universal ethics code: an idea whose time has come

Public Relations Review, 19(1):1-l 1 Copyright 0 1993 by JAI Press Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Todd Hunt and Andrew Tirpok

Universal Ethics An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Code:

ABSTRACT: This article argues that the proliferation of ethics codes in various mass communication organizations, including PICSA and IABC, works against public trust ofthe communication professions because no single standard appears to be supported across the entire industry. The authors provide a framework for a universal ethics code and suggest a strategy and timetable for its adoption.

Todd Hunt is a professor of communication and director of the Master’s Degree Program in Communication and Information Studies at Rutgers University, where Andrew Tirpok is a Master’s

candidate. This article was part of a debate presented at the annual

convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, Canada, August 1992.

Is anybody paying attention to communications ethics code? Do members of the public and the press know and care about the strictures laid down by such professional organizations as the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), and the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)?

Those questions got a thorough airing last year at a session co-sponsored by the Newspaper and Public Relations Divisions of the Association for Education in Journalism and Public Relations (AEJMC) at the organization’s annual convention in Boston. This year, in Montreal, a panel of four invited presenters will

Spring 1993 1

Puldic Relntionr Review

address an important issue touched upon at the earlier session: Is it possible to

write and adopt a universal ethics code to serve all persons involved in communication and the dissemination of information?

One presenter will argue that “ethics codes are unenforceable, only as good as those who subscribe to them, and don’t reward people for their ethical behavior, and thus universal ethics codes have inherent problems.” This article accepts those statements as true, but proceeds to argue that a universal ethics code has long-term benefits to society and to the communication and information professions. Further, this article will argue that the universal ethics code must be kept simple, and that its benefits will derive mainly from the extent to which the public is educated to understand that communication and information professionals broadly accept its guiding principles.

Issues Raised by the Boston Panel

Frank Gibson, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and metro editor of The Tennessean in Nashville, represented journalists in the “Is Anybody Paying Attention?” panel, while Terence McCarthy, APR, partner in Agnew, Carter, McCarthy, Inc. (Boston) represented the Pub- lic Relations Society of America and George McGrath, vice president, Carl Byoir and Associates, Inc., represented the International Association of Business Communicators.

All three explained in their opening remarks that the ethics codes adopted by the organizations depend largely on the acceptance and compliance of members rather than enforcement. Gibson pointed out that SPJ has no enforcement mechanism for its code, but tries to “encourage journalists through education” to adhere to the principles. SPJ encourages news organizations to frame codes of ethics with their employees and to abide by those, according to Gibson. IABC puts the emphasis on the individual, according to McGrath, and, like SPJ, emphasizes education of its members to understand the importance of upholding the dignity and the credibility of the profession by “encouraging the practice of honest, candid, and timely communications.” PRSA does have a mechanism for reporting infractions of its ethics code and holding a hearing that can lead to censure, but McCarthy pointed out that the cost of hiring attorneys to sit in on every hearing and protect the rights of the individual is a limitation on the ethics process, and it is easy for a member charged with an ethics violation to duck the issue merely by resigning membership in PRSA. An annual reminder associated with payment of dues is PRSA’s main mechanism for assuring that members remember the ethical component of their membership in the organization.

Panelists, audience members and the moderator also raised the following issues during the 1991 Boston session:

l Multiple Codes. Many communication professionals find themselves covered by more than one code: a code specific to their workplace in addition to one or more codes resulting from membership in

2 Vol. 19, No. 1

Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

professional associations. Similarly, some professionals wear two

hats, working perhaps as an employee of a news medium, but serving also as a publicist for a nonprofit group, a military unit, or a politically involved organization.

Licensin.. Ethics codes have more teeth when they are associated with licensing, but members of the communication professions have shown little interest in, and, indeed, considerable opposition

to licensing.

Globalization. More and more professional communicators are working in an international setting and discovering that the ethics they take for granted in the United States are not universally understood,

accepted or applied.

Redlight-Green&h Ethics. Some professionals, adhering to one or another ethics code, feel that certain information should not be disseminated because it might injure or offend one or more parties.

This has the effect of subverting the role of “open communication” and replacing it with a form of censorship based on ethical concerns.

Contractual Ethics. Some public relations firms now include in their client contracts a stipulation that the firm adheres to a certain ethics code and that it will not violate the code on the client’s behalf.

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

Credibility is an important quality of any information distributor. Communication professionals attempt to maintain a high level of public credibility via many different routes. But, probably the oldest and most commonly utilized method of maintaining public credibility is the creation and display of a professional code of ethics.

Newspapers on the continent of North America have been promoting ethics codes for more than 300 years. For example, in 1692, newspaper publisher Benjamin Harris printed his first and only edition of America’s first newspaper, Public Occurences Both Forreign and Domestick. Unfortunately for Harris, Public Occurences was not well received by the colonial British government, due to the sensitive nature of the information presented in the paper. In fact, all copies but one were recalled and destroyed within four days of release. However, the most important facet of Public Occuvenceswas not its information. Bather, the newspaper contained a front page statement of purpose laid down by Harris that was essentially a model for a code of communication ethics that would work well even

today (Skaggs, 1985). Albert Skaggs (1985) compared Harris’ credo to several modern codes of

ethics utilized by organizations such as the American Society of Newspaper

Spring 1993 3

Public Relations Review

Editors (ASNE) and the Society of Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi

(SPJ/SPX). Skaggs found that similar themes recurred in all of the codes he examined, indicating that ethics codes have not changed substantially over the course of American history. Essentially, all of the ethics codes reviewed by Skaggs (1985) contain similar principles of accuracy, objectivity, truthfulness and com- pleteness. Regardless of the time frame in which the codes were used, an agreement seems to continue about what aspects of ethics are important to journalism as a profession. However, other communication professions, such as public relations, may have ethical considerations that differ from journalism.

ETHICS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS

Genevieve McBridge (1989) argues that the primary fimc- tion of public relations is essentially different from journalism’s primary function, Journalism traditionally focuses on the idea of objectivity. The journalist’s job is to record factual events in an objective perspective for readers of viewers to interpret for themselves. No opinion should be presented in a factual news story or the story will become editorial and lose its value. Conversely, public relations often takes the form of an advocacy appeal which is inherently opposed to

objectivity. As public relations has grown as a profession in its own right, many practitio-

ners have come from the field of journalism. Early practitioners of public relations, such as Ivy Lee, adamantly upheld the tenets of objectivity as a virtue that public relations practitioners should espouse (McBride, 1989). And, indeed, as the profession of public relations developed, the ethical standing of many practitioners retained the ideal of objectivity as essential in order that the profession of public relations, which was seen as a marginal activity by other communicators, gain a level of credibility. Additionally, the fact that most public relations practitioners either cross over from the field of journalism or receive their education in journalistic tradition gives many practitioners a bad feeling about their profession. Misgivings arise from the fact that journalists believe they must forego their ethics in order to practice public relations.

Unfortunately, in a profession that requires some kind of advocacy, a journalistic background is not exactly a boon. While journalists lay out the information for the public and let the individual decide what that information means, public relations practitioners must take on an amount of advocacy for the organization that will have an effect, either positive or negative, on that organization’s societal image. When this practice confronts the journalistic ethical ideals, a clash of beliefs occurs. Practitioners must, therefore, adopt a different standard for public relations than journalism.

A different standard does not imply the adoption of a situational form of ethics, although individual relativism is something public relations practitioners are often

accused of. Rather, according to McBridge, “Accepting personal responsibility

4 Vol. 19. No. 1


for professional conduct is a standard eluding easy codification because it lacks the

conformity of objectivity” (p. 15). That is, the ethical standard of objectivity is simply converse to everyday practice of public relations. This is not to say that public relations practitioners can not be or are not ethical. Rather, the field of public relations simply differs in its function from journalism, as most other fields of communication differ from each other. However, all systems and codes of ethics seem to be rooted in the same fundamental principles and promote similar values (Elliot-Boyle, 1985; McBride, 1989; Skaggs, 1985).

ADOPTING ETHICS CODES

The concept of adopting a code of ethics has been em- braced by almost all organizations and associations of professional communicators (Bennett, 1988; Davenport & Izard, 1985; Johannesen, 1988; Skaggs, 1985). Ethics codes represent a set of standards and guidelines for members of the association or organization to work by and also serve the function of demon-

strating responsibility to an often skeptical public. Additionally, some associations use ethics codes as a body of law and utilize a system of enforcement. However, in spite of the widespread use of codes of ethics, their implementation has met with widespread criticism (Bennett, 1988; Black & Barney, 1985; Christians, 1985; Olasky, 1985; Pierce, 1989).

Richard Johannsen (1988) outlines the most common criticisms against codes of ethics citing that the language of codes is often difficult to understand, that codes might be taken as static and unbending, and that what are promoted as universal standards are, in fact, not. Codes are also often criticized for being simple window dressing. Critics say that a code has little impact on public opinion regarding the integrity of a profession.

In his criticism of the Public Relations Society of America’s official Code of Professional Standards, Marvin Olasky (1985) takes PRSA to task over the fact that its practitioners do not actually believe in the tenets prescribed by the association’s code. According to Olasky, the code has become a tool for public display to promote an image of public relations practitioners as being ethical. But the reality is that many members interpret the code in such a way that they might commit an action that would be unethical under a different interpretation. The code is simply a tool to keep members in line, to an extent. However, discipline can also be coercive.

The criticism that codes of ethics are limiting to the freedom of communication professionals is also a common argument by opponents of codes. Although this criticism is more limited to journalists regarding First Amendment rights, it is also heard from public relations professionals (Black & Barney, 1985; B&-o, 1985; Olaskey, 1985). Critics of this aspect of codes cite the fact that true professionals with experience in journalism or any profession will know what is ethical behavior and what is not. Highly unethical practitioners are presumed to be eventually

Spring 1993 5


relegated to bankruptcy as they will be unable to find or maintain employment. However, proponents of codes believe that codes are beneficial by providing

standards and guidelines for professionals to follow (Bukro, 1989). While critics claim that the ambiguity of ethics codes is a problem, some

professionals see ambiguity as a necessary asset. Casey Bukro (1989) doesn’t see the argument against ambiguity as a valid point stating,

The [SPJ] code of ethics is what it was intended to be: Guidelines and a statement of principles to usher us in the direction of responsible journalism, accuracy, objectivity and fair play. It is not intended to be a substitute for commonsense, good taste or careful deliberation that can steer us safely through the maze of complex and often emotional issues that typi@ ethics

(P. 22).

That is, a code that provides guidelines is not restrictive nor should it be. A code of ethics should provide a set of guidelines for the professional to work around and build upon. And the code should be sensitive to the needs of organization members, thereby eliminating the problem of an “unbendable” rules effect and creating a more symmetrical atmosphere in the profession (Johannesen, 1988).

The aspect of symmetry in the development of an ethics code could also benefit an organization in the area of enforcement of the code (Johannesen, 1988). For example, if a code is created by the managing or governing body of an organization or association, the members of that organization might experience a sense of coercion in that they are being forced into a set of rules. However, if the organization’s governing body works with members toward creating a consen- sual agreement about a code of ethics, the whole organization will benefit from the process. Members will not only know what to expect, but they will also be hard pressed to formulate good argument for coercive measures when they were part of the decision process about the code. But the concept of symmetry in design should not be allowed to supersede the standards of social responsibility that ethics codes should espouse, creating an ad hocracy or situational ethics

code.

A UNIVERSAL ETHICS CODE

The standards promoted by codes of ethics are based on ideals of social responsibility which should be at the root of any work on ethics. Unfortunately, due to the differing goals and purposes promoted by organizations and associations, codes of ethics in the communication professions are not standardized. Bather, a code of ethics may carry different meaning and language depending on the organization or association that formulated that code.

Compounding differences further, codes of ethics vary not only from profes-

6 Vol. 19, No. 1


sion to profession, but also vary from organization to organization within a

profession. While communication professionals can make a distinction of the differences within the various communication professions, the general public may not be able to make the same delineations. For example, public relations often works through or with the news media to accomplish public relations goals. When this happens, the line between public relations and journalism may become blurred to an uniformed public. When this occurs, the public may perceive journalism as the same profession as public relations, a prospect that many journalists might find disquieting. To resolve this dilemma, the best route may be for the various communication professions to unite under a general or universal code of ethics that would be adaptable to the needs of the individual professions.

A universal code of ethics should be founded on a set of fundamental principles of social responsibility. In his argument for a universal code of ethics, Dean

Kruckeberg (1989) said:

If (1) ethics is the art or science of humankind’s efforts to live in proper harmonious relationships with other individuals, groups and institutions and is also the study of humankind’s moral responsibility to discern the rightness of wrongness of its actions, and if (2) ethics is part of morality, the latter which is characterized as that which is right and proper, and if (3) codes of ethics are rules of good conduct for dealing with one another in the best ultimate interests of all concerned it would seem both instructive and beneficial to examine the feasibility of attempting to develop and apply a unified and comprehensive code of ethics for professional communicators representing transnational corporations (p. 12).

Kruckeberg’s idea can easily be expanded to a universal code of ethics which would encompass all communication professionals whether they worked for a private corporation, as a public advocate, or in the fourth estate.

An examination of the codes of ethics promoted by various communication professional organizations reveals that the codes utilized do, in fact promote many of the same principles. And, as Kruckeberg (1989) puts it, many people believe that this eliminates the need for a universal code. However, as varying as the professions are, a universal code could help promote unity within the community of communication professionals by providing a starting point for communicators to work by and provide a basis from which individual organizations and association can expand to suit their own specific needs.

“An Idea Whose Time Has Come”

Our review of past panels and the literature of ethics in professional communication shows that there is considerable resistance to the idea of ethics codes, let alone a universal ethics code. It has become easy for professionals to dismiss the concept with reasoning that is expressed in a phrase such as:

spring 1993 7


l It’s unenforceable-there’s no mechanism to ensure compliance.

l You can’t get everyone to buy into it. Communicators-especially

journalists-consider it a violation of their rights.

l What’s the use-the 10 percent who are unethical will spoil it for all by their refusal to adhere to ethics.

We can counter these arguments by looking at the mature professions, particu- larly doctors. Certainly there are unethical doctors, and their exploits as butchers and sex fiends are exposed with regularity in the press. But more important, the public perception is that unethical behavior by doctors simply is not the KZOYWZ- that it is aberrant behavior unacceptable to the vast majority of doctors.

Contrast that with the public perception of communication professionals. The public believes that mostjournalistswillingly invade the privacy of individuals, most reporters are careless with the facts, most public relations people present only one side of the story, and most publicists hype their client shamelessly. If the leaders of all communication organizations have a mechanism that helps them to speak out and declare to the public that such behaviors are not the norm and are not ethical according to accepted standards, then public perception can be changed. To give up on the idea of a universal ethics code is to concede to the public their view that we accept a lack of ethics as the norm for professional communicators.

Framework for a Universal Ethics Code

Perhaps the best way to move the field toward consider- ation of a universal ethics code would be for someone to drafi such a code and present it for discussion. Such a code would need to be generic enough to cover the behaviors that involve all communication professionals from journalists to public relations people to those who manage information systems of all types.

Philosophically, the draft would have to begin with a preamble keyed to the communication professional’s need to “keep faith with the public.” It would account for the “achieving of consensus” that James E. Grunig now argues must

be part of the definition of public relations as a two-way symmetrical process. (Grunig & Hunt, in press) It would deal with first-order concerns and issues, not the specifics of a particular communication situation.

Some of the key issues that could be dealt with simply and clearly were suggested recently by attorney and public relations consultant Harold W. Suckenik in a recent column in ODvyer’s PR Sewices Report (Suckenik, 1992). The needs of clients, publics, journalists and public relations firms would all be served, argued Suckenik, by such straight-forward statements as:

l I will not represent a client who is not truthful with me or the news

media.

l I will not represent a client who takes a personal beliefs (e.g., a cigaret company).

position opposed to my

8 Vol. 19, No. 1


I will not represent a client who wants to conceal his or her real

identity. I will not represent a client who does not allow me to disclose that I represent this client.

I will not represent a client whose name is misleading as to the source of funding or motivation of his group.

I will not take on as a client someone who refuses to meet the media face-to-face. Neither I nor my client will obstruct or dodge the media.

Suckenik’s approach could be broadened to construct a code with such simple and broad admonitions as:

l Lies, misinformation, or information that presents only part of the complete story are detrimental of the full discussion and under- standing of issues. Professional communicators strive to avoid un- truths or half-truths that tend to mislead the consumers of information.

l Misrepresenting the origin of information by obscuring the identity of sources misleads consumers of information and thus is not practiced or permitted by ethical professional communicators.

Is the Universal Code Exportable?

Even ifAmerican communication groups were to agree on a universal code of ethics, could it be adopted in countries and areas of the world where different standards and interpretations of ethics apply? Rather than throw up one’s hands and declare that “they do things different in other countries,” it is useful to put forth a general code and let its interpretation and use suggest further refinements that will help adopt it to the nuances of the global community.

Research by Kruckeberg and others into the development of codes of ethics in other countries suggests that, even if interpretations differ from country to country, there is a general consensus that ethics codes are useful. Just as there is a spirit of economic cooperation in the air, there is a climate that is positive to the development of broader and more inclusive ethics codes.

A Mechanism and Timetable for Developing and Introducing the Universal Code

Is it possible for the concept of a universal code of ethics for communication and information professionals to leave the talking stage and enter the development stage? It is, and we suggest the following logistics and timetable:

Phase 1 (one year): A group of interested academics seeks foundation

spring 1993 9


or corporate funding for a two-day conference on drafting the universal code. Academics and representative of professional communication/information associations are invited to attend the conference. The first day of the conference is devoted to invited papers. The second day is a working session, with breakout groups working on different sections of the code and a final plenary session for the purpose of assembling a draft of the code.

Phase 2 (two years): Creation of a Task Force to visit all of the concerned professional organizations to make presentations on the draft of the universal code and accept suggestions for modification, implementation, and dissemination of the code.

Phase 3 (two years): Ratification and implementation of the code by participating organizations.

Phase 4 (one year): Publication of the universal code and a publicity campaign to inform target publics about the code and its importance to global communication. Assessment of impact and reaction will suggest the next phases of the program to gain acceptance for the Universal Code of Ethics.

REFERENCES

Bennett, A. (1988). “Ethics Codes Spread Despite Skepticism.” The Wall Street Journal, 212(10), p. 17.

Black, J., & Barney, R. D. (1985). “The Case Against Mass Media Codes of Ethics.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, l( 1): 27-36.

Bukro, C. (1985). “The SPJ Code’s Double Edged Sword: Accountability, Credibility.” Journal ofMass Media Ethics, l(1): 10-13.

Bukro, C. (1989). “The Code is Intended to Make Us Think Professionally.” The Quill, (October): 22.

Christians, C. (1985). “Enforcing Media Codes.” Journal ofMaaMedia Ethics, l( 1): 14 21.

Davenport, L. D., & Izard, R. S. (1985). “Restrictive Policies of the Mass Media.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, l( 1): 4-9.

Elliott-Boyle, D. (1985). “A Conceptual Analysis ofEthics Codes.” Journal ofMass Media Ethics, l(1): 22-26.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (in press). Managing Public Relations (2nd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Johannesen, R. L. (1988). “What Should We Teach about Formal Codes of Ethics?” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 3( 1): 59-64.

Kruckeberg, D. (1989). “The Need for an International Code ofEthics.” Public Relations

Review, 15(2): 6-18. McBride, G. (1989). “Ethical Thought in Public Relations History: Seeking a Relevant

Perspective.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 4( 1): 5-20.

10 Vol. 19, No. 1


Olasky, M. N. (1985). “Ministers or Panderers: Issues Raised by the Public Relations Society Code of Standards.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, l(1): 4349.

Pierce, V. (1989). Code nebulous says society’s new leader. The Quiff, (October): 6. Skaggs, A. C. (1985). “Today’s Codes Mirror Credo of Benjamin Harris.” Journal ofMass

Media Ethics, l( 1): 3742. Suckenik, H. (1992). “PR Credibility Demands Objective Ethical Rules.” O’Dwyer’s PR

Services Report, 6( 7): 3 1.

spring 1993 11

universal ethics code: an idea whose time has come

Documents