Part Two: Is it the ethical thing to do?

It would not be bold to state that in recent years Public Relations (PR) has faced difficulties within complex and diverse working environments. Historical trends such as WWI & WW2 have contributed to some PR practices being seen as unethical. I choose to believe the definition of PR has developed from lying and spinning over the years, however not all agree.

But what is the concept of ‘ethics’ and does this exist within PR? The BBC defines ethics as “a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives.” This includes what is good or bad, right or wrong and our rights and responsibilities.

Within the public relations discipline we follow our own code of conduct. This is known as the pillar of public relations:

1. ·   Veracity (to tell the truth)
2. ·   Non-malfeasance (to do no harm)
3. ·   Beneficence (to do good)
4. ·   Confidentiality (to respect privacy)
5. ·   Fairness (to be fair and socially responsible)

Many critics argue this framework cannot exist within public relations as the practice itself parallels propaganda and spin. L’Etang (2009) identified these critics to be involved in media and cultural studies. Marketers (Eden 2007, Fill 2006) tend to define PR as a credible source.

Tony, in response to your comments on my previous blog - I understand that within an organisational context it may be difficult to spot how propaganda can differ from public relations.  There is an illusion that organisational ethics and PR ethics are one and the same – Patricia Parsons (2008) explains that PR ethics is focused on “ethical implications of strategies and tactics” to solve PR and communication issues of an organisation. In contrast it could be said that it is related to the ethical implications of business practice and policies. My opinion lies in tandem with Parsons’ – although related, to assume that they are one and the same is to assume that PR ethics fail to exist at all.

Taking the ethical high ground may seem easy on paper but in reality this requires much deliberation and possibly a cold compress to soothe your aching head. PR can be defined in many ways due to its evolving nature. Each situation is unique and therefore a strict code of conduct cannot always be clear cut.

Imagine you work in the PR department for the NHS and you are asked to write a statement regarding a recent incident between two patients in your local hospital. You have a responsibility to tell the truth, but how can this be executed without harming those involved in the incident and exposing an issue they may regard as private? What do you do? Pick the side of veracity or confidentiality, or do you hold back some facts to satisfy all parties? Not so clear cut now, is it? PR representatives involved in the NHS face ethical dilemmas regarding how to address their publics.

Parsons (2008) states that “being able to do something is simply a matter of acquiring and using the necessary expertise; knowing when you should do something relies on your own ability to make ethical decisions”.

Used amongst communication practitioners, The ‘Potter Box’ coming into play when facing an ethical dilemma. The purpose of The Potter Box is to guide you to a decision, not to make it for you.

• 1.  List the facts of the situation (this will lead to a better understanding)
• 2. Identify your values and what you stand for
• 3. Identify your philosophies or guiding principle (i.e. always tell the truth)
• 4. Choose where your loyalties lie (think back to the example of the NHS)

Although this framework is valid, it relies on you to make the right decision based on your moral code of conduct. Our ethical and moral codes are developed through our culture and the environment we have been brought up in. The problem lies in that our cultures are varied, widespread and diverse. This means my moral code may not align with yours. Does this make me a propagandist? I’d like to think not, but who am I to persuade you otherwise?

In a society full of clashing cultures and values it is no wonder the word ‘ethics’ has become the monster under the bed. But going ‘full spin’ (excuse the pun), can ethics really be taught? Are these just a product of our individual culture and values? Or is this purely a trust issue?

Tweet, review, discuss.

Over and Out

Rhi [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

Part One: PR, an ever-changing industry.

Public Relations (PR) can be defined in several different ways. Rex Harlow explored 472 definitions of PR. ‘Building a Public Relations Definition’ (1976) outlines how environmental factors have affected the meaning of the word and the industry throughout the years. One thing we can be sure about is that Mr Harlow’s definition count would have certainly doubled over the last three decades.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) explains that “public relations is about reputation - the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you.” The Public Relations Society of American (PRSA) challenged this definition earlier in the year, suggesting the internet, in particular social media has influenced the way in which PR is practiced. The PRSA’s definition leans towards the importance of relationships and communication rather than focusing on the issue of respect. Keith Butterick believes this inconsistency “is used by critics to demonstrate its fundamental weakness”. 

The simplest way to describe the primary function of PR is to ‘deliver a message’. It is the legitimacy of the message in question that has led to much debate on the credibility of PR and fronted its association with propaganda and spin. 

Paul Holmes, founder of the ‘Holmes Group’ disagrees with the PRSA’s proposal in his blog stating “public relation is not communications”. Without communication there is no way in which your publics can respond. Taking into consideration Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) ‘four models of public relations’ could this be seen in the modern day as propaganda? In any industry communication is important – us modern day folk want to be informed and we want our opinion to be heard.

In times before both crossed so much there was little difference in meaning between propaganda and PR. The word ‘propaganda’ came to light before the term ‘public relations’. Before the days of the world wide web, the only flow of information was through influential figures thought to be respected. The origin of the word came about in the 17^th Century within the Roman Catholic Church. Within this period the Congregation of the Propaganda was formed, whose mission it was to turn unbelievers into converts. Although in 1914, during World War I the word claimed its fame, it was during World War II that wartime propaganda became most recognisable. Governments throughout Britain, America and Germany used media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasts as a form of controlling information and emphasising the necessity of war. 

Today the truth is easily uncovered and lies and scandals are easily released to the general public. In 2011, despite footballer Ryan Giggs being granted a super-injunction to ban media reports on his affair with Imogen Thomas, social media took precedence and ultimately the truth was revealed on Twitter. 

Now PR is used in both the public and private sectors and information is provided on a global scale. Despite this there are still those who choose to practice propaganda as a tool to influence opinion for personal gain through manipulation and lies, a trait unseen in a credible PR practitioner. A PR practitioner will seek to influence only through information of a truthful nature. Whether you believe this is right or wrong, PR is a highly adaptable profession. It can be exactly what it needs to be, when it needs to be and for who it needs to be, however this all depends on whether the practitioner or organisation uses this for the greater good.   

I am inclined to agree with Butterick’s quote, that an inconsistency in definitions has ultimately led to uncertainty among publics. Respect? Communication? Building a Relationship? – In my opinion, these are all important tools that should be acquired and utilised by a PR practitioner.

Why is it then that not one organisation or practitioner can agree on a single definition for Public Relations? Would it be fair to say that is because the definition of PR is in the eyes of the beholder?

This is where ethics comes into play.

Tweet, review, discuss.

Over and Out

Rhi  [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]