What is ethics?

Ethics in Public Relation is often a common issue as I mentioned in the previous post.  It can affect the way in which we choose to take on project as PR practitioners and influence whether we want to represent a certain company or not. Within the medical profession ethical practice is clear cut with the Hippocratic Oath, however the same cannot be said for PR instead practitioners look to their own personal values and beliefs.  There are also the professional bodies that attempt to govern PR such as the CIPR or the PRCA.

Parsons defines ethics within the PR industry as “the application of knowledge, understanding and reasoning to questions of right and wrong”. (2008, p.9) This definition lends a basic knowledge to how we can proceed within PR in relation to working out our ethics and how far would be too far to go within a PR campaign.

There are a lot of risky campaigns that have been made especially within the public sector, such as the road safety adverts on speeding. When creating the THINK! campaigns they would have been faced with the difficult task of creating a campaign that help change people’s behaviour to speeding. The way in which they would do this would be difficult as a shocking campaign would not always be approved by everyone and they would find it too difficult to watch. However they did take a shocking campaign approach showing images of a young girl if she was hit at 40mph and then at 30mph within the speed limit. So when it comes to such delicate topics to ethics not play such a part? Do we just need to put them aside and do what is most effective? It is ok to use persuasion techniques in this example as it is for the greater good of the general public?

When considering what to do within the PR the pillars of ethics could be used as a framework which consists of:

 Veracity- to tell the truth

Non-malfeasance- to do no harm

Beneficence- to do good

Confidentiality- to respect privacy

Fairness- to be fair and socially responsible

This framework can be applied when looking at what to do with difficult subject in PR campaigns however the model can contradict itself as you may have to tell the truth, however the truth may do some harm so would you be doing any good? However if you didn’t tell the truth in order not to harm people would that mean you are not being socially responsible?

It seems there is no clear cut guidance on what to use as a guideline for good ethical practice. In my opinion it would be best to use your own ethics, morals and beliefs to help you decide what the right thing to do is. With regards to propaganda it follows no ethics it has one aim to make the audience do what you want them to do without consideration of others feelings or what is right or wrong.  So are PR and propaganda closely linked, with PR taking into consideration the positive or negative impact it may have on the audience it PR merely more communicating with the audience in the best possible way?

The origins of PR and Propaganda

Public Relations have various definitions with so many around it can be hard to define exactly what the role of the Public Relations practitioner is. I looked at the CIPR for a definition they state that “Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour”. It would seem sensible to take the definition of a professional body into account however PR can involve so much more than just reputation management it’s hard to put it down just to one definition.

With such a strong influence of reputation and changing the way people behave and form opinions within the industry there is a fine line between PR and propaganda. There is a debate of whether PR practitioners are really just spin doctors made to feed information to the public in the best possible light. So are we always told the truth by PR practitioners or just what they think we should know?

The origins of Propaganda and PR can been during the First World War when PR was used to persuade the public that the war was in their best interests and to encourage men to join the army. Edward Bernays has also used PR techniques to persuade people to smoke. The way in which he did it was to get women to light up during an Easter Parade in New York in 1929 thus making smoking in the streets seem acceptable. He was hired by the tobacco company Lucy Strike however back then the risks of smoking were not yet truly discovered.  Bernays believed “that it was possible to persuade people, but only of what is in their best interest”. But who is it down to decide what is in the best interest of the public? With the knowledge we have today on the dangers of smoking would he still have believed that it was in the best interests of the public? As PR practitioners you are asked to look after the company and portray them in the best possible light but with the topic of persuasion how far would you go if you believed it was against your morals and beliefs?

With PR having such a strong background in propaganda and persuasion does it still filter into the way PR is practised today, is there still evidence of it being used in the media today?

PR v Propaganda

So after a busy second year its time to start with my final year at University. As part of my recent assignment  I will be looking at the ethics of Public Relations and the subject of propaganda in a series of blog posts.

So join in the discussion

Watch this space