Often, within the field of communication, three main research areas address ethical concerns: media ethics, community communication ethics, and social media ethics. While media and social media ethics tend to dominate discussions, the ethics of community communication have received limited attention (L’Etang, 2005).

Despite the significance of ethical and moral questions in the everyday lives of communication experts, the research base in community communication ethics remains relatively sparse. This could be attributed, in part, to the challenges faced when attempting to foster open discussions within organizations that hinder free discourse on ethical matters.

The low research base on community ethics is thought to be at least partly due to the fact that a communication or PR specialist working for an organization prevents free discussion on the topic at hand. Some have even argued that community communication is inherently propagandistic and serves solely the interests of the organization, thus leading to the perception that it cannot be evaluated ethically (Stauber & Rampton, 2004).

Nonetheless, ethical dilemmas persist in the realm of community communication, underscoring the necessity of further exploration.

Unruly sibling of journalism

In his book, “PR! A Social History of Spin” (1996), distinguished professor Stuart Ewen from the City University of New York (CUNY) contends that information and public relations activities often aim to manipulate critical thinking rather than provide a comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

Ewen raises concerns about the increasing sophistication and persuasive techniques employed in information and public relations, which often go unrecognized by the public. While it is true that communication professionals may sometimes divert attention from questionable practices, it is important to recognize that manipulative tactics are not exclusive to our field.

Even I must admit that this approach has influenced my own thinking, redirecting attention somewhere else to ensure that people wouldn’t notice the shadiness happening in another direction. It’s not uncommon for organizations to attempt to manipulate the truth and turn black into white, but we must acknowledge that it’s part of the game.

However, depicting communication as an unruly and undisciplined sibling of journalism oversimplifies the distinctions in responsibilities and contexts between these two professions. Journalists are accountable to their audience, while communication professionals primarily serve the interests of the organizations they represent (CFMMIF, §1).

Navigating the ethical boundaries

It is essential to dispel the misconception that communication and PR professionals are inherently unscrupulous or morally deficient individuals. People work in communications because it is a financially rewarding business. Like any other profession, it involves financial rewards and providing services to paying customers (Coombs & Holladay, 2007).

Nevertheless, throughout our careers, we inevitably encounter situations where personal ethics and moral codes clash with organizational policies and communication objectives. Relying solely on consequence ethics as a framework for communication is inadequate, as it raises numerous challenges. For instance, how should we communicate about issues that may be detrimental to the community but are deemed necessary by the organization?

And does the end justify the means in the utilitarian sense (lat. exitus acta probat), even if it would entail unfairness or harm to individuals but benefit the community and the public? It seems that ethical communication demands a very comprehensive and multifaceted approach that considers a range of ethical theories and principles.

Communication supports the strategy

If we play with the idea for a moment longer, examining the ethics of consequences prompts us to question whether ethical communication can truly be realized only within non-profit organizations dedicated to collective welfare.

The ethical landscape becomes much more complex when communication professionals find themselves representing companies like Coca-Cola, facing plastic pollution challenges, or Agnico Eagle Mines, accused of environmental damage. Shouldn’t companies like UPM, currently involved in cooperation negotiations in the forest industry, also have the opportunity for effective communication?

Despite the ethical questions posed, these organizations play a significant role in society, contributing value through raw materials, products, employment, and taxes.

That’s why I believe it is incorrect to assume that there exists a definitive line or scale, with extreme manipulation and propaganda on one end and normal communication on the other. Each time a new means of influence is employed, it doesn’t automatically push one closer to the so-called “dark side.”

In reality, such a rigid categorization doesn’t exist.

In today’s world, it should be evident that organizations strive to exert influence not only on their customers, public image, and employees but also on other stakeholders. Consequently, the primary objective of communication and PR professionals is to achieve this influence while still upholding ethical standards in their communication methods.

Considering these factors, I firmly believe that the moral parameters of communication are determined together by local legislation, the guidelines set by the employer, and the individual’s conscience responsible for communication and PR.

Nevertheless, as a communications specialist operating within the education field, which contributes to the common good, I have never once entertained the notion that I am somehow morally superior to a communications specialist working for Agnico Eagle Mines or any other organization for that matter.

Sources: 

• Council for Mass Media in Finland. 2014. Journalistic guidelines.
• Coombs W. & and Holladay S. 2007. It’s not just PR – Public relations in society.
• Ewen S. 1996. PR! – A Social History of Spin.
• L’Etang J. 2005. Critical public relations: Some reflections. Public Relations Review 31, 521–526.
• Stauber J. & Rampton S. 2004. Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public.