Tuesday, September 19, 2006

my beef with the Pope...

I can’t help but think the Pope’s efforts to ‘apologize’ are a bit lame. There has been tons of coverage, but we haven’t seen the Pope’s face, or heard from his mouth.

The story: “Speaking in Germany on Tuesday, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/)

The major message that has been sent out has been that he was quoting someone else’s words, not declaring Islam evil himself. Well, if I ever pull out a quote to read in a speech I’m giving, it’s not usually something that I disagree with, it’s a perspective that I want to share with my audience. I’m thinking the Pope has some apologizing to do, in person.
_______________________________________

More quotes from http://news.bbc.co.uk/:

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," the statement said.
But Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the statement did not go far enough and called on the pontiff to apologize in person.
_______________________________________
I agree with the above statement from the Brotherhood, we need to see the Pope’s face. He’s not putting out a humble, apologetic message by hiding behind his officials. I suppose it’s possible that he hasn’t shown his face for safety reasons, but I’m sure he can make a video inside Vatican City, and send it out to news outlets easily.
“The Vatican has also rejected the interpretation of the pontiff's remarks as an attack on Islam, and has said he intended no offence.”

Well, we are all human. We don’t intend to offend people, but in our selfishness, we often do. And when we do, we should apologize, with our mouths and from our hearts. I’d appreciate it if the Pope would be an example of this to us.

It’s not even that I think his statement was outrageously off track, or immoral – the point is that it offended loads of people – people that are bombing churches and holding screaming protests. The point is that he is a public figure, a very important one; he should be telling us more than “they weren’t my words,” or “it was misinterpreted.”

Saturday, September 16, 2006

understanding law

What important chapters. As chapter two opens up, it is made clear that in the field of public relations, professionals need to know and understand the law in order to avoid suits.

There are two different types of speech that a corporation operates by: commercial and corporate. Commercial speech is information directed toward selling a product or service. Corporate speech is information released by a company informing the public of their political or social values or opinions. Corporate speech has many similar protections to individuals protected by the First Amendment. However, some restrictions are placed on corporate speech in because corporations have much more power than individuals and therefore could overshadow the individual. Commercial speech has less protection under the First Amendment, because this speech is designed for profit. There have been different periods since commercial speech became more protected – swerving from protecting the business to protecting the consumer. Protection for commercial speech has expanded since, and the Central Hudson test is available to advertisers wanting to remain under First Amendment protection.

Corporate speech receives much more protection that commercial speech, and as public relations professionals we should know and understand First Amendment protection so that we may avoid trouble. This is important for anyone in our industry. We don’t want to be on the front page of major publications, looking like idiots.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Finally, I am blogging…

Utilitarianism = the greatest “good” for the greatest number of people. I feel like this is a little bogus because, like the book explains “it reduces all morality to a concern with consequences and views humans as a means rather than as ends in themselves.” This idea is much too general and leaves no room for the uniqueness that is the human race. I think of retail stores whose motto is often “the customer is always right…” If this view of ethics were applied to retail PR, medical PR, entertainment PR, etc. we would not have very happy customers. I don’t think life is so busy that we should generalize entire populations and fail to recognize the opinions and needs of different individuals.

Communitarianism = in PR means that the organization is encouraged to be a responsible member of its community/communities. Though this sounds great, there are problems that could arise here too. A certain community could be promoting a belief, or concept that is not in alignment with the ethics of the organization. The book gives the example of the Dalkon Sheild – a case where neither utilitarianism nor communitarianism can fully be applied. Utilitarianism maybe take care of the majority, but would cause harm to the minority. Communitarianism would have required a recall, leaving women free from harm being treated unfairly.

I think neither of these approaches should be the focus of any PR organization. We should take the time, as professionals and as humans, to consider individuals and communities both.

Tying this in with PRSA: I feel like PRSA’s code leans more towards communitarianism. Most of their words generalize and seem to apply to groups, however they also state that they are considerate of the individual. “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.” They end with this: “we respect all opinions.” It seems that PRSA understands that neither of these ethical concepts could exhaustively express their desire to promote good ethical public relations. They exist on a continuum, moving back and forth between caring for the community, the client, and the individual – always upholding good ethics and being loyal and honest.

I would hope that PR professionals pull from both utilitarianism and communitarianism – working to honestly serve their communities, attempting to uphold good ethics for the greatest number of people, while also giving attention to the minority who could go unnoticed otherwise.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

code of ethics

The CIPR Code of Conduct
CIPR has revamped its code, and it is well, long. Overall, the code promotes solid, honest work. Also emphasized is confidentiality, and teamwork (under Competency: "collaborating on projects", and under Maintaining Professional Standards: "offering work experience to students").
Included in this particular code is a full explanation of how to report offenses to the code. My personal opinion is that the code should be more clear and concise. Some parts of the code are ambiguous. Under Maintaining Professional Standards, they encourage their members to evaluate the practice of public relations, and to share information about good practice by discussing what can be done better. This, to me, is the meat of the conduct.

International Association of Business CommunicatorsCode of Ethics for Professional Communicators

This code identifies the basic principles of a code of conduct - legal adherence and ethical practices, but then go deeper by encouraging good taste and mutual understanding. Their code has a global tone, discussing cultural awareness and sensitivity. The 12 articles are extensive and challenge members to participate in honest and candid communication, to admit faults quickly, to refuse to participate when the situation is unethical, and finally to communicate honestly not only outwardly but with themselves. This code did a better job of making me think.

Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics 2000
This is the only site whose Code of Ethics was plainly visible on the home page. The statement that the link takes you to is very short. There is a link to download the code of ethics, which is 20 pages printed. The statement says that "emphasis on enforcement has been eliminated." Hmm... CIPR and PRSA seems to have some funny business with members breaking the code...
Their code begins with a letter from the Board of Directors, which is personal. Also included are contact information, and the organizations Preamble. There is encouragement to practice public relations ethically, but also to know why that is important. The code is in place to enhance public relations and to build more respect for the profession. They challenge members to practice honestly, advance their industry through expertise, and to be held accountable for actions. The code ends with guidelines, examples, a contact person for questions, and a pledge.