Redefining Public Relations

Society has seen rapid changes due to advancements in technology. We are now living in an age of technology and information in which almost everyone has access to the Internet and the sharing of information is instantaneous.  According to an article written in the New York Times by Stuart Elliot, “The most significant changes have occurred most recently, as the Internet and social media blogs, Facebook and Twitter have transformed the relationship between the members of the public and those communicating with them” (Elliot, 2011).

These new changes and advancements have led to a search for a new definition.

 The Public Relations Society of America (PSRA), has begun an effort to develop a better definition of “public relations”, one more appropriate for the 21t century (Elliot, 2011). The current definition of PR, as mentioned in the article is to, manage the message an entity is sharing with its different audiences in order to help the organization and public adopt mutually to each other (Elliot, 2011). The problem with this definition in today’s world is that literally everyone has the power to publish and share messages. People can use the Internet and various devices to instantaneously create and share content that is open to the entire public. So essentially society has the power to potentially create relations between entities and they have taken one of PR’s main role.

 

If I were to create a more modern definition of PR, I would define it as follows: Public Relations is a process of strategic communication that aims to create and influence the creation of positive content by society that will foster a mutually beneficial relationship between an organization and the public. This new definition improves upon the current definition because it defines a new role for PR that addresses societies ability to create content. Some possible ethical implications of this new definition are:

·      Who is the PR firm responsible to? The organization? The public?

·      What guideline will be used to avoid conflicts of interest?

·      Will public relations firms alter societies content enough to hide truth and protect the organization?

Any new definition that is presented should incorporate ethics in some way. I believe that the way to do this is to incorporate the two main entities that will be affected by the definition, in the definition. Since, “PR powers” have shifted to society, society should be included in the definition along with the organization. Another ethical consideration with the new definition is sparked by the use of a code of ethics; which code of ethics will PR firms use? The organization it represents? The public relations society of America’s code of ethics? A combination of both? Or does a new one have to be created along with the definition?

In 2011, a PR firm “engaged in an attempted smear campaign on behalf of Facebook, against Google (Trivett, 2011)”. The firm attempted to ruin Google’s image by generating articles that criticized Google’s privacy practice (Trivett, 2011). The articles tried to address the privacy implications of a search feature. Of all the PR breaches in 2011, this was probably the most problematic. I say this because, Facebook is the most used social network site and their privacy tactics are often criticized. Facebook always assures that their practices are ethical and people have nothing to worry about but this PR scandal suggests otherwise. Facebook was not transparent in hiring the PR firm to criticize Google. This brings up a huge ethical question: What other things is Google not being transparent about? Do they really use ethical practices to protect and respect the privacy of its users?

This year the PRSA and the FTC are looking to encourage ethical conversation and increase the monitoring of public relations standards in society. Some of their focuses are: maintaining ethics in a digital age and the ethics in brand journalism. I believe that this is a good step towards improving the field of ethics in PR because one way to get people to start thinking ethical is to discuss ethics regularly and some of the main points of interest will cover topics that are relevant to today’s society, like maintaining ethics in a digital age.

Works Cited

Elliot, S. (2011, November 20). Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/business/media/redefining-public-relations-in-the-age-of-social-media.html

Trivett, K. (2011, May 18). PRSA official: Smear campaigns have no place in PR. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from Ragan's PR Daily: http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/PRSA_official_Smear_campaigns_have_no_place_in_PR_8288.aspx

Images of 9/11

There has been a lot of criticism of the images and stories that were displayed in newspapers, magazines and in the news following the attacks of 9/11. The images and stories were often graphic, showing people falling to their deaths, wounded victims and firsthand accounts of what people saw and experienced on that day. One reporter by the name of Richard Drew was covering a fashion show in downtown Manhattan when two planes slammed into the towers. As people jumped from the towers, his reporter instincts kicked in and he began to photograph them. It later turned out that some of the pictures he had taken were used in papers around the country as part of their coverage. A lot of outraged readers and viewers would call the media outlets displaying these pictures and complain about how graphic the images were, some showing people falling to their deaths (Patterson & Lee, 2010).

The big question is was it ethical to display such violent and graphic images and stories as part of news coverage of 9/11? Like most ethical dilemmas there is not just one correct answer. To help evaluate this ethical question I am going to use an ethical guideline issued by the Public Relations Society of America called The Member Code of Ethics. The Member Code of Ethics (MCE) is helpful in evaluating this ethical situation because its codes are geared towards things like honesty, fairness and safe guarding confidences to name a few. These principles are all topics that come up in this ethical dilemma.

One question that came up was should the photographer continued to photograph the jumper when he realized what was happening? It is clear that the reporter was doing his job by photographing the jumper and providing accurate truthful information. The MCE states that Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society (Publics Relations Society of America).  I do not think that the photographer’s intent was to show a man falling to his death but rather to show just how horrific 9/11 was. Part of a reporter’s job is to be loyal to the public. The MCE states that reporters must be faithful to those they represent, while honoring their obligation to serve the public interest (Publics Relations Society of America). I believe that it was in the public’s best interest to know how horrific the event was and this is why the photographed jumper was used as part of news reports.

One section of the PSRA that may be difficult to use in evaluating this ethical question is the part on safeguarding confidence which states client trust requires appropriate protection of confidential and private information (Publics Relations Society of America). Some people complained that the picture revealed too much and showed a man falling to his death. Although this is true, the man’s identity was never revealed and his face was not visible in the picture. So technically the journalist was abiding by the MCE code of safeguarding confidence but others believed too much was revealed.

In my media ethics class we talked about an ethical perspective called the Bok model. Bok states that maintaining social trust is a fundamental good. In my eyes Richard Drew abided by the MCE and in doing so he maintained a social trust to the public. Another ethical perspective that we discussed in the class is the social responsibility of the public’s relation profession. PR’s main duty is to give the public information that they need and this is what Richard Drew and the news outlets were doing. The public needed this information because it’s important for them to know how horrific and dangerous the attacks were. By knowing this, they can understand the need for greater protection, learn how to be alert to possible terrorist dangers and support new laws and regulations that were created to combat terrorism.

Works Cited

Patterson, P., & Lee, W. (2010). Media Ethics. New York: McGraw Hill.

Publics Relations Society of America. (n.d.). PSRA Code of Ethics. Retrieved january 19, 2012, from http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/CodeEnglish/

Keep it a Secret?

A real controversial topic in the area ethics is whether or not to keep certain information a secret. Many questions arise as a result of this controversy and there is usually a split in responses to this topic. Some may believe that it is unethical to keep information a secret and that if nothing is wrong, then nothing has to be kept a secret. Others believe that some information is better kept a secret because it has the potential to do more harm than good. These people may also believe that information that wants to get out will get out on its own.

In my media ethics class, I was in charge of facilitating a discussion group in which I had to prepare five questions to ask a group of students. One of my questions had to do with the wiki leaks. Here is what I asked: Does the American Public have the right to know what the government is doing at all times and doesn’t the release of the wiki leaks suggest that the government is not being truthful? The group all agreed that withholding information is a form of lying and technically the wiki leaks does imply that the government is not being truthful but we all agreed that the government witholds information for the greater good. In other words the government keeps certain information a secret if they feel that releasing the information will jeopardize things like safety.

In deciding whether or not to release information to the public, and especially in the case of the wiki leaks, I would use these criteria:

· Will releasing this information be beneficial to society?

· Will releasing this information put the citizen’s safety at risk?

· Will releasing this information put my personal reputation and safety at risk?

· What are the long and short term risks of withholding the information?

I personally believe that it’s ok to lie if the lie is done for the sole purpose of bringing a greater good. For e.g. I think it is ok for the American Government to withhold information (Lie) in order to protect society. There is no need for the American public to know everything the government does and is planning to do. Especially with all the wars and terrorist issues that are going on today. The government should only have to release information that is beneficial to the people and does not put anyone in harms way.

As I stated earlier, one should take into account their personal reputation and safety when deciding whether or not to release secret information. Julian Assange, who is the editor of Wiki leaks, has faced some serious criticism from the American public and as a result his personal reputation and safety have been jeopardized. He has been called a high tech terrorist; information terrorist; and threats have been made on his life. All of this has come as a result of his wiki leaks.

Hypothetically, if I was to become a media professional, I believe that I will find myself entangled in secrets. In this profession I would be seeking out and dealing with a lot of information and because of this, I am bound to come across some secret information. Whether or not I would release the information will be determined by some thorough ethical analysis and thought with the greater good in mind.

Making Ethical Decisions

Making ethical decisions is never an easy task because many ethical dilemmas do not yield just one correct answer. There are also many things to think about when making ethical decisions such as: the consequences, those involved, personal ramifications, the law etc…

A profession in media will present one with many ethical dilemmas and the choices made by the individual will affect not only the outcome of the dilemma but the person making the decision. In the future I would like to be involved in corporate communications for large businesses. Although, I will probably be focusing on reporting on multiple aspects of the corporation, I would like to focus mainly on corporate social responsibility; ensuring the community is aware of the organizations social commitment and maintaining the company’s reputation within the community.

This job will present me with many ethical dilemmas in which I will be forced to make ethical decisions. It is very possible that this profession may put me in a position in which I will have to make a decision on whether or not to withhold information in order to maintain a company’s good reputation.

In 2000, a tire company by the name of Firestone went under investigation after a report indicated that 300 car accidents had occurred due to problems with Firestone’s tires. The company maintained that their number one priority was consumer safety and they were taking all the necessary steps in fixing the problem. Three months into the investigation, Firestone was forced to recall over 6 million tires after PR experts found that the company failed to take necessary and immediate action after reports revealed problems with their tires. The fact that the company took action when they were exposed to the public led people to believe, that Firestone was more concerned with preserving their image than saving lives. In the end Firestones image was damaged and their sales and revenues dropped significantly. They also faced lawsuits amounting to $50 million (Winfred).

It’s no question that Firestone should have handled the situation in a more ethical manner. When I handle ethical situations I like to use a four step process as follows.

1.      What is causing the ethical dilemma and what decisions need to be made?

2.      Who will be affected by the decision?

3.      How will they be affected by the decision?

4.      Why will they be affected by the decision?

Once these questions have been answered, its then up to the decision maker/decision makers to use moral judgment to make the most ethical decision. One moral tool that I always like to fall on is the Golden Rule- “do unto others as you would like them to do unto you”.

In the book Media Ethics by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, different models to aid in ethical decisions are presented. One tool/model that I really like is the Bok Model. Bok states that when making ethical decisions, we should have empathy for those involved and maintaining social trust is a fundamental good (Patterson & Lee, 2011). Social trust is an important aspect of the media/business world. When consumers loose trust with an organization it can mean a loss in sales and revenue and it can essentially put a company out of business.

Bok also presents a 3 step process for tackling ethical dilemmas:

1.      Consult your conscious about the rightness of the action you plan to take. How do you feel about the action?

2.      Seek expert advice.

3.      If necessary conduct a public discussion with the parties involved.

Bok’s model combined with the four step model I presented can provide someone with the necessary tools to make a well thought out and analyzed ethical decision.

We should never rest on the ethical tools/models that we have or are familiar with. There is always room to improve upon our decision making. This year I am taking a course in media ethics and it is my hope that by conversing with classmates and reading course material that I will become familiar with more ethical tools and guidelines and also be able to answer these questions:

·         What are some times in which it is better for an individual to be overlooked in order to bring benefits to a group? Is this ethical?

·         Should we look to treat people the same because we are all equal in the eyes of the law or should we look to treat people fairly when making ethical decisions? (Treating people equally could imply that we are all the same and not individuals and fair treatment could mean ensuring that the people involved get what they deserve).

Works Cited

Patterson, P., & Lee, W. (2011). Media Ethics. New York: McGraw Hill.

Winfred. (n.d.). Withholding Information: The Firestone Tire Recall Case Study. Retrieved January 6, 2010, from Public Relations: The Ethical Dilemma: http://prethicaldilemma.blogspot.com/2008/01/firestone-tyre-recall-case-study.html

By,

Olufemi Akinpetide