PR for the 21st century

When you look at the current definition of public relations that is mentioned in Stuart Ellitott´s New York Times article, you can feel that something is missing. Let see “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” What is wrong about this definition? The world has change in the last 20 year, and the ways of people communicate with corporations and between them as well. Internet and social media have shifted the relationship between the public and those that used communicating messages to them, now that process is not a monologue, it´s indeed a two ways information super highway. That change has generated that current PR concept could be perceived as misleading. For that, and others reason, the industry’s largest organization, the Public Relations Society of America, started a research and an effort to develop a better definition of “public relations,” one more appropriate for this century.

I have been trying to think about my own definition of public relations, and it´s kind of tricky, but even that I´m not an expert in PR I would say something like, PR is the communicate process that create strategies to maintain a good relation and understanding, between corporations and their public, in an ethical manner.

In my concept I incorporated the word ethical, to add the implication that you can work for organizations or people, creating strategies to maintain a good image of them for their public, but you have to follow the path of the ethics.

The Public Relations Society of America started an effort to develop a new definition of PR last year. These are the final candidates definitions of Public Relations:

 Definition No. 1:

Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.

(Read the annotated version here.)

Definition No. 2:

Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.

(Read the annotated version here.)

Definition No. 3:

Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.

(Read the annotated version here.)

Along with Elliott’s article, Gerard Corbett’s article also mentions recent PR ethical breaches. I read about the case that Facebook’s attempted smear campaign against Google. That action put in a terrible position, not just one PR firm, but also an entirely PR world, because one agency didn´t realize that even when you are loyal to your client, you also have to be loyal to the public of that client. The case called Whisper Gate, In few words, Facebook hired  a one PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, to pitch stories about how Google’s foray into social networking was supposedly creating privacy concerns.

In those stories about the topic, there was no mention that Facebook was behind it. The pitch was discovered for one newspaper, the USA Today, that called the pitch foul. That kind of strategies let a open door for bad interpretations about how is seems the industry of the public relation, and attempt against the values and principles of transparency, justice and autonomy that are mentioned in the PRSA’ s Code of Ethics

Click here for more details about Whisper Gate 

  Finally, I am glad to know that PRSA and the FTC are monitoring various public relations practices; I think that those actions will improve the field in terms of ethics. For instead, the first example that Corbett mentioned is that now PR representing dictators will be monitoring by the industry. I think that is a great steps for improve some ethical issues about this topic, I know that the case about politic freedom is not widely know in countries like The United States, where every person has the right to speak and say whatever they want.  But in other places, where people cannot enjoy that kind of freedom, would be horrible that kind of leadership will be help for PR firms to establish. Another interesting initiative could be to implement a international PR organization, that only goal will be to monitoring the PR world, research and discuss about ethical cases, and establish clear politics about ethical guidelines of the PR field.

What´s Yours Is Mine: the Ethics of News Aggregation

The case explains a situation, which is one of the most important problems during our days: intellectual property rights V´s freedom of information

The code of ethics is helpful in evaluating this case because is really hard establish what are the limits of intellectual property. The Society of Professional Journalists´ code of conduct states ¨Never plagiarize¨ and the Associated Press code warns:

“An AP staffer who reports and writes a story must use original content, language and phrasing. We do not plagiarize, meaning that we do not take the work of others and pass it off as our own”.

However, aggregation, like is states in the book, is not a black and white issues.  The same statement of Associated Press about their News Values and principals, that argues that their staff must use original content also said:

“  But in some respects, AP staffers must deal with gray areas. It is common for an AP staffer to include in his or her work passages from a previous AP story by another writer – generally background, or boilerplate. This is acceptable if the passages are short. Regardless, the reporter writing the story is responsible for the factual and contextual accuracy of the material. Also, the AP often has the right to use material from its members and subscribers; we sometimes take the work of newspapers, broadcasters and other outlets, rewrite it and transmit it without credit”.

The same code is warning that writers are going to face gray areas. Since that statement, its seem like every members of AP could face a ethic dilemma about use content of other, that mean aggregation. So, its no code its not effective in clarify when is OK to use content from others writers. 

 AP NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

In this case I would use the ethical perspective of David Rose, Pluralistic Theory of Value. He argues that “there is often more than one ethical value simultaneously for a preeminence in the process of our ethical decision making”.

That provide another option to the writers about use another material, to complete one article, or not.

They could think about any case, and asks themselves something like, Is It going to be really relevant this aggregation for the story? ,  for the right of the public to be inform. One value, be accuracy, could be more important than other, We do not plagiarize.

We know that governments has the responsibility to make laws able to protect the intellectual property of citizen, however it should guarantee to all citizens the freedom access to the information.

Internet´s development has facilitated access to information. Everyday thousands of books, articles, songs, essays, investigations, opinions are on hands of a countless of people, around the world. But also, it´s true that Internet has made easier to break the law , such as works’ plagiarism, illegal sell and reproduction.

The ethical dilemma arises because, it´s almost impossible to establish strong rules to guard the intellectual property, without affecting our free access to the information. The State is trying to create regulations as Stop Online Privacy Act, SOPA, but is in this moment, when the ethical dilemma intensifies, because despite SOPA raises expand efforts to decrease illegal reproduction of the works on Internet, It affect directly our rights.

In Brief, it´s clear that authors need protection over their works, however as soon as government start to punish or control work´s traffic on Internet, also will be easier to censorship. I would leave to right to decode whether or not use aggregation to the writers, but always evaluating any case, and attributing the aggregation to the original source.

Keeping secret or not, that's the question

I have been working like journalism for almost 8 years.  Personally I never had to face a big dilemma about heard or learn “secret information” that becomes known to me and perhaps I could release to the public. Nevertheless, everyday reporters, editors journalism and PR professionals has to deal with that kind of challenges.

 Often, when you face dilemmas, like everything in life, you have multiple choices. Decisions, decisions, decisions. The big difference about dilemmas, like reveal or not secret information that could cause harm for some people, is that sometimes all choices look wrong. It does seem like either one or another possible solution could be a mistake for someone else. The problem with ethics decisions is that often is not about find the right answer, in contrast is more about ask the correct questions, like Plaisance  argued: 

“People are frustrated because, by its nature, ethics is more about questions that is about answers. More specifically, ethics is about getting good at asking the right questions, which in turn clarify the problem and enable us to explore effectively possible solutions or acceptable compromises”.

I read the case of CNN and Eason Jordan and I really felt identified with him in some ways. Jordan was the chief news executive for CNN during the 1990’s. At that time CNN had access to Saddam Hussein’s government. They could report from Baghdad like anyone else. But that access came with a price. They could not report the “reality” of the awful and horrible things that they saw and heard. Jordan said that when news made the government unhappy, the regimen threat them, some journalism were ejected from the country, a cameraman was abducted and torture, and if Iraqi citizen spoke to reporters they later disappeared. After the war, Jordan reveled all that and argued that he did the right thing.

 In Venezuela is not a war or anything like that. However, more than 130 citizens die every weekend in the capital, Caracas. That fact is reveal for some fragment of the media. Other portion of newspaper, radio station or TV Channels, don’t cover that kind of information which could make the government unhappy. I am not talking just about the official media, also private media that have been threatened by the government for years.

Some private media enterprise  did not do the same thing. But some of them were shutdown by the regimen.  I worked for a broadcasting TV station, RCTV, that was one of the more important TV stations of Venezuela. The fought the government and report the bad things. Finally, were closed, arguing that its concession to use the airwaves had expired. More than 2000 persons lost their job.

Consequences of telling truths that made the government  unhappy

Also radio station were shut down.

What would you do if you were the owner or Chief next executive of RCTV at that time? Some people in my country argue that they should do the same thing that Jordan did with CNN during the Irak War. Others think that they did the right thing, because RCTV could not avoid journalistic values such as truth telling, access, and independence. It’s a tough call indeed. They might change their editorial line a little be, keep broadcasting, and perhaps RCTV could get out some news , about the situation of Venezuela to the world, and no news at all.

I lost my job, I was threat for some government supporters during my work as a reporter. Some colleagues were even beaten for people who supported the regime. And perhaps that was one of the reason that I decided to travel abroad to study and trying to find another life. However, I think that RCTV did the right thing, report and tell the truth, no matter what.

In that case, I had a conflict between my personal and professional values. I might prioritize one value to keep working and reporting the truth no matter the consequences. But that decision to uphold one value doesn't necessarily mean that I abandoned the personal site. When we have to face dilemmas, and our personal or professional life, we are constantly required to evaluate our "value systems".

Telling the truth

I always wanted to work in the communication world. First I studied advertising, and I liked it. I started to work like copywriter for an Advertising Agency, and I never thought about ethical scenarios at that time. I wrote slogan, scripts , storyboard about that product or those companies, without any regard or moral conflict. Then I had the chance to start to study my real passion, journalism. After 5 years in college, and even before my graduation, I started to work like reporter, photographer, and producer in different types of media such as television, news Web sites and newspapers.  At that moment I realized about how powerful could be media, also some teachers told us about our responsibility, for been guardians of the truth. But what truth.

I never had a real dilemma or ethical scenario until a few weeks ago. It was not a wikileaks case or a Pentagon secret, but certainty that put me in a difficult situation.

I heard about one worker who was fired for a furniture store, and the owner never paid her some money.   I read about that case in the news and I started to try to talk with that person. Also I did some research about the store. For me surprise that business was a client of the newspaper where I was trying to work and do my internship. I talked about that case with  the news editor, and after one minute he told that I should not do that story because we did not know if the worker was saying the truth and the newspaper could face a lawsuit.

I didn’t write the story. Until now I think that the real reason of the advice of my editor was because the store is a client (they buy ad to the newspaper). However, I didn´t know if that worker was telling the truth. Also I could lost the opportunity of do my internship in that paper.  I don’t feel 100 % happy about my decision, but I think that even if I had written the story, the newspaper probably would not have published it.  

Inmigrant worker denied pay check

 

I studied about ethic in high school and also throughout my associate and bachelor in college. But if learned something about taking tough decision is that any dilemma has a black and white answer.  I really enjoyed read the first chapter of Media Ethics Issues & Cases by Patterson and Wilkins. I learned that ethics decision is not just about follow a set of rules, it´s more about built skills to analyze any difficult case that we, like communicators, could face down the line throughout our professional career.

I would like to discuss in class about current cases of ethical decision. Not just big cases, like the wikileaks that is a really big deal right now. Perhaps I would love to talk about those scenarios that we really will face in a newspaper, TV station, Public relation agency, and so on.  For instance, do a public discussion like Sissela Bok propose in her book, Lying, Moral Choice in Public and Private Life.  I agree with her about the idea that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions. It’s a really hard task, and you always going to receive critics by some party involve.