Ethics

This week’s reading was concerned with the paradigm public relations seems to have the worst reputation in; ethics.
It effectively highlighted the role of the practitioner as an honest one, with their objective to be to inform the public to the best of their knowledge and not to distort or manipulate the truth for the organisations sake. To me, this seems a little simple and unrealistic. If a PR practitioner comes across information about their client that they believe will be detrimental to its relationship with various publics, obviously they are going to avoid its broadcast and evade vilification of the company that they have worked so hard to develop and maintain.
Nonetheless, the chapter forced consideration of the importance of working for a company you believe in. To inform the public to ‘the best of your knowledge’ will never be slanderings if to the best of your knowledge your company is doing all it can with a sticky situation.
I wrote a letter to the editor this week which was published on Saturday about The Footy Show’s lack of tact when it comes to dealing with crisis in the league on account of their lack of training in PR. The letter was a reaction to a player referring to Greg Inglis’s domestic violence charges as ‘drama’ and saying that it was good to see him ‘back with the boys having a laugh’. In this scenario, the panel were obviously trying to avoid an uncomfortable atmosphere or animosity toward the player, so did so through emitting any direct reference to his charges and instead attempting to portray him in a positive light. This tactic was ridiculously poor for the Footy Show, having the information already released and broadcasted repeatedly nationally all week. While they should have been acting as damage control and formed a tactical approach to addressing the issue, they may in fact not agree with trying to paint him in a positive light, which is where contingencies arise.
The scope of the difficulty can be seen when applying Immanuel Kant’s 3 step process for solving ethical dilemmas to this Footy Show scenario. -1- When in doubt as to whether an act is moral or not, apply the categorical imperative, which is to ask the question: ‘What if everyone did this deed?’-2- Always treat all people as ends in themselves and never exploit other humans.-3- Always respect the dignity of human beings
When your role as a PR practitioner is to protect both players and the National Rugby League itself, it would prove extremely difficult to present a unified and conclusive Public Relations plan. You cannot ethically advocate the players actions, particularly after the previous media coverage, though you do have to support the NRL’s decision to allow him back. If you don’t agree with the NRL’s decision, are you then in the position to leave your job on account of maintaining your ethical stance? Or are you to weigh up the scenario situationally, taking into account the difficulty of decision making in other areas of the organisation?
A lot to think about when considering even applying for a job as a Public Relations Practitioner.