WGBH Journal; Media Ethics: Public Relations

The concern of this panel is with ethics of the PR profession and I am calling it a profession after hearing all the journalists yesterday also talking about their field as a profession and we won't get into that argument. And according to our title we should be putting a special emphasis on our relationship with the media. It seems when you look at the nature of public relations that you immediately recognize that it's infused with all kinds of ethical considerations. And if we recognize that public relations is in the thick of human conduct and usually at the boundary of change then it seems evident that we simply cannot escape the moral dimension. Anybody who's paid attention to events of recent years will have seen how public relations is treated in the media how we're thought of the kinds of accusations that are leveled

against us. Some examples during the Watergate hearings. My ears perked up frequently when I heard somebody say well they're a be doing a PR job which either implied that there was some kind of cover up or some kind of smokescreen was going to be created in order to deceive the public as to what was really going on in a lot of emphasis always on really portraying the PR people as a barrier between the public and reality. Secondly we've also heard a great deal not only about coverups but about covers. There are a lot of classical cases where PR firms or corporations have used so-called front organizations so-called independent research organizations who

presumably would have greater credibility then if they spoke in their own names. Now on the other hand book I looked at last weekend a book just published by. Well published authored by Maurice Davis trying to remember that name called interpreters for Nigeria. As several examples where PR firms to willingly simply accept the handouts from say Biafra eastern Nigeria and pass them on to the media as if they were their own creations in other words here it was. Consider that the credibility of the PR for him would be higher than the credibility of Biafra or the federal government of Nigeria. So here we have several cases of covers being used and again PR

people are seen as concealing the true communicators or the true interests that they are serving. Third we're often accused of managing the news. We're seen as gate keepers who prevent access by the media by social action groups and various public interest groups from seeing those people who they feel either have the authority or who have the information that they seek. Various articles and books tell us that press secretaries two presidents of the United States have been caught in outright lying. Sometimes defenses have been made that lying is justified when we live in a Cold War situation. And in looking at a book on ethics that my wife reminded me she gave me last

Christmas and I hate to say I haven't read enough of it. Not a hint but I noticed the heading of one chapter. Nice guys finish last. Now with that kind of a reminder you can see why some apologists begin to wonder whether or not lying is perhaps justified. We're also told that we are creators of pseudo events. And last evening when Rod McLeish talked and said that journalists were perhaps enslaved to events. And he said they feel that something must happen before they can presented the question that came up in my mind was Is this therefore a justification and really an invitation for public relations people to. I used the term create pseudo events which

was bad judgment on my part but to at least create a tension build up a tension. And doing this by creating some events in order to make it possible for the media with their own entrapments to talk about some subjects that need attention that people ought to know as Rod McLeish put it or need to know. And not only information that they may want to know or feel that they have a right to know. So this raises the whole question then whether perhaps pseudo events to use that stronger pejorative term may perhaps be justified. Forth were seen as being in the profession or some people here would prefer to say the business of persuading rather than informing. And if we entertain it's for the purpose of

persuading those of you who have been exposed to Vance Packard and I was reminded of that book this morning because frankly part was saying he's rather attracted to a convertible and those of us who read the book all know what that means and we're also told that we usually end up however with the sedan. So watch it Frank now. I don't have a choice now. Know of now. Now that the real motives are. Divulged but what Vance Packard's like to say was that PR people were somehow perverted and the reason he was he said this was that he imagined some kind of communication model. And as most of you in this audience know starting with the sender and then the message and then media and then audience and then some kind of affects. Well any decent ethical moral person would work from left to right in a straightforward manner. But not PR people. They look over on the right hand

side and look at the effects that are desired and then work backward by saying okay what's the target audience and then what's the message in media we're going to use. And even very consciously talking about manufacturing some kind of credible person or at least this is one of the elements that is very rationally and deliberately considered. So we're constantly accused here being Persuaders even manipulators of people. And nowadays with new levels of consciousness when we talk about manipulating people this is treating people as if they were objects. And that of course is the meaning humanizing and ethical. We're also accused of being in the business of impression management. David thin Had he been able to fly in this morning would probably have

talked a great deal about this because in one of his books he had a chapter called Struggle for ethics and he talked a great deal about the creation of images and that the general impression that people have when images are created is not that the intention is to simplify and make things more understandable for the general public but it is to deceive. And here when we look at the field of impression management as a sociologist by the name of Erving Goffman talked about in a very neat little book which is sold at the Harvard Business School called. Presentation of self and everyday life. He says that most people deal with some kind of strategy as to how they want others to perceive them. And of course what they want to do is to be perceived in the best possible light so that they come across as sterling

characters 14 carrot persons and of course if people see them as more worthy than they actually are then some kinds of terms of trade are established between two people. And this means that the person who is really seen as more important than he or she really is is going to be given rights privileges and other things of value that normally would not be deserved in our status conscious societies. So that when you're dealing with something like terms of trade then certainly you're right in the heart of the moral dimension. And here we find that this idea of Erving Goffman is apply to white PR people do for their organizations. They try to make their organizations come across in the best possible light. Now if best possible light is still reflecting reality then there is no ethical objection. If however

somebody comes along and says the way they come across is really an untrue way. Therefore in the stock market you may find a company stocks selling at a higher price or price earnings ratio as is justified. All products may be selling at a higher price than the product deserves. Then you find these ethical considerations being raised. So certainly when we're dealing with human transactions human exchanges this whole matter of terms of trade in the value that we. Give ourselves and assign to others becomes critical and that adds an ethical dimension. So what I hope these illustrations point out is that public relations people constantly deal with ethical dilemmas and that we help to

establish the ethical thresholds of the organizations we represent. Some writers Raymond Miller for example who used to give an informal seminar at the Harvard Business School on public relations wrote a book entitled keepers of the corporate conscience. Here he went beyond the ethics of the PR person and said that PR people as representatives of institutions should be the modern priest if you will that they are in a sense doing the job that middle ages religious leaders did. So in effect people like Raymond Miller are saying that we have to be concerned not only with out personal ethical conduct but also the conduct of the organizations we represent and it may well be that in our discussion today we will start talking about the ethics of business or the ethics of

other organizations because of the role that we play in determining the ethical threshold. Sometimes when we talk about an ethical threshold we recognize as a practitioner put it bluntly to me yesterday that we are as ethical as the public demands and that perhaps is in contrast to being as ethical as profit making allows and both of these comments were made with reference to a kind of bottom line ethics. Now what we have to recognize here. That PR people are in and are living in a world of action they can't just contemplate these ethical problems philosophically but they're constantly confronted with having to make all kinds of ethical decisions. Now if

the answer is one of a morality that is too high and for example this came up in a class on Monday dealing with multinational corporations and of course the whole matter of doing business in South Africa comes up one approach may be to say well this is a moral problem and if the government of South Africa is violating human rights then this requires a moral judgment. Now there's something about classifying a problem as a model one that immediately takes it out of the realm of any further discussion. Because you're classifying it as moral Therefore something is either this way or that way. Now I find that most public relations people are more inclined to look at the public relations part of me the public opinion process and in so doing I think they're recognizing a feature of ethics which is that perhaps there aren't as many

absolutes when we talk about ethics and morality as there are judgments made by individuals in a society and that these judgments will change. Now for example you'll find somebody like Reverend Baum Hart who has been studying business ethics contrasts the ethics see. He surveyed back in 61 I believe it was and then again in 74 and he comes to the conclusion that business ethics now is higher than it has been in the past and back in the 60s. Now on the other hand the polls show that apparently public opinion of corporations is still rather low when it comes to showing confidence in business. Well I think what's happened is not that the performance the ethical performance of business hasn't gone up but it means that public expectations have been rising even faster. And I think this clinches the point that when we deal with

ethics we certainly have to keep an eye on public opinion and what public views are as to what is right and wrong and good and bad. At a certain time now this is not saying that there aren't perhaps some absolutes but that as public relations practitioners we have to pay a lot of attention to public views on this. Now to sum up I feel that public relations people deal with very very valuable commodities. Yesterday there were speakers referred to the commodity of information which is so vital in our society and as sociologist of pointed out communications is really the cement that binds a society together. Well PR people I think deal with an even more valuable commodity and this is the commodity of trust. And it's in the

bonds of trust that we must look if we're to discover how well our society is going to hold together and function. Therefore every time an institution or the spokesman of institutions are seen as being untruthful as creating false images and so forth we're raising questions of trust and therefore undermining our society. And again as was pointed out yesterday a part of ethics is that we have to think about the consequences of our actions and here we have the most dire consequences namely what is happening to our own society. So those are my opening comments to simply go down a little repertoire of examples and put ethics in a framework. Now our two panelists today are both exceedingly well qualified to

speak on this subject. We have incidentally decided by tossing a coin that frankly Bart was going to lead off I had been all prepared to do the whole thing very democratically and in our society we believe in the lottery. We believe in the laws of chance so I had prepared little slips of paper with the names of all of the panelists including David thin who can't be here because of the fog in case you got in late and didn't hear that. And Edward L. Bernays who faced a conflict and found it impossible to be here this morning. That Frank will start first one of the things that qualifies Frank Bart. He wrote an article many many years ago one that he may perhaps have forgotten. Talking about professionalism in public relations where of course one of the standards was the existence of a code of ethics and the

enforcement of a code of ethics. FRANKEL Bart and incidentally also Frank Wiley seaward a very frank business here couldn't help him. Very candid too. They're both graduates of Harvard University. Both are also graduates of. The school of public communication although it wasn't called that at the time they graduate they're alumni of the school. They're both very frequent visitors guest speakers in our classes and frankly Bart was also a former faculty member at the then school of public relations and communications and as a matter of fact personal note of history that I always like to mention when he decided to leave and worked for Esso research and engineering. He vacated a position that I then occupied

and as a rather sad commentary on some of the mailing lists. I still get mail addressed to Frank Bart and this is how many years ago about 20 more don't want to mess it over 20 years. We will say so frankly Bart is now faced as the second vice president of advertising and public relations and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company with all kinds of moral and ethical questions that we're going to hear about Frank. Thank you I know the finest thing I ever did for this school was to leave so that I don't get replaced me. I'm also glad that he explained what I'm going for since he indicated that nice guys finish last. In my view we're living in an age which is characterized by a great ethical and moral paradox. On the one hand this generation seems to be preoccupied with establishing very

high standards of ethical conduct for its institutions both public and private. And for the professions we see this in corporate ethics we see it you know our own legislature here in Massachusetts in the Congress United States for all of our institutions. On the other hand many of this generation seem obsessed with destroying the traditional standards of individual moral conduct on which our Christian society is based. And I find this to be a paradox. It is impossible to discuss the ethics of public relations in the media without considering these broader questions. Now there also is another broad trend which is related in which I find very interesting. And that is that on the one hand we are forcing in a great many ways which I will go into in more detail. Public disclosure by our major

institutions and we are fighting zealously to protect against invasion of privacy against the individual. And I will take others more profound than I to explain this. These apparent paradoxes. There is however one simplistic explanation that sheds some light. These two counter trends are consistent in terms of the emergence of a new cult of the individual. A libertarian and preoccupation with individual status and self fulfillment. The single most important factor directly affecting the ethical and effective conduct of media relations is the maintenance of a very high standard of corporate ethical conduct a point that I told urban gir made in his introductory statement. No amount of honesty and media relations can ever be a substitute for corporate performance. Inherent in the ethical standards of other professions is the recognition of the need

for professional skill and competence. Doctors are licensed lawyers must pass the bar. Professional performance is also in my view a very central consideration for public relations. This means that the public relations practitioner must be a skilled professional who is able to participate effectively in the formulation of corporate policies and to influence in a positive way. Corporate actions. This requires a knowledge of the business involved of the social political economic environment of the communities in which plants are located as well as a thorough knowledge of the communications and risk research skills generally associated with the profession. This in my view is really at the heart of ethical performance in public relations and I'm happy to report at the Hancock that we do in our department report directly to the chairman and

chief executive officer. We do attend all meetings of the executive committee and of the other committees that are policymaking within the John Hancock. How is this applies to media relations. It means that the practitioner must be knowledgeable about the print media radio and television and he or she must be familiar with deadlines. Now as this applies to the media relations directly it means that the practitioner must be knowledgeable about the print media radio and television and he or she must be familiar with deadlines styles of presentation and technical considerations. Anything less than this does not provide a professional job for the institution served and does not fulfil one's professional commitment to serve the

public interest. At the most primary level the practitioner must adhere to the code of ethics outlined by the Public Relations Society of America the PR I say. This code was adopted by the PR say to promote maintain high standards of public service and ethical conduct among its members sections of the code which apply to our topic today include members tell it here to truth and accuracy and to generally accepted standards of good taste. Members shall not engage in any practice which tends to corrupt the integrity of channels of communication or the process of government. Members shall not intentionally communicate false or misleading information and is obligated to use care to avoid communication of false or misleading information. A member shall not make use of any individual or organization purporting to serve or represent an announced case or proportioning to be independent or unbiased but actually serving and undisclosed special or private interest of a

member client or employer. The question of individual more reality versus professional ethics is important to me as an individual. For example I could not devote a professional career to serving the public relations objectives of a tobacco company. The data concerning smoking and lung cancer and heart disease are convincing to me. And while I'm not opposed as my associates will tell you that taking an occasional drink. I could not devote my career to serving a liquor company. These however are personal value judgments. And from the point of view of professional ethics I have no problem with practitioners who find these assignments to be worthy professional careers. However given 100 public relations practitioners with outstanding professional skills the one quality which in my view separates the outstanding practitioner from the others Is this question of personal

integrity and that applies to professional performance as well as to a willingness to take a stand when a question of ethics is involved. In my judgment the gut issue of the ethics for public relations in the media is the question of disclosure. One trait of a democratic society is that we believe that public disclosure and public debate have a cleansing effect. Have we lost our microphone again. This must be heavy material. In a general way. I accept this thesis. We live in an age of full disclosure. This is like a press conference in the White House and. We live in an age of full disclosure and it can be fuller than this. We have the Freedom of Information Act. Truth in Lending

truth in packaging truth and labeling. SCC disclosure requirements and state sunshine laws. The Federal Trade Commission utilizes public disclosure as an enforcement strategy. And some believe as a not too subtle club. Let's now put this issue to a test in terms of a specific case involving the John Hancock. I suspect that at least some of you have heard of the John Hancock Tower. It is even possible that a few of you have heard about a glass problem associated with that tower. Let's take a look inside that glass tower and see how the John Hancock perceives that issue in relation to our topic this morning. It's important to remember that John Hancock is an insurance company with no expertise in architectural and construction matters. Information released in conjunction with this

problem was based on information provided to us by the architects and engineers and was the best information available to us at the time. The installation of the glass started in the spring of 1991. My That's been a long time from August in 1971 through August of 1700 to some 200 in 20 lights. Why we call them lights rather than panes I don't know but lights are panes of glass were broken from all causes. Most of the damage was believed to be due to incomplete installation whereby materials were blown from the on enclosed upper floors of the building against the glass which enclose the lower floors. On the advice of our general contractor we sell advise to the media. Results of additional wind tunnel tests however indicated that there was an area on the southwest corner of the building between the 9th and the 17th floors

in which the glass would have to be replaced. On December 15 1972 a news release was sent to the media announcing that forty three lights of glass and nine floors at the corner of Stuart Street and Trinity Place the southwest corner would be removed and replaced with temporary plywood covers. On January 20 1973 another memorable occasion. Between 6:00 p.m. and midnight winds gusting to 75 miles an hour caused extensive damage to the northwest corner of the tower. As a result of that storm nine hundred sixty eight lights of glass were removed from the building 65 lights of glass were damaged at this time and had to be removed. The remainder were nectar scratched and also had to be removed. Hi Jan. 29 a press conference was held and this senior

Hancock officer in charge of the project gave details on the damage caused by the storm and introduced our newly appointed consulting engineer who made a statement about experiments to be undertaken by the firm and MIT. We explained frankly and candidly that the reasons previously given for glass breakage were not accurate and that we had hired this group of experts to find the reasons for glass breakage. On February 23 we announced an extensive program of testing and analysis would be undertaken and gave some of the details of that program. In March we invited the press to the wind tunnel at MIT to see a demonstration test. On April 24 we announced that fire retardant paint would be applied to all the plywood covering the building as a safety precaution. By this time the tower was widely known as plywood palace.

And our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Black and was known as the chairman of the boards. By the way it does help to maintain a sense of humor through these problems. On September 14 we announced that significant progress was being made in evaluating results of ongoing tests and that the data were being made available to all of the parties involved. I told her when we announced the solution to the problem installation of half inch thick tempered glass recommended by the architect. On May 29 we held a press conference to demonstrate the installation of the first light tempered glass. I MAY 14 975 we invited the press to cover the installation of the last light of glass. Now these are just a few of the media relations activities generated by us during this period. We also literally receive daily calls from a wide variety of news media

asking questions about the problem and many times requesting interviews. No interview was ever declined and we had as many as 13 interviews in a single day. On the other hand I would be the first to admit that we have not disclosed all the information on the John Hancock glass problem that the media would like us to disclose. On September 15 1975 the John Hancock's with the law firm of Hale in-door filed a suit against I am playing partners the architects guild brain building company the general contractor H.H. Robertson company the glass installer living on for the glass supplier and the insurance companies involved casually insured the company and federal insurance company. We have not at this point a stablished the level of damages that we are seeking. We are leaving that decision to the court. It is reasonable to assume that a substantial amount of money is at stake. Now we

are a life insurance company under the company bylaws and under the statutes of Massachusetts the management of John Hancock has a responsibility to perform a stewardship function on behalf of the more than 18 million people who are insured under John Hancock policies. Premature disclosure of technical details could jeopardize the outcome of these cases which are of the utmost importance to our policyholders who share in these matters on a dividend basis. At all times we have been extremely careful never to disclose the clauses of the original glass problem nor to speculate about who might have been to blame. In this case it seems clear to me that the priority ethical responsibility is to our policyholders. Even though this may have some effect on our popularity with the media our public information efforts in

relation to the glass problem have we believe been successful because our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer JD black and I took a stand from the very beginning that we would give all the information we could to the public through the media. The head of our department Debbie Barton senior vice president also deserves great credit for counseling management on the right course to take. And finally Jack feely head of our public information activities and his people deserve recognition for a professional job. Our honesty and availability in dealing with the press during difficult times in many cases earned the sympathy and understanding of the media and increased our credibility. Hopefully this example has illustrated some of the central problems involved in the ethics of public relations and the media. It is not a simple matter. There are no pat answers. Decisions sometimes must be made under the pressure of deadlines and in an environment of anxiety and tension.

This is where I believe that personal integrity of the individual practitioner is in the last analysis of the utmost importance. Ethical Standards must ultimately be derived from principle and not from behavior or some popular consensus. The goal of ethics after all is to influence behavior and not vice versa. The ethics of public relations must connect the principles of right and wrong with human behavior and corporate conduct. Thank you. Thank you Frank. Next we're going to hear Frank Wiley. Frank as I said earlier is a graduate of Harvard University and also a Boston University with a degree in Public Relations. He is currently the director of public relations for U.S. automotive sales of Chrysler Corporation. And I think from my viewpoint more

important is the fact that he's the president elect of the Public Relations Society of America. He's long worked within public relations to raise its standards. And I know one of the projects that he has worked on is a survey dealing with media ethics. So Frank Wiley just looking at a few rather facts. The fact that there are so few people attending this conference is good evidence that very few people really care about ethics. Yesterday we heard some comments about the fact that there should or shouldn't be a press code generally speaking people thought that there should not be a fact of the matter is press codes exist. They are generally ignored. American Society of Newspaper Editors has a code American Associated Press managing editors have

code I helped work on both of those SD acts as a coed society of business writers has a code but they are generally not employed or enforced. The RSA has a code but only a minority roughly 80 200 of the practitioners belong to the society. Most press and PR people are too polite too timid or too unconcerned to bring a charge against their peers. Watergate was not a triumph of journalism it was really an indictment of the 2000 senior members of the Washington press corps who never laid a glove on the story. As I said I thought about this event and start putting some material together for consideration seemed rather important. One we tend to think of ethics in a philosophic sense and forget that if there are only intellectual comments or intellectual concepts rather they are worthless.

They must become a part of our daily actions. The second is that as we accept ethics as part of our behavior we must admit that to do less than our best is unethical. Third. That much behavior which seems unethical is really the result of ineptitude a lack of training and skill rather than a part of any malevolent plan. Fourth the full and responsible disclosure tends to be more of a concept perhaps more of a myth than a reality. As we look into various areas bouncing back and forth between media and public relations let's say the primary A is honesty and integrity. As we look to the media we write we see the question is there truthful or is there selective

truth telling. Is it fair to request an off the record interview and then quote the source. Should we put up with the kind of reporting which is summed up by the query. I've talked to a source and have all the facts. Now I just want your reaction. That's a process which or procedure which is growing in popularity unfortunately. And we talk about the Fairness Doctrine should that be extended to print so that when we have a retraction we're talking about the same location the same size type and the same kind of story same link of story. In terms of public relations are we is there full and responsible disclosure and I think the answer is No. In some cases as a Mr. Bott mentioned the lawyers

and pending suits prevent it. But in a lot of other cases it is possible and does not exist. I think we have to consider the question of whether the answer if someone answers in an interview just the questions that are asked just the letter of the question. Is that really the full disclosure or is it just a convenient way of dodging the issue. We have a great deal of concern with the leak. Ah the leak of information how honest is the controlled leak how proper is it. One of the speakers suggested yesterday that the people who leak information of the ones who prosecute you should be prosecuted not those who print it. We also have a question in terms of public relations material how much of it is really news or how minute much of it just clogs and therefore corrupts the channels of communication. We have

also the problem of a wide variety of ethic among the practitioners and among the clients. With such a disparity of ethic it's easy to understand why the public is confused. Even those of us who spend a lot of time in it and study the subject continue to be confused. I think it's another area again in this area on the subject of integrity and honesty and that is for a PR practitioner there is never any justification for playing God with the client's trust. And yet we see that happening. Second general category is lack of skill and or knowledge. I think it's a myth that any good reporter can cover any story well in a technological world such as we live in. If one does not have the

language one does not have the knowledge is lost. I think we have to stop doing on the job training and calling the trainees experts in both journalism and public relations in both fields. We need more training better training and we have to stop claiming in expertise that we do not possess. In public relations partially because there is no licensing. There are no requirements necessary to call yourself a PR person frankly but has worked for many years in public relations and is indeed a professional enjoys the same title. Having worked very hard for it as an athlete to ruin the cartlidge for the fourteenth time his knee last night and will turn up as a PR person for a local brewery in the afternoons paper.

I think it is a myth also that a newsman can have instant success as a PR person because that denies an essential knowledge of the client activities. We also find the occasion where people graduate from rip and read to guess and opine. Some stations refer to that as progress. I think we should remember but not Burke's recommendation that everyone has a right to his opinion but nobody has a right to be wrong in his facts in public relations we find the cases of people who lack skills or access to information and they are bound to do poor work. Frank talked about the relationship of public relations with John Hancock the close relationship with the chief and top executive officers of the corporation. That's an essential. Without that they don't have the access the information they are going to do a better job. They have to. They're

uninformed. They are poor sources they are poor public relations people you know unless they have that relationship. It is. Those who lack a personal discipline to do inconsistent and sloppy work. We find that in both journalism and public relations Unfortunately it's far too widespread and I think it grows out of the lodge of. Concern. If there's one universal failure in America life or the American ethic it is our loss of the will to do well our contentedness was sloppy work our acceptance of mediocrity. The fourth area is fair access. Does this include a willingness to talk to interview the willingness to

correct a story which is wrong. Does it mean an end to 9 to 5 journalism with a middle class bias. Should TV stations stop crying poor and saying they can't cover events when their profits are up 70 percent and their costs are up only 19 percent. Is there room for news on these formula shows. And a twin question to that. Are actors really better than reporters. Thank you Munich ating the news. On the PR side we find similar problems. The on availability of clients when there is bad news. Which is really quite a contrast to the trot out the gang act when there is good news. We find clients who are unwilling to go on talk shows do tough interviews

and they are bound to lose. Sometimes a public relations person gets blamed for that for not making the person available when actually he is trying very hard to do that. Clients must be available when the press wants them not when they want the press. And then in terms of sensationalism the subjects in which we're really dealing with media when you look at the lead stories. Is it really news or is it just another reject from the Guinness Book of Records. Is it really news or is it just abnormal offbeat pornographic or some other form of Present Shock. The saturation murder coverage such as we had in the Son of Sam and other miscellaneous sons does that that alert the public or does it really just encourage the deranged.

And the public relations side we have the flag who claims everything is the second coming. He's a great disservice to the press public and his clients. Then we also find that some problems are the fact that we hear that all of our institutions you know under a great deal of fire. Those of us who've been shot at him a number of times are quite conscious of it. But if you find items such as this that a penny's executive pay $600 for $8000 remodeling job on his New York apartment which was conveniently done by a supplier of pennies the fine American Airlines maintain an unrecorded slush fund in Mexico as early as the 1940s. We find that other business like a businessman like David Mahoney chairman of Norman Simon were forced by stockholder suits to return part of their salary and bonuses. We know the Dow Chemical is cancel contributions to a college because they committed the great

great grievous and terrible error of having James Fonda speak there. And she spoke against business and she spoke against Dow. There are also a variety of items which I would like to bring up because I think that may help stimulate discussion which in the question answer which would be really the heart of this program. The radio station referred to a corporation which made one million dollars netted one million dollars in the quarter. As financially troubled. A radio station refers to one of the Fortune top 100 companies which employs 26000 people as a tiny company. The networks as a whole spend about 10 percent of their revenue on News and Public Affairs. Another little item is there a bias after death

and it would appear that there is. If you read the simple obituaries in the newspaper you will find very frequently at the top of the pile the paper handler or the pressman who died. Now somebody else maybe internationally known but if you didn't work on the paper he doesn't rank as high. If you're talking about the smaller papers such as The New York Times post a news you if you are female you have much better chance with the New York Times. You have a one chance in three of being mentioned in an obituary versus one. One in four as in the post or the news. Also if you wish to be mentioned in either the Times or The Post make your mark in business. If you want to be much in the news be and be in media because that's where the main obituaries go. We

also have an item on the Fresno four who were jailed in September for refusing to disclose a source. And I wonder what comparable sacrifice and the public relations people have made. We have the example of the recent Urban League National Urban League convention in Washington. And you may recall that before the conference started Vernon Jordan became the first black to speak out and say the Carter was elected with our votes but he isn't delivering. It was the first attack by a major black person upon Carter. The UPI ran a picture showing Carter and Jordan sitting together. One was looking this way. The other was looking this way. They both looked very mad. The AP same time same place carried a picture of

them sitting close looking at each other and smiling. The Washington Post ran both stories side by side with a caption saying contrasting impressions of the same event. But how many other papers ran just one picture. And what reality did they present as an item recently in Publisher as a visit auxiliary. Then the headline was executives need ethics codes more than reporters do. And Miles McMillan of the Capital Times in Madison said if you go to the publishers convention and it's appalling they're not paying for anything and they're the ones who can afford to pay. Yesterday we had a few mentions of the subject of monopoly in news and so forth. And some of the facts on that. I think a rippling

newspaper chains and conglomerates own 59 percent of the papers that accounts for 71 percent of the readership. Ninety six percent of the towns which have a daily paper are served by one publisher. The 12 largest chains account for nearly 40 percent of the 61 million daily papers distributed in the United States. In the another subject broadcast credibility. We do broadcast does quite a lot to destroy its own credibility. And I submit two simple little statements which are aired with fair regularity. One is

this is national correspondent Nancy Dickerson reporting for the ABC Corporation. Nancy Dickerson has not been a correspondent for some time. But she has been doing commercials for a group of companies for some time for some years. This is similar to the comment that you hear all too frequently in this section of the news is sponsored by X Y Z Corporation. Implying of course that almost suggesting they have sponsored they have bought this section of news. Terribly unfortunate use of words I think. And then let us take a take a look at a letter which we received not too long ago and I quote This is an infidel to Chrysler Motors to participate in the sponsorship of the 19th Annual National sportscasters and sportswriters awards program.

The enclosed one hundred seventy seven program will give you adequate preliminary details of the events. Although there will be some changes and additions Well the price has not been set for each event. The tentative allocation of 3000 or 5000 would ensure a major part of this programme for your company. It goes on and on and on. One of the greatest boon dog of all time. Naturally we said no. I tried to raise some points talk about some general categories tried to raise some issues which I hope will still thought on your thought and perhaps live in the discussion. Thank you. Thank you Frank.

We're going to have quite a bit of time for questions and answers and as Frank Wylie said this will go at the heart of ethics before we do so though because we are absent two panelists. We're inviting nul garden manager of public relations at Raytheon corporations to join us up here and make a few remarks. Raytheon is a multinational corporation the largest industrial corporation in Massachusetts so I think you will have some pertinent comments to me if I know Mike that works new and. Thank you. Do these work. Oh yeah yeah. Thank you. You really catch me off guard Otto. But as I listen to your presentations John and I thought about ethics in my own company. I would like to relate just a point that I think is very important

that ethics stem from the number one man your chief executive officer and how straight a person he is and how strongly he feels about it. And several years ago we had been rather unsuccessfully. And the home television and radio business through the acquisition of Belmont Radio Corporation we found out we were not strong enough that business was not strong enough to be a national advertiser and so we were into regional markets and we just couldn't compete with the national advertisers. So a decision was reluctantly made to sell that business spend it off. And they looked for for months for the right buyer and finally after many months gone by they they had a buyer and they the president of that subsidiary called in and spoke to our president and he said I know it isn't what you asked me to get for the business but I've

got X million dollars bid for it and the man is sitting right out here in my office now. Would you let it go for that. And this well we've tried and it obviously won't bring a better price go ahead. Shake hands on it. So he did. And by coincidence this business had been on the block for five or six months with no takers. That very afternoon he got another bid and he called our company headquarters again and he said guess what. There's a man sitting in my office and he just bid X plus 20 percent and our president said why are you bothering me with this. And I said well I thought you'd want to take this better offer. And he says you sold your business this morning. Why why do you bother to ask. You don't own it anymore. You shook hands on it. I said yeah but it's an awful lot of

money. And our president hung up on him. So I think there are ethical people in business and I'm very happy that I work for quite a few of them. Thank you. What new garden says reminds me of a report issued by one of the executive headhunters in the United States who says that nowadays companies are looking not only for people who know how to manage operations but they're also looking for people who have a track record of integrity a track record of being concerned about ethical issues and I think this is a point that has been made by several panelists here that personal integrity is vital. Now are open to questions from the floor. Yes young lady there.

Yes. I know. Why. OK who'd like to start the definition of ethics from each one of us. Top Army Public Relations. OK this is part of the answer. I mean last guys always finish last. Let me go first to guy. Well I'm sure that you're all aware that in the literature there are conservatively and 100 definitions of public relations I think all of them have value and one that has been most meaningful to me is public relations is a process whereby you help the institution you are serving to adjust to its social political economic environment in a way that serves the public interest.

I think these are hot. There are as Frank said there are many definitions and I think very simplistically stated. It's ensuring that you do the right thing and that people know that you are trying to do the right thing and what you have accomplished. It's much more complicated than that but in 25 words or less perhaps that will do a bit. And I think it's implicit in that in doing the right thing and ensuring that you're doing the right thing is before you're talking about it. You're doing the right thing so I think ethics is built into that very simple definition. But I think well the question the question because of the multiplicity of definitions I worked with Rex Harlow who reduced the public relations

definitions to two hundred sixty eight basic ones. Recently the I think the public relations person has the obligation to force change in the actions of his clients to bring them more in line with the trend of the public interest. I see a trend of public interest because the public interest is not a static thing. It is a changing factor. I'm reminded here of a kind of definition that Edward Al Bernays would give if he were here what he would say is that public relations deals with the process of informing and persuading the public and establishing mutual adjustment. I would be inclined to

put the great emphasis on a two way communication between an employer or client and its publics for the purpose of creating not only mutual understanding but also some kind of a mutual adjustment that optimizes the aims of both sides of this equation. I notice in the. British definition of public relations and more emphasis is being put on this mutual adaptation. I think this is very important with regard to this topic because when we think about ethics and one of the core meanings of ethics it does relate to our conduct of the others. A lot of emphasis has been put yesterday on private interest a selfish interest vs. the public interest and I think in any definition of public

relations we've got to make sure that we don't just talk about informing others doing things to others as if they were some kind of a passive audience and only to listen only to receive. But somebody who is interacting with us I think modern definitions require that. And when we think about ethics we're thinking about the right kind of exchange between those two Carol and lose. That. Order. Right. Like. The reporters are right but

I want to you will see that we are not without war. We're ready. You're a long way to go but kept my head like the right. Teacher. Right well you know a very simple and basic response and a good job is to nail a bass is the war. OK. Any other answer. The key point that I was trying to make in my presentation is that both within the institution you serve Be it a corporation or nonprofit institution and also when you're dealing with the publics including the media you're integrity is the key to the function you perform. And certainly my recommendation would be that you would never rely on that practitioner again for

information and if if a person engaged in media relations has given inaccurate information once or more that person is no longer effective so it's not only a question of ethics it's also a question of being affective and and being able to cope with the responsibilities of the job that it's downright ridiculous to ever try to get away with lying. It went on like I think it would be redundant. OK another question I make no I don't excuse me. One other comment there's another side to the coin and that is that there are some poor report us who are so inaccurate that I know we have taken up. We have adopted the process of always taping their interviews so that we have a record. They post the two sides to that. They know this is being done. Yes. Oh yes how we explain it and we are taping it because we want an accurate.

I look at our lawyer amongst us who was beginning to look worried. Yes down here and so you stand. Right now. Most News writers right. I remember reading. Which. Rice. Rice. I also. Pray. To. God. So my question is really is this effort. It's trying to it's. Rice saying public relations people and it tends to restore credibility and integrity to them. I just like to say I don't think there is a trend toward licensing there has been some talk about it. And Edward L. Bernays happens to be the prominent champion of licensing but I think Frank Wiley is a president like the PR say

my comment on Accreditation and perhaps on licensing. The majority of public relations people tend to object to the idea of licensing some of the arguments range to the fact that they shouldn't be licensed because they're part of the communications process and this ties back to the First Amendment and so forth which I think is I personally see no problem with licensing. If indeed public relations is to become a profession I have I have no problem with people being licensed. We currently have a program of accreditation. Some of you may be familiar with it say they don't represent our written examination followed by an oral exam. Three are credited numbers and it's a fairly good measure of whether somebody really understands the field or not. I

think it's there's the advantage from licensing is the fact that at least minimum requirements must be met. I hold no brief for the fact that licensing solves all problems it hasn't solved problems of poor behavior and law or medicine or. Always the reason things in medicine seem to be the salesman not the doctors but performing operations and so forth. But no I mean licensing is a step in the right direction and it it. Set certain minimum standards and I think you can progress from that. I think I think it's a problem of in terms of standards in terms of training. Most schools which are teaching communication it's far too easy on the students. The demands are far too light. They give degrees to people who in some cases literally can't write a decent declarative sentence. They have degrees in

journalism and in public relations. We have to move the standards up we have to demand more. A survey we did for so she did press managing editors a number of years ago. And a survey of public relations people and so forth in terms of the media the determination was that of all the media the one one stood out way above all others there was the Wall Street Journal. Everyone agreed that they were the most their own toughest and so forth and reporting everybody also agreed that they were the most fair and most accurate. No one else was in competition with them. Now I think that is true and I think I could speak also for the other gentleman here in the sense that any professional public relations person would rather deal with a tough knowledgeable reporter saves our time and saves their time. It's a best of relationships.

To pick up the story. Raise the standard. Teach me a basic question. Relating. To your store you're going to go. There. To meet. Do the. Basic. Stand up. Yes. There. You have it. You cannot just know yourself as a chemist to test. Your show you appreciate the picture and test the story of your life. You know all the stuff I think I. Read. Where. The population. Practitioners

look a. Certain. Way you know. Your. Access to. Take you back. In. Time. For the present story. Where can we expect.

That. He was looking at you frankly like. Oh that's right yeah right. Well first place public relations is a relatively new business as you know their first first course was taught in 1993 by denies so. All right we have a we have a lot to learn in terms of the accreditation exam or in terms of the society let's start with the basic society one of the problems was citing over the years is that it has been somewhat snobbish it has been somewhat centered in New York. It has not reached out. It is not involved and nothing to change between practitioners and educators. Another basic problem of the society is that it has not gotten a number of educators

into people into membership in the society. Taking that step further there are members there are educators who are members of the society but who choose not who have chosen not to take the exam. Some have said that they will not join the society unless they can have instant ordination of them get accreditation ahead of time which has been denied. As far as the examination is concerned itself is concerned. The assumption that a simple reading of Cutlip and center or some other similar text will prepare someone for the exam is not quite equate with the fact that 45 percent of the people who take the examination fail. Right. I happen to feel very strongly about this question. I think ideally

the day will come when perhaps even a master's degree in public relations will be a requirement for a professional in the field coupled with an undergraduate degree in say government economics or something of that kind. However on the other hand I am in full accord with the present accreditation program as the first giant step forward and I'm happy to say that I was among those who took the examination the first year it was offered. I fully committed to it I would like someday to see it become a requirement in PR I say rather than an optional issue in our present elect will tell you that's a raging controversy in almost every national assembly. So my feeling is that while it certainly does not certify the level of professionalism that is desirable it certainly is a step forward and that on that basis I favor Barton yes or no.

Regulated by law all by Corps legislators. The general consensus was pressed. Despite the. Telegraph's a question. Oh. Sure in the course of legislation they regulate or I should. Let you know your own house. Lady question. You think you might. Course legislators enjoy greater. They are right. That we might ask are we now being regulated the way I think there's a tremendous amount of regulation now unseen regulation that. The FCC limits what you can say when you can say it how you can say it. I can't name all the agencies but I I think we have to prepare reports

for some 100 20 government agencies just to do business and a large business in various industries has to do this. Some of these impact what the public relations professional or sub professional can do and can say so there is there is a modicum of of regulation but I would make a generic statement that a public relations person who steps out of line and consistently gives false information or overstates the case will be his own downfall. He cannot long endure in that kind of environment it would be nice to clean them out and pluck them out like weeds. But I think the press it doesn't take the press long to identify. These people and I think they will destroy themselves. I think we also have to mention a foreigner he says Registration Act

works for foreign government I think would have to mention the lobbying act and there is of course more talk about making that act more stringent. Now those are the only others besides SCC that occurred to me aside from the fact that public relations people deal so much with many of the public issues and with regard to those issues there's a lot of regulation for example the Frank mention you can actually consumerism the Labeling Act. So I think indirectly we're more likely to be regulated. So I hope that answers your question yes I can. Why me right. Well I just wanted to speak to the other side of it just a bit I think there are some minor limitations as defined by the other panelists but I happen to feel strongly that public relations like the press really derives its existence from the First Amendment and basically I come down after you know all kinds of intellectual arguments on this side of basically an unabridged first amendment

including the right to disseminate information and to petition Congress. Now the Corsair are great tough issues within the court system itself such as the conflict between the Sixth Amendment which presumably guarantees the right to a fair trial by a group of your peers versus the First Amendment where pretrial publicity is also very sometimes very harmful and yet you know having wrestled with that issue for many years I come down that somehow these are sibling amendments which are vital to our free society and I can't really see abridging either. Frank why are you like me. Well I think the public relations would extend regulated to the extent that you know they're all rubbish. What they're really looking to use they generate more regulation questions like that. Thank you Mr. Wright.

I wanted to stress that of course in that example that I used I was interjecting a personal value system in relation to working for a cigarette company or a liquor company. And I have no criticism of my professional colleagues who may wish to devote a career to those causes. I just in terms of my own personal value system would not be comfortable in that environment. On the other hand I think there clearly is a place for public relations counsel for any group no matter how unpopular that group may be. And I liken this to Adams defending the British soldier in the heat of the revolutionary or the beginnings of the Revolutionary War. There is a professional commitment on the part of lawyers to do this. And I guess that overall I would come out that any group within what Madison call the polity of pressure groups in our society is entitled to public relations counsel. The question of personal preference is another matter.

Why. I think Frank's response was eloquent. Well I think Frank has talked about before. Brings up the basic element of ethics and that is that the person there are times when a person has to. Give up a job give up a client because of these conflicts. If you when the when the clients attitude active actions are running counter to his own personal ethics then he has to make a decision if you keep to try and change it if he can change it then the only change other train to the can affect is getting out. I've resigned accounts because well because of that conflict. I also had a an account one time which is we've done quite a bit of successful work for. And I came in for a monthly meeting and the man who was head of the corporation said I want to congratulate you on the excellent job you've done.

We're going I mean we're going to terminate now because we know you've gotten and gotten us enough exposure and so forth now we want to hire a New York outfit to cut the stock. So sometimes PR people get blamed for some things that don't really emanate from the client. And I think the disassociation is is terribly important. There aren't enough journalists or PR people who quit on that basis. I'd like to give one brief illustration to I mention the book interpreters for Nigeria. Earlier during a sabbatical I worked in New York for a public relations firm and that happened to handle the Biafran account. I was asked one late afternoon to look at a full page ad that was to be placed in New York Times and perhaps in the Washington Post. I took it home with me read it and thought it was terrible inflammatory I didn't think it would help the client at all I didn't think it was at all desirable. Now I raise those objections the very next

morning and in a large counseling firm what they can do is simply recognize your personal wishes and I was taken off that account now it didn't do any good as far as my complaints were concerned because the ad actually did appear. But the point I'm trying to make is that in a larger organization I think your personal values can be recognized. Now this question down here. You mentioned earlier. Why. Would you care. Not really very. Little. But try to. Stay. There. I think I think there is I and as a matter of fact I think it actually happens. The point has been made I think by Franco

Bart particularly in defining public relations that we're constantly trying to achieve some kind of a better adjustment between our employer or client and this changing environment the socio political environment we talk about. Well if you see that the public expectations are rising then what two way communications means is that we've got to put pressure on our employer in order to change company policy and conduct and I think we are the instrument were an internal pressure group to do that. Now I recognize in saying this that you know we live in this world of reality where we recognize we can push so far and not beyond but I think the pressure has to be there very firmly and consistently. This is my view. Any one of the Franks or you know. Yes. OK Frank.

Well once again a lobbying or the right to petition Congress is guaranteed by the First Amendment I happen to feel that there are lobbyists of all kinds be they for common cause the Audubon Society the oil companies or whatever. And I'm fully committed to the notion that all of us as individuals or groups have that right to do that. Increasingly what's happening in Washington is that the trend is not just directly lobbying one on one but it's a trend towards getting grassroots support for your issue. So there is a growing marriage between lobbying as you define it in public relations as we're discussing it here and I think we'll see more and more of that because of the the grassroots approach to lobbying is recognized as being more important in Washington today. Gross. How do you know where your voice goes. You believe. You were rightly regard.

Hey buddy First do I I take a day. The issue is not whether or not you object to what your client or what your employer is proposing but how you handle ie the external acknowledgement of that is that. I think if you're if your client or your employer has not yet made a decision has not yet embarked on I on a plan that your discussion with your client is still privileged. I don't I think if your client says we're good we're definitely going to put razor blades in all the candy for Halloween and and you you don't think that's right. If you like when you do that.

You started a rumor Frank a ludicrous example but if you if your client has. If you're on a collision course with your client up until the point he decides to do that. I don't think you have a right to discuss his plans externally because in effect you're putting undue unprofessional pressure on your client if you can't convince him yourself. I don't think you ought to lobby outside of his of your privilege to get him to do that. If he then decides that he is going to embark on this course then as we discussed earlier if your course is clear you can resign the account. Tell him you don't want any part of it. Remind him again that that you think he's making a mistake and then you can appeal outside but I don't think until he makes a decision that that you have a right to go outside.

The other three. I would I would agree that as long as the person is a client or as a long as the person remains your employer you have a loyalty to them. However when the act they act or act which they propose run counter that your only solution is to disassociate. I think it's an ethical for and if it does happen there are people who stay on the payroll and play footsie with the press if you will and say well I don't believe it I don't believe in what they're doing but that's what the that's what our management is doing. I think that is equally an ethical question. I think that's life.