PRSA Code of Ethics: The Bigger Picture

Hannah May

HMay2011@aol.com

Ethics -- a word that can be translated, interpreted, and acted out differently by all organizations and companies, small or large. It is the civil duty of each business to create their own personal code of ethics that members must carry out on a day-to-day basis. Following a code of ethics in the workforce is one of the first steps to ensure that a business runs successfully and smoothly. The Public Relations Society of America has created their code of ethics that they commit to in order to obtain maximum trust from the public. 

After reading and analyzing the PRSA Code of Ethics, it becomes clear the key beliefs of PRSA.

Gaining trust is the key to success.

As a person in public relations, your main contender is, as the position states, the public. If you do not have the public's trust your service announcements or press releases stand for nothing. What you have worked so hard to construct will go in one ear and out the other. As a PR professional you never want to put yourself in a position that could jeopardize building trust between clients, the employer and the public. The work created must be consistent in strengthening the public’s trust in you and your company. 

Personal actions reflect the whole society.

PRSA believes that as a member of this society, you must commit to ethical practices in order to uphold the reputation of the society as a whole and on a personal level as well.  It is stated in the preamble that, “each of us sets an example for each other.” I believe this statement to be unquestionably true. One simple wrong action from a member of the society could be poorly reflected back onto other members of the society. PRSA believes that they must all uphold a powerful standard of performance, professionalism and ethical conduct to avoid possibly negative accusations and assumptions of other members.

PRSA takes their Code of Ethics seriously, no laughter here. 

Failure to uphold the standards of performance, professionalism and ethical conduct that PRSA administers, results in execution from the society. Your membership will be revoked, and you can no longer associate yourself with PRSA. Simple as that.

Not only should PRSA uphold a high standard of values and ethics, the whole public relations profession should.

One of the most powerful things the public can take away from the PRSA Code of Ethics falls under the PRSA Member Statement of Professional Values. Not only is PRSA stating that their society will personal follow the values listed, but they believe that their Member Code of Ethics sets a standard and guide for the whole public relations profession. They state that their Member Code of Ethics “sets the industry standard for the professional practice of public relations,” and that they believe their “professional values are vital to the integrity of the profession as a whole.” By making that statement PRSA is setting a very high bar for the rest of the public relations world -- a bar that I hope all can meet.

Communication must always be organic, and private when need be.

The information that the public receives needs to always be truthful, that is a given. The content of the public announcement may never be tampered with or persuaded by higher officials. When coming to a crossroads of what information to relay, PRSA states numerous times to, “be honest and accurate in all communications.” The truth may hurt, but sometimes that sting is necessary. On the contrary, it is important for public relations professionals to understand when it is most important to not relay information to the public. PR professionals need to be aware when the client, organization or individual has a right to privacy that triumphs the ability to reveal all information to the public.

PRSA goes above and beyond when creating their Member Code of Ethics. Instead of focusing on their own society, worrying about themselves and not minding what any other public relations firms are doing, the society public declares the importance that the profession as a whole maintain the standards that they are providing. I know personally that down the road in my public relations future, I will be taking a look back at PRSA’s Code of Ethics and making sure I am able to uphold the bar they have set for me as a professional in the field of public relations. 

Cracking the Code

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

Journalism is not what it used to be. Online forums, blogging and the digital world as a whole have reshaped this profession. Heck, it feels like you don’t even have to be a ‘professional’ to be one of today’s "journalists." Because of the growing ambiguity of this career, the code of ethics it adheres to must alter as well.

The other obvious issue that arises is how can there be one universal definition of what is ethical? Every person has a different idea of what is morally acceptable and fitting to one’s character.

What is Ethics?

When boiled down to its pure definition, ethics simply means “character”, derived from the Greek word ethos. It is what a person, or organization, believes is morally acceptable; what is in good character of someone.

Theory of Knowledge

Ethical Public Relations

I took a personal interest to the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics since I am a Strategic Communications major and am a member of PRSSA. When being a part of an organization that’s job is to represent other companies branding and standards, it is imperative that you think in terms of that client. One of their main points is building trust. The fact that they not only want to gain trust within their clients, but their own employers and the public as well, is something that I think is vital to a successful PR firm.

Not Set in Stone

Is it really possible for everyone who is a part of an organization to have the same opinions and moral compass? People are raised differently, have different beliefs, have distinctive characteristics; it’s hard to fit everyone in a box. If you are applying for a job or are a part of an organization, you may not always fall into the same ethical standpoint as their code. I think that a person should not have to adhere to a company’s ethics if it does not match their own, but the person should seek out a job that holds the same ethical code as them.

There is a section in PRSA’s Code of Ethics that is ever changing. They have a portion called Provisions of Conduct that “are actual examples of misconduct” and “more will be added as experience with the code occurs.” They understand that the world of journalism and public relations is constantly shifting. Most codes do not include such sections. For example, Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics was adopted in 1996 and has not been revised sense. I am pretty sure journalism is not the same as it was 17 years ago, so shouldn’t their rules evolve as well?

The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth

I do believe however that every code, and everyone, should remain truthful. As journalists, or public relations professionals, it is our job to report the truth. The public puts their trust in credible reporting and do not want to weed through what is real or not. If a person does not think that reporting false information is unethical, journalism is probably not the profession for them.

Ethics is hard to condense into one simple term. It is different from person to person and changes daily. Technology and the advancement of journalism and public relations play important roles as well in shaping ethics.      

PR: When It Comes to Crisis, Act Fast and Deliver.

by Rika Nurrahmah, rikanurrahmah@gmail.com

Think of the urgency for public relations to master the art of swift communication like you would with a domestic accident: Oreo the cat falls dizzy and pukes in a hidden corner of your living room carpet. Your mother is having a bad day, so over fear of her motherly wrath, you wrestle over the dilemma of telling her about the accident.

While staring over the slimy mess, you discover that your little brother also witnessed the mess. Realizing the role of responsibility in the household, he gives you an ultimatum that if you don't take him to the local skate park for the day, he'll tell your mom a warped story on how you saw Oreo puking and vocally professed to do nothing about it.

As the master of communication and crisis management, the best thing to do is to immediately approach your mother and report Oreo's puke pie to her, and do it with as much truthfulness as possible. It will also leave mother indignant, because she's left on all fours vigorously scrubbing away.

Remember when the Lipitor ad scandal involving Dr. Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart, and a looming suspicion of paid endorsement broke in 2006? Having the inventor repeatedly dodge answering questions on the details of his endorsement on news outlets like Good Morning America worked in no favor to the company's PR camp. If you kept things on the hush and let the pile settle, then it'll dry up and become one heck of a headache to remove from carpet. Ultimately, Lipitor dropped Dr. Jarvik, who famously said "when diet and exercise isn't enough," from the Lipitor ads, but the lag in action leaves many wondering why this couldn't have been done any sooner.

The infamous Lipitor ad.

In relations to public relations, the longer it takes to respond to a crisis, the stickier the mess and thus, the harder it is to resolve it. You want to act fact because a news publication is like your little brother: if they disclose the news before you do, you and the company you represented will not be seen under a positive light by the public eye. A no brainer, yes, but a practice that often slips into the cracks when a crisis comes to play.

by Rika Nurrahmah, rikanurrahmah@gmail.com

Journalism: Not a public service--a consumer service

By Robert Guliano

rg116107@ohio.edu

What we are seeing in media and journalism is an inherent conflict of interest. It is our noble journalistic values facing off against the competitive nature of the industry. With ethics at the heart of this conflict, it provides a slippery slope on both ends of the spectrum that could eventually lead to an individual journalist or media outlet's demise.

The most bothersome cliche that is associated with journalism may be that it is a public service. Sure, this sounds dignified and can easily serve as a rallying cry for trailblazing journalists working in all mediums. However, solemnly swearing to such a statement may not be the brightest thing for a media outlet or individual "journalist" to do--because for the most part it is wrong.

All NPR aside (and that may be a generous omission), media outlets are not an agent of the government. Right there, the idea that they are a public service should be up for question. Media, like several other sectors of the economy, is a business. This makes media not a public service but a customer service.

The customer in this case is twofold: the media consumer and the revenue generating advertiser. They are interlinked. They also share similarities. Both are relatively impatient. Both are what keep media outlets in business. And both do not always put a premium on journalistic values.

In fact, it can be argued that they often prefer entertainment over straight journalism. A racy photo in a magazine--hello, new readers. A revealing but controversial investigative report--goodbye advertisers. The business still ultimately comes down to economics. Which leads to this thought:

There may be diminishing returns to ethics in media.

Journalists likely hate hearing this. But it may be a reality. Certainly there is a point where misguided ethics can be the demise of a media outlet or journalist. However, that means there has to be a point of ethical compliance that renders that outlet or journalist no longer competitive.

Business is sort of a greedy realm. Even if perfect ethics were to be accomplished and the outlet were to be afloat, there would definitely be room to improve profit-wise. Changes to drive profits may compromise ethics. And worst of all to those who cling to that creed, it may be perfectly okay with audiences.

Remember, audiences are the consumer not the public. Fox News does not sweat too much when liberal consumers criticize and boycott their broadcasts. Certainly these liberal consumers are members of the public. The reason Fox doesn't care, though, is because they are not their consumers. Media is a consumer service.

Do advertisers have the right to screen editorial content? As paying customers, it is hard to argue they don't. Do media outlets have the right to tell advertisers no to such requests? They do indeed, but it may come at a cost.

So, when examining whether media should cater editorial content to the desires of advertisers, the answer lies in between advertorial content and editorial content. It is the challenge of finding where that happy medium is that will determine the success of a media outlet.