SUMMARY OF ETHICS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS RESPONSIBLE ADVOCACY

ETHICS IN PR TASK

By: Name NIM CLASS : : : Siska 10305022010 V/A/CC/HON

Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Komunikasi The London School of Public Relations - Jakarta

JAKARTA 2012

THE ETHICS OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Abstract This paper addressed the ethics of public diplomacy. It talked about how the ethics in public diplomacy works. The difference about public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy, is the public diplomacy as same as propaganda and talked about how the internet now a days affect the public diplomacy process. It is summary of chapter nine from Ethics in PR Responsible Advocacy edited by Kathy Fitzpatrick and Carolyn Bronstein.

I.

INTRODUCTION Speak of ethics, is like a never-ending point of discussion. Pro-contra about the applicative

of ethics, always became an interesting topic in any kind of debate process. According to James Fieser in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ethics which also known as moral philosophy defined as a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.1 He also wrote, there are three major areas of ethics, which are meta-ethics (speaks about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how the truth-values may be determined), normative-ethics (speaks about the practical means of determining a moral course of action), and applied ethics (speaks about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations). Speaking of ethics, it applied in most of our life of act. In public relations (PR), there are also some rules and ethics that control PRs action. There are six guidelines that can be used as the based in PR, which are:2 Pay attention to ethics before need it. Know your own values. Spot and discuss ethical issues. Identify the underlying values in the organizations mission statement, code of ethics, or other policy document. Educate the decision makers in the organization, specifically the CEO and dominant coalition, of the abilities if the public relations function. Engage in systematic and analytical means of contemplating ethical dilemmas.

1 2

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ Class material PowerPoint on week 1-2 Ethic of PR by Syafiq B. Assegaff.

PR and ethics are two things that can not be separated in the application. We can not ignored the ethics that applied in PR rules and regulation. Then, how about public diplomacy as one of PR things, is it also some specific ethics that applied on it? II. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY Philip Seib wrote in Ethics in PR Responsible Advocacy (2006) public diplomacy can be defined as an effort by a government to bring an honest view of the world to people in countries where their own government obstruct access to information.3 The other thing that he also stated is public diplomacy also could be nothing more than self-serving, manipulative messages of questionable truthfulness. Other expertise also wrote, "Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences." 4 According to Hans N. Tuch, author of Communicating with the World (St. Martin's Press, NY, 1990), public diplomacy defined as "Official government efforts to shape the communications environment overseas in which American foreign policy is played out, in order to reduce the degree to which misperceptions and misunderstandings complicate relations between the U.S. and other nations."5 Nicholas Cull divides the five elements: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting (IB), as methods and instruments that used in public diplomacy.6 Personal contact, broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty can exchange programs such as Fulbright and the International Visitor Leadership program, American arts and performances in foreign countries.7 Internet also can used as instruments in practicing public diplomacy, however it depends on the audience to be communicated with the message to be conveyed.8 After talked about ethics and public diplomacy, next part writer will talk about ethics of public diplomacy.

Fritzpatrick, Kathy and Carolyn Bronstein. Ethics in PR (Responsible Advocacy). California: Sage Publications Inc., 2006 4 http://publicdiplomacy.org/pages/index.php?page=about-public-diplomacy Planning Group for Integration of USIA into the Dept. of State. (June 20, 1997) 5 http://publicdiplomacy.org/pages/index.php?page=about-public-diplomacy 6 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2008 616: 31, Nicholas J. Cull Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories. 7 Tuch, Hans N. Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas. New York: St. Martins Press, 1990, chapter 1, pp.3-11 8 Kiehl, Americas dialogue with the world, Public Diplomacy Council, 2006

III. ETHICS OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY (Summary of Chapter 9 in Ethic in PR - Responsible Advocacy) There are principal difference between public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy; in public diplomacy, it builds links between a government and foreign publics, while traditional diplomacy based on a government-to-government relationship. Joseph Duffey in Ethics in PR Responsible Advocacy (2006:157) said that public diplomacy is an attempt to get over the heads or around diplomats and official spokesmen of countries and sometimes around the press to speak directly to the public in other countries and to provide an interpretation.9 His point is public diplomacy in some ways competes with the news media while getting around with the press underscores the fact. Emphasis within the bounds of truth is a core practice/value of public relations; it is advocacy constrained by responsibility. As a matter of professional ethics, shortchanging the truth should be avoided, and as a matter of efficacy, departing of truth would almost certainly prove counterproductive over the long term. Champions of public diplomacy present it as an alternative propaganda, which is not by definition untruthful although the word tends to have pejorative connotations. Propaganda is widely perceived as self-serving information that is not necessarily truthful, and critics of public diplomacy argue that the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy is just the label. One argument advanced by those who say that there is a distinction is that public diplomacy always relies on the known facts, while propaganda is based on falsehoods mixed in with facts.10 Propaganda generally does not aim for open-mindedness among members of its audience but rather seeks adherence to the particular viewpoint being promoted. Perceived commonality with propaganda makes public diplomacy vulnerable to challenge about its being an ethical enterprise. Given the complex political context in which public diplomacy is being reshaped, it is important to distinguish between errors made in good faith and purposeful ethical lapses. Failure to maintaining an ethical standard of sensitivity toward audiences is likely to foster and reinforce stereotypes, which can lead to worse response of cultural tensions. Ethical behavior defined with substantial breadth is both desirable as a matter of principle and as a way to enhance chances of success for public diplomacy efforts.

Fritzpatrick, Kathy and Carolyn Bronstein. Ethics in PR (Responsible Advocacy). California: Sage Publications Inc., 2006. 10 Charles Wolf, Jr., and Brian Rosen. Public Diplomacy: How to Think About It and Improve It. RAND occasional paper, 2004.

The Importance of Soft Power The high stakes for public diplomacy are based on some traditional assumptions about public opinion that have been altered by the increasing diversity and accessibility of information venues. With limited resources, independent indigenous media were usually ineffective competitors. The superpowers maintained hegemony in information as in other aspects of their global influence. Ethical behavior and credibility are closely linked, which gets to the essence of the mandate for ethical public diplomacy. As with public relations generally and government public relations specifically, how the audience treats the message being sent will depend to a significant degree on the ethical standing of the source. This is also illustrates a difference between public diplomacy and propaganda; a firm commitment to ethical practice is important if the former is to be seen as being distinct from and having greater credibility than the latter. When a story is receiving attention, news coverage and public diplomacy may compete for the attention and trust of a common audience, as when journalists report events and public diplomacy professionals make the case for the policies behind those events. Both face the difficult task of defining objectivity and remaining committed to it. Objectivity and advocacy may seem mutually exclusive, but in public diplomacy (as in other areas of PR) objective approaches are possible. This means exercising intellectual discipline to impose ethical boundaries on advocacy. The ethical guideline that emerges from this is to define an objective approach that merges, as best as possible, advocacy and truth. In such a way, ethics and pragmatism may coexist. The ability to take an objective approach as the path toward convincing audiences is at the heart of soft power, a term used most notably by Harvards Joseph Nye to define noncoercive strength. Its wrote the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a countrys culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced. The effective exercise of soft power depends largely on its being a part of a comprehensive, welldesigned public diplomacy effort. The requirement for the ethical practice of public diplomacy is to remain as closely as possible to truth. Internet as a Tool for World Opinion The policy goal is clearly to create and deliver a message that will encourage the creation and maintenance of desired alliances. Doing so involves more than relying merely on whatever works, which could be manipulative use of information that strays far from the truth. That

approach might work temporarily, but disregarding ethical principles is an unwise way to try to build a lasting political relationship. The public diplomacy process needs built-in reminders, perhaps some kind of ethics ombudsman, to help maintain ethical standards. As the internet continues to reduce the significance of national borders and other boundaries, the entire array of global media and information technology may help create virtual communities that are as worthy of coverage as traditional states have been. Information is becoming more of a global commodity, and, as with satellite television channels, the web could help defuse stereotypes and could similarly be a potent tool in public diplomacy efforts. However, the high-tech, high-speed flow of information also creates challenges for those who implement public diplomacy. Ease of communication should encourage a reaffirmation of ethical public relations standards because the audience is more extended, messages move more quickly, and these factors combine to enhance the potency of words and image. Because it is so easily accessed, the internet is particularly potent in reinforcing misleading information. The high-speed global pervasiveness of information, makes public diplomacy more important and more difficult, and it increases the need for professional self-discipline to perform tasks ethically rather than just quickly. As the volume of information available to global publics grows, truth becomes even more valuable.

IV. CONCLUSION Well-conceived organization and clearly stated operating principles is the foundation on which an ethical structure may be built. Most of all, public diplomacys mission and the method of accomplishing it should be defined in a way that is compatible with ethical practices. Proponents of public diplomacy like to distinguish their work from propaganda in part by citing its openness and honesty. If that distinction is to be maintained, the manipulative maneuvers of covert information management must not become a part of public diplomacy. A high level of transparency would seem to be a requirement for ethical practice in this field. Public diplomacy can be successful only if it is part of carefully crafted foreign policy. Public diplomacy is not, and should not be, somehow considered as camouflage for public policy. Public diplomacy is describing public policy, but it doesnt improve on it, change it, or misrepresent it. Barry Fulton, George Washington Universitys Public Diplomacy Institute. When policy information is available to be disseminated and when a well-designed system exists to do so public diplomacy can be a significant force in the democratization of

communication. Its targeting of mass publics counteracts the efforts of governments to control the information that reaches those publics. As with other elements of democracy, even robust public diplomacy is susceptible to infection by unethical practices (spreading false information, using communication tools to defame or provoke, interfering with transparency, and other tampering with the foundations of honesty). In public diplomacy, as in other forms of public relations work, truth remains essential. Temptations to stray from truth are plentiful, but public diplomacy must be conducted ethically or else it will certainly fail. Jan Melissen (2005) said that: Public diplomacy is another such growth sector and anything but an ephemeral phenomenon. There are, of course, vast areas of diplomatic work and plenty of bilateral relationships where contacts with the public abroad have no priority, but the number of countries exploring public diplomacys potential will continue to grow. It is probably no exaggeration to suggest that this development is an indication of the fact that the evolution of diplomacy has reached a new stage. Those who see public diplomacy as postmodern propaganda or as lip service to the latest fashion in the conduct of international relations therefore miss a fundamental point.11

11

Melissen, Jan. The New Public Diplomacy Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2005.