#EthicsMatter - Public Relations in the Trenches
Ethical principles shouldn’t evaporate in the heat of battle.
But because there’s no Geneva Convention on practicing public relations in combat, many practitioners assume that different ethical precepts apply when they’re in battle with competitors or entrenched special interests.
That prompted one respected practitioner to ask, “How are ethics to be interpreted by PR/Comms practitioners when things are threatening their client’s or organization’s market share and mind share?”
I suggested, perhaps too smugly, that dealing with oppositional forces is always challenging. But a client’s competitors or opponents don’t relieve a PR practitioner from acting ethically. If opponents lie, it’s ethical to correct them, but not ethical to use that as a license to lie yourself.
Some think judgments like that are ultimately subjective, particularly because, “PR/comms is expected to bend facts and to interpret truth to a client’s or employer’s advantage.”
I’ve been around long enough to know that is not a totally cynical description of some clients’ expectations. But that doesn’t make it right. It is possible to tell the difference between right and wrong. Such judgments are not entirely subjective, like one’s personal taste in movies. Wrong cannot be “interpreted” into right. And though it may sometimes be difficult to find the truth, that doesn’t mean we should stop looking for it, even in the fog of combat.
I have long favored a pragmatic approach. For me, in public relations, truth is substantially all the information a reasonable person needs to make an intelligent, voluntary decision.
But wait a minute, doesn’t that ignore what’s actually going on in the marketplace for goods and ideas? It’s a jungle out there.
Indeed, a free-market is characterized by lively competition, and a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas. Often, ideas that one side finds deplorable or ignorant.
Our economic and political systems depend on contention between opposing forces to help citizens make better decisions. No one in such a system has a monopoly on the truth, but we shouldn’t’ assume it is unattainable either. On the contrary, the public square is the arena in which the truth is often discerned. And that depends on opponents to fight fairly.
But there are also some facts on which there is a consensus of expert opinion, such as the dangers of smoking, the causes of climate change, and the efficacy of vaccinations. Attempting to cast doubt on such consensus, without clear evidence, or by asking unanswerable questions, is irresponsible and can be harmful.
Those who enter the public square, whether to sell an idea or a product, to enlist investors or employees, are bound to respect the public’s right to make decisions based on the best information available, free of coercion.
Even some of the most popular tools of influence can be seen within that framework.
Framing or Spinning. It’s ethical to put information in a useful context. For example, explaining that revenue declined because of a world-wide pandemic. But “bending” information to create a phony context is unethical. For example, the tobacco industry’s efforts to raise doubts about the health effects of smoking in the 1950s and 1960s, despite the consensus of medical authorities, were unethical. So are more current efforts to raise doubts about the benefits of vaccination, the causes of global warming, and sugary soft drinks’ contribution to childhood obesity.
Ransoming Good Works. On the other hand, social responsibility is not a get-out-of-jail card for good works undertaken for the wrong reasons, such as gaining political influence, buying off powerful interests, or clearing a path into the society pages for one’s spouse. Spending more to promote good works than on the good works themselves is subtler, but equally disingenuous. That is not to suggest undertaking good works can’t have multiple motives. Seeking to become known for social responsibility is entirely legitimate, if true. And supporting causes aligned with a company’s competencies, experience, and even needs can be perfectly ethical, in fact appropriate. But holding hostage those who have influence over the company shouldn’t be the primary purpose.
Surrogates. There is nothing unethical about seeking the support of like-minded allies. But any compensation those allies receive should be revealed so the public can take it into account in assessing their claims. Similarly, industry-created and funded think tanks or advocacy groups should identify their sponsors, and companies should not contribute to organizations that do not reveal their donors.
Dodging or Deflecting. Bridging away from legitimate questions about something people reasonably need to know to make an intelligent decision is unethical. But PR practitioners have no ethical obligation to call attention to competitors’ advantages or even to their company’s weaknesses. A reasonable person would not expect that.
PR people have to respond truthfully if asked about such issues, and they can put any weaknesses in context. But they have no ethical obligation to answer every question put to them. Evading or refusing to answer questions about matters irrelevant to customers’ decisions is perfectly ethical. That’s why AT&T refused to identify the technician whose work led to a nationwide network outage. Identifying the technician would contribute nothing to decisions about buying from, investing in, or working for the company. And in the final analysis, it was the company’s management systems that failed, not the technician.
Manipulating Emotions. Because human beings are both rational and sentient, the public square is an arena of both opinion and sentiment. But it is reason — the right and ability to set one’s own goals and make one’s own decisions — that gives men and women dignity. Those who would influence people’s decisions must also respect their right to make them free of coercion. Fanning their anger or fears to overwhelm their reason is unethical.
But human beings are not simply rational. Their emotions are a source of information and often motivate their actions. Emotional appeals are ethical as long as they don’t overwhelm people’s ability to reason and are used for good purpose, i.e., to better people’s well-being. And special care should be taken in seeking to influence the vulnerable, such as children or the elderly.
The practice of public relations is active participation in the social construction of meaning. But the meaning we construct for a client or employer must be grounded in a faithful understanding of what is true, what is good for our customers and society as a whole. Not a wishful version of what we would like it to be.
That’s not just theory. I’ve seen it done in practice, even in the sometimes muddy and heavily shelled trenches of a company like AT&T.
Dick Martin writes about public relations and marketing, following a 33-year career with AT&T where he was chief communications officer. He is the author of six books, including Public Relations Ethics: How To Practice PR Without Losing Your Soul, co-written with Donald K. Wright of Boston University. Martin’s latest book is Marilyn: A Woman In Charge, a biography of his predecessor at AT&T Marilyn Laurie who was the first woman to serve on the executive committee of a Fortune 10 company in the United States.
Any thoughts or opinions expressed are that of the author and not of Global Alliance.