Janelle Young

December 3, 2008

Jour 312

Interview on Ethics

Ethics: How Honest is Only Part of the Truth?

Having high ethical standards is vital to public relations professionals because working

with the media forces them to make decisions on ethical issues on a regular basis. These

decisions are very important because the mass media can have an enormous impact on the image

of any organization or individual. Most PR professionals work within ethical codes to withhold

high credibility and a good reputation. So what happens when an ethical issue comes into

question that falls in the grey area rather than the black or white? The issue is not addressed in

the ethical code, and many PR professionals make different choices on how to act on it. The

issue that I am questioning is the whole truth. This has become an issue of concern over many

years of people defending both yes and no. When is it okay for a public relations professional to

leave out facts; is it ever okay? How honest is only part of the truth?

There is no one perfect answer to this question. Many public relations professionals along

with professionals of all types have different opinions on this matter. In the court of law

however, it is not a matter of opinion. A witness must swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth.”

Option 2: Interview / Term Paper

Choose a specific ethical issue that relates to PR and is of concern today to PR professionals or
those
who work in a closely-aligned field involving work in media or computer-mediated
communication.
Give some brief background: Why is this an issue of concern, and how has it developed to
become
so? Next, interview two professionals (people working full-time in the field), to find out how the
issue has surfaced in the course of their work and how they respond. What standards do they use
to
help them make decisions? What are the penalties for the wrong ethical choices?
For example: You could choose to focus on the issue of VNRs (Video News Releases) and
the release of VNRs from PR agencies to TV news operations as if the VNR is, in itself,
10
“news.” First, do a little background research. What is a VNR, what are the ethical issues
involved, and how big is the problem (if it is a problem, according to your research)?
Then, interview a local PR person. What’s their agency’s policy on VNRs? What do they
think of the issue? Have they ever gotten into a conflict over the use of a VNR? Etc. Then,
interview a producer from an area TV station. What’s the policy in that person’s newsroom?
Who makes decisions about content--and how are the decisions made? What input does the
reporter get in the process? What if the reporter believes management’s policy on VNR use
to be ethically suspect? (and so forth).
Present your findings in report form, making sure to extensively quote those people you
interview and giving plenty of examples to support what they told you. Include your opinion
on the issue, based on your conversations with these professionals and your review of
literature. Our target here is for interviews with at least two working professionals, a report
of at least 10 pages in length, and included in that report at least five academic/ scholarly
sources to support your position and findings.

Q1. Would you ever present information that presents only part of the
truth?
Totally depends on the situation. Sometimes in a crisis, it might be
best to give out all the information that you can but you may not have
all of it. What you do give out should be totally the truth.

Q2. Do you believe fairness would be to present both sides of the

information? Should journalists always be "fair"?
Yes. And Journalists should always be fair.

Q3. Do you feel it is lying to leave out some details of the truth?
See answer to question number 1. It may not be lying. It may be
careless.

Q4. How do you feel about leaving out details because you don't want to
reveal them to the public, verses leaving out details because you simply
didn't do the research?
Leaving out details because you don't want to reveal them is wrong. If
you haven't done the research, admit it, then do it and get back to
folks.

Q5. If the information you left out didn't cause any misunderstandings,
is it unethical?
Usually leaving out information that you have causes misunderstandings.
Q6. If you decided to leave out some harmless insignificant details, but
it accidentally caused a great amount of confusion and ended up in
misleading the audience, what would you do? How would you handle this
accident?

John soars

reporting "part of the truth" could also mean reporting all that you
know, which is acceptable in a developing story (e.g. someone gets
arrested for robbery - that part is true) but we don't know if it's true
that the suspect indeed committed a robbery... that will be determined
by attorneys and a judge and begs to be reported when a verdict is
rendered. ultimately what journalists do (or should do) is report
facts. balanced reporting means facts from both sides are represented.
each side usually believes their position (set of facts) to be true.
maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle... maybe one side is
entirely right or both sides have merit. reporters don't get to make
that judgment - that's up to the audience.

Facts are not truths; they are not conclusions; they are not even
premises. The truth depends on, and is only arrived at, by a
legitimate deduction from all the facts which are truly material.—
Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Before testifying in a courtroom, a witness swears the

time-honored oath to tell “the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.”

half-truths instead of the whole truth;

If we practice our craft with the conscious intention to deceive, to manipulate public opinion with false or
specious information, or unworthy products or services, we do not contribute to the public interest or welfare.
Public relations then becomes something inauthentic, something not deserving of our respect.