Ethics study: as clear as your conscience
North East public relations practitioners believe they act ethically – even if they don’t always agree what ethical means.
And there is a clear feeling among practitioners that they are more concerned by ethics than either their clients or the journalists who cover their stories.
Research by Philip Young, senior lecturer in Public Relations at the University of Sunderland, shows most practitioners agree ‘ethics is good business’, but reveals several competing visions of what public relations is.
The study also highlighted a need for more training in ethical issues. The PR industry should be concerned that more than one in three practitioners said they had had no legal training in areas such as defamation, and those who did drew heavily on previous experience in journalism.
You can download a synposis of some of the key findings by clicking here
Slightly more than half the North East practitioners who took part had moved into PR from journalism, and responses on many topics suggest newsroom culture still plays an influential role in the industry; there was no clear career pattern among the others, but few had gone straight into PR (previous occupations including insurance, marketing, music promotion, administration, civil service and accountancy).
Asked how they viewed their own practice compared with others in the North East, 63pc said they were better than most, 34pc said they were same and 7pc admitted they were worse. Maybe it is not surprising people present themselves as ethical, but it is significant they also view colleagues and rivals as ethical. Several were distressed the actions of a few practitioners diminished this reputation.
Who do you consider to be more ethical - journalists or PRs?
PR Journalists Same
All 34pc 17pc 49pc
ex- journalists 5 pc 9pc 68pc
It would appear this comparison was based on the behaviour of local journalists - respondents made a clear distinction between the behaviour of regional and national journalists. One PR said: “There are a minority of journalists that don’t come to report, they come with an idea in mind and they will come for a quote to stack up a story and it amazes me that these type of journalists can’t see why people don’t trust them.”
Have you/ your team ever refused to carry out a piece of work for a client/ your employer on ethical grounds?
yes no
39pc 61pc
Has a client/ employer ever asked you to disseminate information you know to be false?
yes no
29pc 71pc
It is the role of PR to present the client/ employer in a positive light
always sometimes never
All 68pc 32pc 0
Several respondents said that although they often have to transmit bad news this could be done in a way that reflected well on the organisation. Crucially, 85pc of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that selective dissemination of information was a normal part of good PR practice; here, as in other areas, it seems ex-journalists position themselves more strongly with advocacy positions.
In my experience, PR practitioners tend to shy away from discussing ethics. Not because they're likely to be embarrassed by the debate, but because they fear it will be theoretical and abstract and 'not for them'. By contrast, ask whether they've resigned an account (or a job) because of issues of truth and trust, and many will become very engaged in the debate.
Posted by: Richard Bailey | June 28, 2004 at 11:43 AM
I agree - 39pc of respondents said they had refused to cary out work on ethical grounds (examples included tobacco and nuclear power) and 29pc said they had been asked by a client to put out information they knew was false.
Posted by: Philip | June 28, 2004 at 01:08 PM