Part I: Let’s talk ethics! The PRSA Code of Ethics (part I)

Part II: Let’s talk ethics! Truth and Secrets (part II)

The PRSA Code of Ethics and Sissela Bok’s two books provide useful guidance in specific situations where public relations professionals are likely to find their ethics challenged, perhaps on a regular basis. However, to be fully prepared for the most complex and trying ethical decisions, we need to have access to a more comprehensive ethical framework. Ideally, it should be adapted specifically to the challenges facing communicators. Sherry Baker’s paper “The Principled Advocate versus The Pathological Partisan: A Model of Opposing Archetypes of Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners” provides just such a model.

Baker, a professor in Brigham Young University’s Department of Communications, builds from the foundation of virtue ethics to give professional communicators a framework for addressing the most complex ethical dilemmas. She presents two opposing archetypes: the “Principled Advocate” and the “Pathological Partisan.” The first represents “the embodiment of virtues,” and the other represents a similar embodiment of all vices.

We can think of the “Principled Advocate” as someone perfectly ethical in his or her profession. Our understand of this person comes as we observe those we admire making good decisions and as we learn from such sources as the PRSA Code of Ethics and the writings of Sissela Bok. Our understanding of the “Pathological Partisan” stems from the examples of the least moral people in our field—and from the stereotypes mentioned earlier (“Spin doctors. Flacks. Even liars.”).

In order to make an ethical decision within this framework, we simply ask ourselves what a principled advocate would do and try to follow suit. We also ask what a pathological partisan would try, and then we avoid those actions.

The “Principled Advocate” model might not always give the most clear answer as to what to do in a given situation. However, a public relations professional with a commitment to ethics will find that a clearer and more complete picture of the ideally virtuous advocate develops as he or she practices and studies ethics and learns from the examples of others. Additionally, communicators who try to apply this model throughout their careers will find themselves gradually becoming a virtue-filled “Principled Advocate.” The principles they learned from others will become more and more part of their own characters and practices that the ethical choice will not only be clear but also natural.

The “Principled Advocate” model fills in the pieces that are missing from the PRSA Code of Ethics and writings of philosophers who focus on issues not occupations.

Baker, Sherry. “The Principled Advocate versus The Pathological Partisan: A Model of Opposing Archetypes of Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners”. Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Media Ethics Division. San Francisco, CA. 2 August 2006.

(photo from BYU Department of Communications)

KXXV-TV anchor Ann Harder is an example of how to suceed in a tough career without compromising your values. Her 35-year career in broadcasting shows her commitment to her craft and her moral compass.

Here’s some of what I gleaned from interviewing Ann Harder about ethics in broadcast journalism:

• Broadcasters have a special responsibility to viewers. Viewers can’t always just change the channel, because reports are sometimes shown in public places (such as a doctor’s office).

• No one grows up in a vacuum, so we all bring a set of values and worldviews. Reporters who aren’t honest with themselves about this do a disservice. The challenge is to not let those biases color one’s coverage.

• Whenever there’s conflict, there are two or more sides. “If both sides are mad at you, you’ve probably done a good job.”

• You have to be careful about prematurely convicting someone.

• Things are reported now in ways that she never would have imagined saying when she started. However, sometimes people don’t need to know all the details and there are ways to report things without all the gory details. This is especially true with abuse of children.

• When she has to report horrible things, she remembers Psalms 37: “Fret not thyself because of evildoers…. Trust in the LORD and do good.”

• Be mindful that you are reporting about actual human beings – people who have families that care about them.

Contemporary philosopher Sissela Bok was educated in Switzerland, France, and the United States. She has a PhD in philosophy from Harvard University and has taught ethics at Brandeis University, Harvard Medical School, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government.¹

Her books “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” and “Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation” provide solid, in-depth discussions of two of the most challenging moral issues facing public relations professionals: lying and secrecy.

“Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” is Bok’s treatment of the importance of truthfulness in life. In it, she addresses a wide variety of arguments and situations to discover when it is ethically justifiable to lie and when we must tell the truth despite the temptations to do otherwise.²

Bok argues that the ethical person must always apply a “principle of veracity” to questions of whether or not to lie. Lying is assumed to be “mean and culpable” (in Aristotle’s words), and it therefore requires justification. Truth-telling, on the other hand, does not. Whenever we are faced with two equal options, one involving lying and the other telling the truth, we should always choose to tell the truth.³

Application of this principle can be difficult at times, but Bok continues in 249 pages to discuss examples of the rationalizations used for lying in various circumstances and why truth-telling is almost always the best option. Lying harms the liar, the person who hears the lie, and the fragile societal trust.⁴ The message PR professionals should take from this is to exercise extraordinary caution when tempted to lie for or to a client. In almost no circumstances could Bok be reasonably construed to support lying for the benefit of business.

With her book “Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation,” Bok follows her discussion of lying with a discussion of keeping things in confidence, a related but distinct subject. In it she introduces the test of publicity. Bok is much more willing to allow secrets than lying, but the principles and practices that lead us to keep things secret should be ones that can withstand rigorous public discussion and examination. If, on the other hand, we keep our rational for keeping secrets secret as well, we’re likely to fall into the trap of personal or organizational bias.⁵

Bok’s work provides a thorough and applicable discussion of two of the thorniest ethical challenges facing public relations, but we must also move beyond her writings to find a model that can address all of PR’s diverse ethical dilemmas.

1—Bok, Sissela. “Secrets:On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation”. New York: Vintage Books. 1989. “About the Author”
2—Bok, Sissela. “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life”. New York: Vintage Books. 1999
3—Ibid. p 22, 30-31
4—Ibid. p 20, 26, & 52
5—Bok. “Secrets”. p 112-114

———

Stay tuned next week for part III.

(Creative commons photo by flickr user gotplaid?)

Spin doctors. Flacks. Even liars. Public relations professionals get called lots of names—and perhaps sometimes those names are well-deserved. PR can be an ethically-challenging line of work.

Practitioners are, essentially, paid to make their clients look good. That could mean making a company look like something it’s not. When does framing become deceiving? What level of friendship is appropriate with journalists? Is it a gift—or is it a bribe? All public relations professionals must face these questions—and many more ethical dilemmas—during their careers.

Ethical standards are becoming an increasingly vital distinguishing characteristic of the best employees within business in general and professional communication in specific. As scandals rocked the news on an almost nightly basis, trust became a precious commodity. PR professionals have a unique opportuntiy to build trust in the world.

We have a responsibility to ourselves and to the public to act with integrity. We must also remember that we’re acting on behalf of paying clients. The PRSA Code of Ethics, the writings of Sissela Bok, and Sherry Baker’s “Principled Advocate” model combine to offer help to those who desire to take the high road.

PRSA Code of Ethics

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is the world’s largest organization of public relations professionals, with more than 28,000 members organized into more than 100 chapters nationwide. PRSA is one of the most influential organizations affecting public relations not just in the United States but also throughout the world.

The PRSA Code of Ethics “is designed to be a useful guide for PRSA members as they carry out their ethical responsibilities.” It lists professional values such as advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. The code also contains provisions encouraging the flow of information, competition, disclosure, protection of trust, and development of the profession.

In addition to outlining general principles of ethics, the code provides guidelines detailing specific examples of the principles. For example, underneath the heading “Conflicts of Interest,” the code reminds PRSA Code of Ethics PRSA members to put the interests of clients ahead of their personal interests, to avoid doing anything to trigger such conflicts, and to let the clients know about anything that might even appear to cause a problem. It spells out that failure to disclose financial interests in a client’s competitor would be a direct violation of this principle.

One of the strengths of this Code of Ethics is its emphasis on application. In many cases, a concerned professional can test a situation against the guidelines given in the code and see clearly whether the proposed action violates any of the principles are not. A familiarity with the code would allow someone to perform this check instantaneously. It is clear and simple in its provisions.

This strength in the code also becomes its weakness, however. By including exactly what is or is not allowable in certain circumstances, the writers of the code have limited its applicability to other circumstances. In addition, the nature of the code introduces a strong tendency for professionals without an inner ethical compass to justify living the letter of the law without living the spirit of the law. The code is not enforced, making it even easier for practitioners to stretch the limits of what might be allowable.

The ethical imperatives of the PRSA Code of Ethics should certainly be followed. Practitioners who desire to be in the clear ethically should read and follow all of its suggestions. However, to truly become the best one can be ethically, it’s necessary to look beyond the simplistic guidelines of the code to find ethical advice that can confidently address more complex dilemmas.

For more help with the tough ethical questions, stay tuned for Part II.

————–

Do you like this post? Then tweet it! And don’t forget to subscribe or come back tomorrow, because I’m posting new content every day this month.

(logo courtesy of PRSA Newsroom – used for illustration only, not endorsement)