harder is that, much as we might want to, we can't simply turn the proposition on its head and say 'It is wrong (unethical) to lie' - if we take a consequentialist view of ethics it is quite easy to think of circumstances where it would be unthinkable NOT to lie.

[Amanda Chapel]

First Trevor, no I wasn’t kidding. And I am more than prepared to defend that statement but it sounds like you confusion with the topic would require much greater attention than this medium provides. I am at your service off line.

With regard to you assertions of truth… sounds like moral relativism. Add a little cash to that and you’ve got, at the very least, the perception of impropriety. Any wonder why the term “spokesweasels” is now mainstream.

Also “truthiness” comes to mind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness .

Frankly, that murkiness makes our profession look a little (a lot) hypocritical from the inside. From the outside, just plain sleazy.

Here, maybe this will help. Journalism does not have the agenda to take my choice away; PR does. Simple as that. Not to get too philosophical but… choice, agenda and cash are at the root of PR essential immorality and ethics issues. Your job is not to inform, that’s journalism. Your job is to influence.

Now I was amused by associating PR to lawyering (above). Amusement aside, you miss an essential element: the law. The law is an objective standard against which the judiciary vets truth. We (PR) have no set standards. We make it up. Big difference.

- Amanda

[AM Flynn]

Amanda,

If you are going to take on the big man - make sure you are grammatically correct! Glad you are not writing my press releases! I think he may have to discuss with you off line as you are certainly missing the point Trevor is trying to make online! As the youngen's might say - 'Take a chill pill lady!'

[Philip Young]

Journalism's role is to inform. Really? With no suggestion that there is a choice being made over which facts to include in a story (note the word) and in what order? And with no consideration of audience (news is a commodity)?

Almost as tricky as saying "The law is an objective standard against which the judiciary vets truth" It may 'vet' actions, it does not vet truth.

Finally, there is a great difference between suggesting there are truths rather than a truth and positioning this as an argument that supports the ethical dead end that is moral relativism.

[Amanda Chapel]

Sorry for the typos. The message is clear. I stand by my comments.

With regard to "chill pill," don't know what you are implying. I am cool as a cucumber.

- Amanda

[Amanda Chapel]

“Journalism's role is to inform.”

Yes, that’s a fact. Well, it was when it was journalism.

“With no suggestion that there is a choice being made over which facts to include and in what order?

Choice of which facts to use is completely independent of agenda. Indeed if you include agenda, you’re no longer a card carrying journalist.

“Almost as tricky as saying "The law is an objective standard against which the judiciary vets truth" It may 'vet' actions, it does not vet truth.”

Definition vet: To subject to thorough examination or evaluation. Okay how about vet facts and law to approach truth. That work?

“Finally, there is a great difference between suggesting there are truths rather than a truth and positioning this as an argument that supports the ethical dead end that is moral relativism.”

Walks and quacks like a duck. Truth(s), especially made up ones imbued with agenda and supported by cash, certainly carry the perception of impropriety and smarminess.

[Philip Young]

Amanda

I would be very interested indeed to hear of any news organisation that DOESN'T have an agenda. To take a US example, are you seriously suggesting that, say, Fox News doesn't have an agenda? I can't believe you are...

And on PR ethics: "Truth(s), especially made up ones imbued with agenda and supported by cash, certainly carry the perception of impropriety and smarminess." Well, yes, who is disagreeing? That's easy - the problems come when, say, you are asked to represent a group promoting Intelligent Design. They believe what they are saying is true, they are projecting their thesis for the best motives - but you believe ID is an anti-science message that will harm society. A lawyer may well take them on as a client - but should you as a PR?

[Amanda Chapel]

“Would be very interested indeed to hear of any news organization that DOESN'T have an agenda.”
Couple things there: first off, two wrongs don’t make a right. Secondly, you do know that a news organization with a hidden agenda is inherently a BAD thing, right?
With regard to “the problems come when, say, you are asked to represent a group promoting Intelligent Design (and) you believe ID is an anti-science message that will harm society”… indeed in that case, I’d say it was unethical to take that account. “Harm” is the trigger word.
But you bring up an interesting point: does a PR person necessarily need to believe in what they’re spinning? No. I can represent a company that makes mastics, glue and grouts without any ethical complication. When their product IS directly related to increased cancer risk and I paint it as good for kids, well… you see where I am going. PR does a lot of that. But you say, what if the PR person didn’t know. I agree, PR people don’t know much. But that should not be an excuse. There should be a requisite amount of due diligence to avoid ethic complications. Sad part is that the focus on Sir Sorrell, Wall Street expectations and the next mortgage payment certainly makes the simple concept of ethical behavior complicated.
Lastly, enough of comparing PR people to lawyers. Again, the forum of jurisprudence is NOT the free flowing and distorted “court of public opinion.” If you’re going to make an ethical comparison, the snake-oil hawker at the carnival is much more appropriate. If the snake-oil actually grows hair, well the hawker avoids hell. I doubt it.

- Amanda

[Philip Young]

Amanda

I think we are dangerously close to agreeing on a few key points. Yes, hidden agendas are bad - but all agendas are hidden to a degree, either consciously or otherwise. In the UK, most national newspapers will at election time, come out and say who they feel readers should support - but surveys consistently show that a sizeable number of readers are not aware of that allegiance.

In PR it is often easy to say what is ethically wrong - the problem is to decide what is right.

Especially if you want to pay the mortgage each month.

[Amanda Chapel]

Agreed.

:)

Ciao for now,

- Amanda