Carefully read the SPJ and PRSA codes of ethics (they can be found under Links on the class blog).
Journalism majors: Do you believe the SPJ code provides adequate ethical guidance for journalists? Why or why not? Do you think awareness of the code might have prevented Stephen Glass' fabrications? Explain.
PR concentrators: Do you believe the PRSA code provides adequate ethical guidance for PR professionals? Why or why not? Do you believe it is followed by PR professionals? Explain.
Others can choose to answer either/or.
Your response is due no later than 6 p.m., Saturday, Sept. 18.
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
23 comments:
I do think the SPJ code provides adequate ethical guidance. It’s not as detailed as I imagined it might have been, however it does cover many of the behavioral, professional, or ethical dilemmas a journalist might run into. As it states on the site, these are more suggestions than they are strict guidelines. I think a loose set of guidelines is actually a better idea because they are then open to interpretation with each individual circumstance. No situation is ever the same- especially in journalism, this way—we have some rules to follow, but they’re not absolute, forcing us to examine and apply them to each situation we encounter. I think there’s only so much SPJ, or anyone for that matter can do to ensure that all journalists act ethically.
Along that same thought, I don’t think awareness of this code would have prevented Stephen Glass’ fabrications. Any journalist could have a slip, and inadvertently disclose a name, get information wrong, get a fact wrong, or somehow break the code—but without any ill intent. Glass’ actions were different. They were deliberate, and strategic. His fraudulent articles were not a result of lack of knowledge, or any sort of mistake. Even if the code existed at the time, and Glass were to have read it, it wouldn’t matter. He clearly has a blatant disregard for integrity, or any sort of truth. He is a wildly irresponsible fabricator who I doubt would have any sense of obligation to a code of ethics.
The core values in the PRSA Member Code of Ethics include advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. I believe it provides ethical guidance for PR professionals because it encourages us to tell the truth, stick to our morals, and act with the company’s best interest. Whereas journalists are mainly concerned with the public, PR professionals must represent the company they work for while keeping the public’s best interest in mind.
The field of public relations usually gets a bad reputation because we are known as “spin doctors.” We tend to shine a positive spotlight on negative information to benefit the company that we are working for. Many people think this is deceitful and unethical but I disagree. PR professionals are still providing the public with all the necessary information; we are still telling the truth. How we choose to interpret the truth is up to us and the public is more than welcome to take the information we give them and make their own interpretations.
I believe that these code of ethics are practiced by most PR professionals but not all. It’s important for PR professionals to work with a company whose mission statement and culture they agree with – if you’re against animal testing, do not work for a cosmetics company that tests on animals. This is important because it helps us stick to our morals and make decisions that truly have the public’s best interest.
The SPJ code has a lot in it, but I’m not sure that it’s concrete enough. Because it doesn’t say exactly how to handle a given situation, it can’t be completely effective. By saying things like “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public,” it doesn’t really say what to do, more like suggests how to handle a situation. Because people react to things different, it’s nearly impossible to consider the SPJ code a universal thing. If anything, just to avoid any ambiguity, I’d like to see something much more firm and universal. While I realize every situation in journalism is different, having a clearer set of boundaries would help.
Stephen Glass had no regard for ethics. He was a storyteller, and lied to cover his own ass. He had to have known that making stories up entirely, without even a shred of truth to them, was wrong, but he did it anyway. If this was the type of situation where he got a fact incorrect, or the meaning of his story was distorted, it wouldn’t have been as much of an issue. If more than half of the stories he passed of as truth were lies, the reporter has no ethical boundaries.
I believe that the PRSA code provides a pretty good ethical guideline for Public Relations Professionals, however, unfortunately, I do not believe it is always strictly followed. For example, one of the big ethical standards on this list is to disclose financial interest in a client's organization. This is something that I don't believe most PR Professionals follow, and if anything, they usually try to hide this fact in order to benefit themselves the most. I feel like with most Public Relations Professionals, especially contractors, get involved with specific organizations solely because of the financial gain. While it is important to be truthful, as stated in the code, I feel like PR Professionals will often blur these lines in order to put their clients ahead within the industry. While I don't believe the majority of PR Professionals out and out lie about what their representing, it is very easy to sway facts and important information in favor of the organization. In fact, I'm sure that there are a great number of Public Relations professionals out there who are hired for that very purpose, to hide or misrepresent information effectively.
I think that the PRSA code is a good standard, but I don't believe that the majority of professionals out there are actually following any code at all.
The PRSA Code of ethics provides a straightforward guideline for PR professionals, which, as Annie has mentioned, encourages integrity and truth telling. The Code maintains that these professionals should have loyalty towards the companies they are hired by as well as the public and there is no distinction that one is more important than the other. Words like truth and protect are recurring themes. Overall these guidelines provide responsible instructions on how to practice ethical public relations.
I am not a public relations major, however I am familiar with it. I also happen to be taking an introductory course in PR this semester. I have to admit that I do have a certain bias towards public relations that is not so nice yet I understand why it exists and why it is important in a capitalist society. I believe that what the PRSA has put forward as a code of ethics is adequate but not practical in reality. This is America, it should be no surprise to anyone that big corporations do not always act ethically and when something goes wrong they have PR to do damage control. PR firms like that cannot possibly be working in the best interest of their clients while being completely truthful to the public. In my opinion, public relations is more about helping the client rather than communicating the truth to the masses. Not all PR is like the grim example I gave. Public relations does serve other functions and is very helpful for all types of businesses. I am sure that there are plenty of PR firms that follow ethical standards but definitely not all.
The PRSA code of ethics is a great guideline for PR professionals to stick to. The problem is it seems that a few PR professionals don't stick to these rules of ethics. If every PR company followed this list PR stunts wouldn't exist. The event I've though of the most while reading this is the BP oil leak. Then I started to realize the contradictions that those executives found in these rules to make what they're doing seem right. For example "Protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information" is the right thing to do but when combined with "Work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession." Here is when the ethical dilema begins. As a PR person you want to inform the public of the truth but the company will most likely want you to cover up the truth. This is when the PR person will spin things and deceive the public for the better good of the company, the people that are paying the PR firm. Money should be on this list because that seems to drive most of the decision making of these PR executives.
These rules seem to be laid out to be manipulated and twisted for the benefit of the company who hired the firm. I feel if these rules were followed the way they were meant to be followed there would be a lot more truth and a lot less scandal in the PR world.
I think the SPJ does contain helpful guidelines that pertain to being a respectable and socially accepted journalist. It covers the important common issues that journalists should avoid such as lying, plagiarizing, or manipulation of stories and sources.
Unfortunately, the demand to act independently is one part of the code that I have a hard time accepting or wanting to follow. I am not saying that whole part should be omitted because it is a huge part of practicing traditional journalism. A journalist must be objective, therefore, a journalist should not be part of any organization or political group that might reveal that bias.
According to this code, the job of a journalist is to report the activity or activism taking place, not participate in it. While I do understand that reporting such stories is extremely important, sometimes I wonder if covering the story is as fulfilling as participating in the event that is being reported. That part of the code makes me question my ability to truly commit to being a journalist and the thought is scary.
I have a lot of questions about it. Can I write a letter to the mayor concerning a certain issue that I think is important to address or would that be considered unethical as a journalist? Could I send a letter to an assembly person regarding a legislation that if passed could affect my life and others or should I just write about it and encourage others to write letters?
And if I chose to participate in protests or organizations fighting a social issue and write about it would I still be considered a journalist?
Aside from that, these guidelines are necessary when practicing traditional journalism and I think that if Stephen Glass was aware of them, he would have a made a different choice. As I stated before, the code is strictly composed of guidelines that make a respectable and trustworthy journalist. Glass would have know that our role as journalists is to serve the people and really inform them of what is going on in our country as best as we can.
I think the PRSA code provides a reasonable amount of ethical guidance for PR professionals, seeing that it explains the core values (honesty, fairness, etc.) and gives a guideline to be morally responsible when doing one's job. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, it is up to the individual to make the right choices. I do agree with Annie- people who are in the PR field aren't generally perceived as credible because of the common misconception that PR practitioners don't use fair methods to get results. I believe that while this code sets up something for them to work with, there are probably a select few that do not follow the code. The other "dark" side of PR includes people who are willing to cheat in order to get what they want.
I believe that the PRSA code provides adequate ethical guidance for PR as its code of ethics includes honesty, advocacy, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. These principals ensure that the public relations professionals follow a uniformed set of rules to ensure they practice their work within the realm of honesty and truth. Public relations officials have a responsibility not only to the company in which they work for but they must also keep the public interest in mind as they complete their job as they obligated too. Public Relations is a major aspect of today’s American society as celebrities constantly use these organizations to maintain their image in the community. Tiger Woods heavily relied on the public relations field to maintain his image and they had a responsibility to report the truth about his relationships. Although they have an ethical responsibility to report the truth, they should have not been as invasive in Tiger Woods life as he is still a regular citizen in society and deserves his privacy. The Public Relations industry must do more to protect the rights of their clients’ and that is including their privacy.
A code of journalistic ethics is useless if journalist doesn't understand its importance. The only thing that could provide adequate ethical guidance for journalists would be a required code, which as the code states, goes against the first amendment. That's not to say I don't think the SPJ has great suggestions—it does—but who reads it? Who remembers it? Especially when they are in the throws of their own personal careers and successes. The only kind of person that this code would resonate with is a person who is already in the field for the right reasons. Some of the code serves as a reminder and a reinforcement of principles that a journalist should already inherently have. Other parts of the code are things that even someone in the field for the right reasons might never think about, like a lot of the points under the “minimize harm” section (“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power,” or “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story,” for example.) But the fact is, most journalists don't follow these rules because if they take that sort of care, they will take all sorts of time. I find these two rules most broken: “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,” and “Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.” If they did either of these things, the modern news media would have an audience who would be either bored or disgusted.
In the case of Stephen Glass, of course this code would not have prevented him from fabricating over 20 stories. Over TWENTY stories?? He could have read this code over and over again and maybe he would have felt worse about it, but in no way would that have prevented him. He worked in a newsroom, where all of his colleagues were producing truth. His competition was truth. He fought that competition by lying. Anyone who writes for a large publication understands the implications of their words, because as Hackett said in The Paper, “People will read this,” “and they'll believe us.” Glass just didn't care. He had no conscience. He took the “self-interested journalist” (which is an oxymoron) to a whole new level. No unenforceable ethics code could prevent the actions of inherently unethical people.
The SPJ code details the guidelines for journalists for a successful, moral career. All journalists should follow the rules but some are hard to abide for others. Being accountable is kind of scary depending on the outcome of stories, copy editing or disregard truthiness. Not all journalists can be "vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable" because we're not capable of pulling a Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. For ex-New Republic writer, Stephen Glass and many others from respectable news outlets, stories were complete lies trying to portray the truth. Glass wasn't loyal to the SPJ code.
"Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context." and "Be in good taste." Not all tabloids or the NY Post is written to minimize hard or stay in good taste.
I have a problem with "refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity" because of the "if they compromise" could mean anything until it has consequences.
I think Stephen Glass was desperate for acceptance. He was a little messed up and New Republic was desperate. The majority fell for his lies and ignored any warning sign. He went to a lot of extremes to fake stories and use charm to deceive his closest friends. "Never plagiarize"is right there in the Seek Truth and Report It from the SPJ code. It's a good set of rules for journalists but it can be overlooked. Some will do anything in desperate, tempting times in their career and disregard the code of ethics. Journalists want to be informative and entertaining until falsehood blurs with reality.
After reading over the SPJ code of ethics, I believe that it definitely provides adequate guidance for journalists. It is rather broad in nature, but I actually think that is advantageous. It leaves the whole thing open to interpretation, which ends up being a really good thing, in that it allows each journalist to consider the code in regards to separate circumstances. One particular tenet that I thought was quite relevant was that "every journalist should examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others". It implies that writers should be self-aware, which is really important in the media industry if news is to be expressed objectively and accurately.
However, I do not think that a knowledge of the code would have prevented Stephen Glass' fabrications. Stephen Glass was motivated by selfishness and a desire for notoriety. His published lies were not the result of his not knowing about journalistic code. His problem is much more deep-seeded than that. Anyone who deliberately writes fiction for a prominent news magazine knows what they are doing is wrong. Glass was more of a mentally unsound individual than irresponsible journalist (though he certainly is the latter.)
I agree with Marieta in that the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethic sets an ethical guide for Public Relations professionals, however it is not realistic. I liked that there are guidelines and then situations and examples to illustrate what is moral according to the code and what is not. I think the examples provided a more detailed guideline that the general rules. The code touches on all different aspects of PR; breaking it down into sections such as “competition” or “disclosure of information” makes it more relevant. I also couldn’t help but to compare this code of ethics to the United Nations. They can really only make suggestions; there is not exactly a way to enforce these ethics onto people so therefore the code of ethics may not necessarily be followed.
I do not believe it is followed by all PR professionals. I think part of the reason that there are some who do not follow it is because of the fact that there is no way to really enforce it. It will just help them rise to the top by not following the code of ethics. I do however think that some PR professionals follow the code because it does seem to be what most people deem moral and for the most part I think there are genuinely good people out there who would follow the code without the consequence of facing a punishment for breaking the code.
As a PR concentrator, the Code overall provides general ethical guidelines. To me, they didn't seem any more specific to the PR profession. They were general guidelines; don't lie, avoid problems, promote healthy behavior, all guidelines that can be used in any profession. This isn't necessarily negative. For the most part, I do genuinely believe that PR professionals follow the guidelines, but not word for word.
Many PR professionals serve as the rock for the client (s). They make sure everything is in place, balanced and stress-free. Therefore, these guidelines are part of their job's tasks. On the contrary, i think many of the guidelines are ignored or modified depending on the situation. For example, following ethical hiring practices. Though this has gotten better in general in the work field, there still are prejudices in the work field that influence who gets hired.
I believe that the SPJ code appears to be a solid structure for journalists to follow. It covers the four basic ideologies that a journalist should adapt in their career. I found that all of the suggestions mentioned throughout the code were for the most part, thorough and helpful. (Particularly in the "seeking truth" paragraph; there was a significant number of things to consider.) While these ethical guidelines were detailed and seemed to have addressed multiple issues and potential obstacles, I appreciated it's lack of command. I agree with Samantha statement regarding loose guidelines being more beneficial; in the world of journalism, news is always subject to change or be treated differently in certain circumstances. Perhaps if the code demonstrated some ethical cases to use as examples when supporting these ideas, it would be better affective.
I think the PRSA Code of ethics gives a pretty good understanding as to what is expected of a practicing professional. Although after analyzing it, it is a fairly broad and open to interpretation. But when I think about it has to be broad in order for it to be followed. I don’t think the practice of PR in general is a bad thing. I look at Public Relations and Journalism as a marriage where one wouldn’t be able to survive without the other. I think the first ethical choice you have to make as a PR practioner is what you choose to do, and whether to work for a specific company you believe in or to work broadly for a PR firm.
I couldn’t see myself working as a PR executive for BP or any company that collects billions where the bottom line is still the same. And that is there are alternatives for clean energy but BP and other energy companies look at it from a monetary standpoint. There’s still and abundance of dirty energy left and plenty more money left to be made, and they give little care to the destruction in their wake. I personally think the biggest issue as of today is the environment. I hope to work for a company that is making it their duty to change things. Working for a clean energy company or a company that utilizes clean energy would be ideal. I do think that most practicing PR professionals do follow the code; it’s the ones who don’t that amplify the problems within the industry.
I think the SPJ code only provides adequate ethical guidance for journalists if said journalists are ethical and actually believe in the things the code details.
Generally speaking, ethical and moral values are instilled at a young age and usually do not change dramatically or over night. So, if you have a journalist who doesn't see anything wrong with lying and/or cheating, that attitude won't change just because they read a code of ethics.
On the other hand, if the journalist in question does hold truth-telling and a sense of moral obligation to do right by the public, then I think it can offer adequate guidance. While it's not a complete handbook and can be a bit vague it does outline a fair amount of possible journalistic ethical problems.
I don't really think awareness of the SPJ code could have prevented Stephen Glass' fabrications because Glass was acting in self-interest. As I said before, if Glass' did not have a commitment to truth-telling before, knowledge of the code most likely wouldn't have stopped him from writing false stories. I also don't think it would have made his peers "report" him in a sense, because even though they knew something was up they didn't due to a sense of loyalty to a friend or for other, possibly self-serving, reasons.
I think both the SPJ and PRSA codes of ethics are a good basis for both PR and Journalism majors. They each provide concrete standards on what to abide by, emphasizing on the importance of a code of ethics and what should be followed by. Strictly for journalism, it is extremely necessary to have some sort of guidelines when certain issues come up. However, can these codes of conduct be broken without consequence? I believe it happens often but does it make them less respectable? Whether these are actually followed may be a different story.
I do believe that the SPJ code provides adequate ethical guidelines. It touches on just about every aspect that should be important to journalists. I believe that when someone becomes a journalist, their main goals and motivation should be to seek truth and report it. I'd find it hard to believe that anyone chooses journalism without the intention of doing as little harm as possible, and serving as the public's eyes and ears.
A major part of the code of ethics is to check sources and ensure that what you're reporting is true. There is no point in reporting false information, it will only ruin a journalist's, (and possibly their publication's) reputation.
Another important section of the code is minimizing harm. It is more than important to treat both the stories and their subjects with utmost respect. Although it is nearly impossible to keep from ever hurting anyone with a story, there is no need for any more harm than absolutely necessary. If it wasn't for those involved in the story, there would not be one.
Awareness of the code may have helped to prevent Stephen Glass' fabrications because the code exists in order to protect the public from false information. Knowledge and respect for the code could have very easily prevented his situation.
The PRSA Member Code of Ethics states advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness are all essential concepts to guide PR professionals in the workplace. Every standard listed I believe is extremely effective in the world of PR. My only concern is that honesty to many in PR means being ‘truthiness’ with the public, which I disagree with. I think in PR it is absolutely necessary to always remain honest with the public, as I believe honesty will always make the client look favorable in the end. Independence is also a strong factor with PR as I also believe PR reps should stick to their moral guidelines when dealing with a client’s conflict.
PR professionals have a responsibility to serve the public’s interest in a positive way, and often times PR gets a bad rep for serving the client’s interest more. However, we do have a loyalty to our client so often times it can be difficult to be completely fair to both sides. In my opinion, I think that when a company denies and tries to minimize a serious problem, it serves not only the company in a negative way, but also the public. I believe PR professionals should help their client achieve a positive reputation when in a crisis, but do so in a manner that always is honest to the public: and assure them that the client is going to make changes and of course follow through with those changes.
Unfortunately, I do have to say that I believe a lot of people in PR do it for the money. Often times, PR reps disregard the public’s interest and remain 100% loyal to the client. However, I think it also depends on the kind of person you are when you enter the PR field. If you live by good moral standards, I believe you can do much more for a client and the public, than someone who is greedy and covers up blatant mistruths. I also believe PR is absolutely necessary in any business. You have to protect your client in times of crisis, but sadly many in PR fail to protect the public too.
Let me preface this by saying I know this won't be counted, these changing deadlines are killing me, I could have sworn it was due at 6pm today like the last one for a Monday class, I apologize.
In today's world of journalism, which is a merger of both print media and a larger group, held to a considerably less standard, bloggers, a code of ethics, or even a sense of ethics, is imperative for all those who enter the field. All people, not just journalists, often encounter situations where they know some piece of information and they are not quite sure how to act upon it. In the case of reporting that information, it is up to the reporter to either follow conventional standards of ethics, follow the SPJ code, or venture off on his own world of skewed values and percieved wrongdoings in order to write what he feels is right, than argue his case later.
Often times the latter part ends up in situations like Stephen Glass, who tried to justify his fabrications. The truth is, the industry needs a set standard for ethics, but I do not believe that the SPJ code helps all that much. It leaves alot to be desired because it doesn't provide many concrete answers. If you have a great story lead but need evidence to support your theories, and you go to the SPJ code to explore your options, it tells you this: “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public." That basically tells you, do everything you would normally do, and when all avenues are shut down because what you have is a big, real important story so people aren't willing to discuss it, your on your own. That isn't good enough if you want all journalist's to remain on the straight and narrow, because everyone's idea of what is and isnt ethical is different, and in search of that evidence, one may differ from the traditional path of truth seeking. There needs to be a concise and concrete road map of sorts for journalists to follow when following a story to avoid all contreversy, that or just allow us all to follow our own truth compass.
In the case of Stephen Glass, one can try and justify the need for a set, concrete journalism ethics code by using his situation as supporting evidence. The truth is, is he held any idea of ethics in higher reverance, or regarded ethics at all before making his decision, than he wouldn't have done what he did. It's not as if the ambiguities in the SPJ code were the reason for his fabrications. Yes there are many of them, but his decision was simply and clearly unethical, in utter disregard for ethics in general, so no, I do not believe the SPJ code or even an upgraded version of it will prevent the Stephen Glass' of the world, rogue journalist, "bad apples" if you may, not the rule but the exception.
Post a Comment