Trouble

Look at the state of the world we live in and understand we are in trouble. The juxtaposition of the way things are and how they should be is cause for alarm. We should be living in a world where knowing what it feels like to be in pain is exactly why we try to be kind to others, instead, knowing pain teaches people to hate in the wake of lost ethical understanding and moral teaching. We hold fast to the idea that one day everyone will understand each other, or, at the very least, understand – but nobody seems to know what they are doing. - Geoffrey Mckinney 2016

When we left you last, we were discussing civil disobedience, contractarianism, and how society relinquished certain rights in order to safely pursue happiness - but somewhere along the lines the people decided what they had was no longer enough. As a society we hold organizations to a higher standard than we hold our fellow man because they provide us with a service that assists us in obtaining happiness. When they transgress against us we feel betrayed and we confront them. We point the unethical treatment finger towards them and blame them for the current state of the environment and society. Organizations developed a conscience long before we regained our own. Their conscience is just a spark, but it has the potential to become a fire. Their conscience are known as public relations, and the PRSA's Code of Ethics, they claim, is their quick go to when they are feeling ethically challenged.

“As rational beings, humans need to live together under universal rules, which each could adopt and make his own…the willingness to behave morally (or avoid wronging others), driven by the call of conscience and intellectual honesty is one of the reasons for…the PRSA Code of Ethics” (Scopacasa 2016). The Public Relations Society of America and its Code of Ethics exists as the first building block to a greater society. At the very least, it is an attempt to inspire ethical behavior in the cut-throat, organizational world. In its best, the PRSA’s code is the first building block towards ethical law for public interest in a world where nobody knows exactly what’s best for public interest – it being something decided for the public in legal court or the court of public opinion. To put the latter half in easier terms, legal courts try to determine how individuals should act based on law (which is severely flawed) and the court of public opinion tries the very same (which is severely diverse and uneducated). On one hand we have this super-computer like entity that decides what your rights are based on law in a one-size fits all format on the other we have the court of public opinion which is akin to a bunch of kindergarteners running around at recess saying “well, my mommy said…”. The third entity intends for us to follow reason rather than law or emotion and, as such, is required in order to check and balance the other two which will always conflict – this is the potential offered by the PRSA’s Code of Ethics. However, the current Code of Ethics exercises very little in the realm of ethics and is designed for personal reflections and for show.

             Currently, the PRSA’s Code of Ethics itself is designed to be a “useful guide for PRSA members as they carry out their ethical responsibilities…designed to anticipate and accommodate, by precedent, ethical challenges that may arise” (Voss 2016). The PRSA’s code is in its adolescent stage – it has many ideas, hopes, and potentials, yet, it lacks reality. There are many problems with the current PRSA’s Code of Ethics (henceforth may be referred to as the COE). For example, the pledge at the end of the COE’s guidelines refers to the obligations to public interest without pledging an obligation to the client (when ultimately, the goal of the PR practitioner is to generate and ROI for the organization). This pledge, along with the entirety of the COE, is more about image than it is about professionalism. It is for public show, and that claim is backed up by the fact that public relations itself has a plethora of methods to manipulate public thought for the benefit of organizations.

For example, it is a public relations strategy to aid the organization in positioning. A Strategic Guide for Public Relations offers advice on positioning, claiming “positioning is not what you do to a product. Positioning is what you do to the mind of the prospect” (Smith 2009, p. 80). The COE claims that a PRSA member “must be honest and accurate in all communications” (Voss 2016); The COE, which can be viewed by the public and PR practitioners alike, fails to mention concepts such as the framing that is done through advertisement to the target audience which is the public and the measurements, such as the Likert scale, PR practitioners forego to see if the message put out was received the way they wanted it to. This is morally complicated. “Deceit and lack of access to the sources of knowledge are morally objectionable because they prevent us from… [our abilities] to know and…to guide choice and action” (MacKinnon 2013, p. 58). Simply put, how ethical is it to claim to be in the interests of the public while concurrently claiming to be honest and forthright, when in reality it is the job of PR practitioners to serve the organization and persuade the minds of their publics? The intent within the COE claims “to build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making” (Voss 2016) but doesn’t include the fact that PR practitioners also reveal their information in such a way to guide their decision making. This is one of the problems that the COE must rectify; it does include that practitioners are there to serve their clients but it doesn’t show to what extent that service affects the public. When a Code of Ethics claims to represent honesty it should steer away from showing the public that PR exists for their sake mostly and portray the advocacy for dual interests in its entirety. After all, the reality is that Public Relations does care about the interests of the public, but the interests PR cares about is how interested the public is with their client’s organization from various standpoints.

Now, PRSA’s Code of Ethics is still a helpful tool. It does provide guidelines in the benefit of mutual understanding between publics and organizations. The underlying concept of it all does, in fact, encourage ethical behavior. For example, it is the job of the public relations practitioner to maintain a favorable image of their client in the eyes of their public(s). In order to do that, PR is obligated to ensure that the organization is, in fact, acting favorably. For example, PR is responsible for the organization’s approach to its corporate social responsibility – which is the organization’s ethical code – and this responsibility is included within the PRSA’s COE: “to aid informed decision-making” (Voss 2016). To aid in informed decision-making also encompasses and validates the research PR practitioners do in order to generate their ROIs. So to be fair, a large portion of the PRSA’s Code of Ethics does advise one to “act in the best interest of the client or employer” (Voss 2016). However, the COE also claims that there should be an intent to “maintain the integrity of relationships with the media, government officials, and the public” (Voss 2016). However, it does not necessarily explain how to deal with conflicts between the obligation to free and honest public communication and their client’s interests. This murkiness requires clarification – especially because it advises that in the event of a conflict of interest a member shall “act in the best interests of the client or employer, even subordinating the member’s personal interests” (Voss 2016). It makes sense that we are being paid by the client, therefore we have a professional obligation to the client. Concurrently, however, the COE states in its preamble that “we serve the public good…we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically” (Voss 2016). The COE claims commitment to ethical practices. Ethics teach us to “always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end…[meaning] that we should treat persons as having value in themselves and not just instrumental value” (MacKinnon 2013, p. 47). Basically, the aforementioned proves that the COE lacks clarity and a direct focus on what a member’s objectives should be. One cannot look right and left at the same time and one should favor one side. Because journalism already exists as an advocate to the truth and to bring light to the public, then public relations is directly tied to advocate the organization. If we deem something ‘unethical’ and will damage the public the COE infers that we should toss aside our own personal interests and “safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of present…clients” (Voss 2016). 

So to put it simply:

1.      It is the duty of public relations members to safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of current clients.

2.      Members are responsible for aiding and informing the organization in decision making.

3.      If or when something comes up that could damage the reputation of the organization in the eyes of the public it is then your duty to reveal this information through controlled channels to protect the overall image of the company.

This article will conclude with the observation of how flawed the current PRSA's Code of Ethics is. Next week we will begin a full dissection and analysis of the current COE and begin the revising and amendments. If we can agree that there is something missing from the world as it is, perhaps we can do something about it. Perhaps what the world needs now - is not love per se - but strong ethical guidance and moral understanding. 

References

MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.

Smith, R. D. (2009). Strategic planning for public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scopacasa, J. (2016, January 6). Ethics in PR: A moral and utilitarian analysis of the PRSA Code. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-pr-moral-utilitarian-analysis-prsa-code-jessica-scopacasa

Voss, J. (n.d.). Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Member Code of Ethics. Retrieved October 02, 2016, from https://www.prsa.org/aboutprsa/ethics/codeenglish/#Preamble 

 Cudd, A. (2012). Contractarianism. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/