[upbeat music]
>> All right, we're talking about ethics
in public relations today.
And ethics is a core component of PR.
It's huge.
Our very profession is tied
to the fabric of ethics,
because without that we really
get into some murky ground.
And we talked a little bit about
the progression of PR history last week.
And where ethics kind of developed.
And some ways that sometimes
PR can seem unethical
if you go down a different route.
Such as using people as a means to an end.
Today we're gonna talk about the PR essay,
Code of Ethics.
What ethics look like in our profession.
And really an ethical
decision making process.
So when I talk about the
ethical decision making process
there's really six steps
you wanna go through
when you are faced with
an ethical dilemma in public relations.
First of all, obviously,
you need to define
that there's an ethical situation.
To be able to solve something,
to be able to approach it.
You need to recognize when
there is an ethical situation.
So that's always number one.
Define the situation.
Define that tension.
Number two is you wanna
identify the factors
that are playing into that.
Because in PR, remember we
work with multiple audiences.
We're not just concerned with a couple.
So anytime you're faced with a situation,
you're gonna have a lot
of different audiences
and a lot of different
pressures that come into that.
What are the pressures legally speaking?
What are the pressures from the community?
What are the pressures
from administration?
What contributed to this ethical problem?
Is it a function within the organization?
Was it someone who was kind of rouge
and doing things off on their own?
What are all the things
that lead to this conflict?
But you'll be able to pinpoint, hey,
here's the issue we're dealing with.
Here's what it means for PR.
The fourth is you're gonna
identify the audiences
that are affected.
You identified the factors
and things that led to it.
But at the end of the day,
who's going to be impacted by the results
of this decision?
You're gonna select an ethical principle
that helps you make your decision.
And then you're gonna justify it.
Based on all of the information you found,
you're gonna come up with a solution.
So anytime I say what are the six steps
to making an ethical decision,
these are what you want to go through.
You're identifying.
You're locating the
factors that influence.
You're picking the key values.
You're knowing the audiences.
You're selecting a principle.
And then you justify it.
Make sense?
Any questions on that?
Okay, we're gonna work
a lot with this today.
But I'm gonna walk you
through some things.
Because I want you to know,
what are key values?
What are you talking about?
When I say key value,
there's some specific ones.
And ethical principles.
What does that look like
in public relations?
Because obviously in the medical field
they have do no harm, right?
That's a pretty known
medical ethical principle.
It could apply to PR too.
But what are ours?
What do PR people just do?
What do you know?
So general, very broad based principles.
We have act in the public interest.
This is an ethical thing.
If you are harming the public,
if you are doing something that's
knowingly going to bring damage
to the communities you're working with,
that's unethical in the
public relations practice.
Use honesty, integrity, and
integrity as your guide.
If you are in question of
whether you need to fabricate,
whether you need to hide details,
all of that, honesty, integrity
has to be your guide in PR
because we're built on relationships.
And if people don't
trust you there will not
be a relationship.
And people don't trust
those who lie to them.
So you need honesty and integrity.
You need to ensure accuracy and truth.
Sometimes people say, well
I didn't know it was wrong.
I just used this information.
In PR that doesn't fly.
If you write something in a press release
and it's inaccurate, it comes back to you.
It doesn't matter that you didn't know.
It's still on your reputation.
And on your job.
And legally on you for
having something wrong.
And you deal fairly with all publics.
The last one says this is
taken from the PR Essay,
APR Study Guide, so I
just wanted to give credit
for where these general
principles come from.
And this kind of makes sense, right?
Given the definition that we've said
of public relations, given
what we're all about,
given that we really
care about the publics
we're working with, and we really care
about the organizations we're representing
and finding that bridge to better society,
and influence values,
opinions, and beliefs.
We need these kind of guiding principles.
But we get even more specific
because guiding principles
don't always help
when you get in sticky situations.
So these are six values.
Remember, the third step
was identify the value
that's kind of in conflict.
These are six of them.
So it's a little small.
But the first one says advocacy.
We serve the public interest by acting
as responsible advocates
for those we represent.
We are champions for the brands
we're being ambassadors for.
We are working on behalf of non-profits.
We're representing government officials.
We're representing causes and products.
So we are advocates for them.
We provide a voice.
That's one of our calls.
You cannot be a strong PR person
if you're not willing to be a voice
for who you're representing.
That's why they are
retaining your services.
That's why you're coming to bat for them,
as they expect you to be their voice.
And if you stop giving them a voice,
then you've lost one of our PR values.
PR believes in the value
of everyone having a voice
in that democratic exchange
of ideas and concepts.
And you come on the scene to
help people have that voice.
So if you stop giving that voice,
you've lost one of the values of PR.
If you choose not to represent your client
to the best of your capabilities,
giving them the best
voice in the marketplace,
that's a problem.
The next one is honesty.
So it says we adhere to
the highest standards
of accuracy and truth in
advancing the interests
of those we represent and
communicating with the public.
That means we're not supposed to lie.
It's, I don't know what
the highest standard means.
Just don't lie.
That's across the board.
But it also means how you approach people.
Are you going to try to mislead them by,
you gave the information,
you told the truth,
but you knew the way
you were presenting it
would get a different reaction
than if you had just laid all the details.
You know what I mean?
There's a way to tell the
truth and mislead people
and still say you're being honest.
And that's why we have
this as one of our codes.
Because, we're not saying
just in name be honest.
We're saying in all your actions.
In the way you communicate
both to your client
and to the public, in everything you do,
it has to be undergird by truth
and honesty and integrity.
It cannot have a lack of those
because you're gonna lose trust.
And that's our function in society.
If people can't believe
what public relations
people are saying,
there's gonna be problems.
That's why we became known for a while
as spin doctors, right?
That's why people think
they can't trust us
because a very few have
forgotten about this value.
Have forgotten that above
all we need to be honest.
Because the pursuit of truth
is important in society
and culture, and that's
what we're here doing.
Expertise.
So, this basically is
that we are committed
to having expertise for our clients.
You're here getting an
education in public relations.
You are exemplifying one of our values.
Sometimes people say, well
I'm working with people.
Why do I need training in PR?
You need training because
we tell the public
and our clients that we are experts.
And that we know the best practices
and the best strategies.
And you get that through education.
That's why you get a degree in PR.
That's why even when you're done
with your undergraduate degree
you may go on for a masters,
you may join a professional organization
that have monthly seminars
around your specific topic.
You can get accredited
in public relations.
We do this because we believe it's a value
to the client and a value to the public
to be the best of the best.
To be on top of your game.
And you do that by constantly
increasing your skill.
And making sure you're on the edge
of everything that's coming out.
Independence.
We provide objective council
to those we represent
and we're accountable for our actions.
So you can't represent conflicting people.
I'm not going to represent both candidates
in a political campaign, right?
Because I can actually
be completely objective
for both of them.
I'm going to represent
one better than the other.
And therefore I'm not independent.
I'm tied.
And that's not giving the best voice
to both people.
It's not being incredibly honest
because I'm telling you
to vote for two candidates
and you can't.
There's a, there's a
need for that separation.
And in some sense, people
argue for independence
even within your employment.
So if you're working for an organization,
the role of public relations
is to pursue truth,
to advance the cause,
to remind organizations
of their values, and to
benefit both parties,
and sometimes, that means you have to have
some independence from
your employer as well.
You have to be willing to go out on a limb
and tell them, hey this
isn't what we're about.
This kind of goes against our values.
This isn't fair to the public.
You have to be willing to take that stand
as a PR person, because
that's our profession.
That's what we do.
If you're not doing that,
you're not doing PR.
But sometimes people feel so entrenched
within their employment.
They feel like, well it's my job.
And everyone else is doing it.
And it's what I'm hired to do.
We have a value of independence.
We have a value of standing up for truth,
honesty, the public, the public good,
the company good, and that means
independence from those we're serving
and independence from
those we're employed with
in that context.
Loyalty.
We're faithful to those we represent
while honoring our obligation
to serve the public.
You have your client's
back, essentially, right?
They come to you.
And they want you to give them a voice.
You need to be loyal to them.
You can't be selling their
secrets to someone else.
You can't be, well, you
know, I don't really
want you to be able to
sway the public with this
because I like this brand of shampoo
better than your brand of shampoo
so I'm not gonna do the best job for you.
That's not loyalty.
Loyalty is you're 100% behind them.
You have their back.
You have their best interests.
You're gonna work your hardest.
And you're going to
get them great results.
That again is a huge
reason why I told you all
on the first day do public
relations for organizations,
causes, and groups that you care about.
Because to be loyal you really
have to care about them.
PR, you are heavily vested in.
You put long hours in.
You do a lot of work.
And it's very very rewarding.
But only if you actually care about it.
And I think that's why you see burn out.
When you start working that hard
for something you don't care about,
you're gonna get drained.
But when you're doing it
for something you love,
you have no problem.
Fairness.
Deal fairly with clients, employers,
competitors, peers, vendors, the media,
basically everyone.
Don't lie to reporters.
Don't backstab the other
people in the PR industry.
Don't have different clients
going against each other.
Deal fairly.
These all kind of stem from each other.
You can see how they inner-relate.
But generally, when you're
facing an ethical situation
you're gonna be able to
pinpoint some of these.
And say, here's where the real issue is.
It's that we're trying
to represent two people.
Or we're not sure we're giving this person
a fair voice.
Or I'm too afraid to go to management
and tell them that this is a bad thing
with their company values.
Usually, you can identify a value
that's at stake when you're
having an ethical dilemma.
Does that kind of make sense?
Do you guys see this?
Okay, any questions?
Yeah.
>> [Male Audience Member]
I was just thinking like,
is there any form of like a professional
accountability with these?
Because like, you're, you work for a firm.
But say like, your firm is
breaking one of these values.
Who holds you accountable for that?
>> That's a really great question.
It's actually it's, it's
a little long winded
so I'm gonna answer it,
but just bear with me.
Public relations as
profession is segmented.
There's no unifying certifying body.
So unlike lawyers who have their bar exam
or accountants who have the CPA,
we have nothing that's
set across the board.
We do have what we call the Accreditation
of Public Relations Professionals.
But there's only about 5000 of us.
So across the board,
there's varying degrees
of what this looks like.
If you join the Public
Relations Society of America,
which is the largest
pre-professional organization,
you sign an agreement to function by this.
And if you don't you are in
jeopardy of losing your status
with the organization
and being kicked out.
If your organization isn't functioning,
there's no governing body that's going to
tell them they can't because
there can be bad practices.
A lot of PR people that I know
that have been faced with an organization
that doesn't, leave the organization.
One person when they told their client,
it was a matter of billing,
that they left over, and it was unethical,
they said, you know, I'm no
longer gonna represent you
because of this issue with my agency.
I wish you the best.
But when I saw that they
were doing this interaction
with you, I couldn't
stand behind my company.
And the client appreciated it so much
they actually went with the PR person
who left the company and took
their whole business with them.
So on the whole it works out really well.
And usually the way business
works, it works out.
People wanna be treated fairly.
But there is no governing body right now.
However, most organizations have a charter
that you sign when you agree
to become a professional
with them and most PR people
become associated with PRSA,
or IABC, which is the Association
of Business Communicators.
There should be an A in there.
I'm not sure what that one is.
And there's a couple others.
And all of them have similar ideas
that you sign onto.
That's a great question.
Other questions?
There have been some pushes
for a unifying thing,
but the hard part is to make it legal
it would have to be something
that's across the board
in every state that becomes a,
here's what it means to be PR person.
And there's a lot of PR people
who don't have a degree or haven't
gone through a
certification and they still
wanna be able to say we're
qualified to work with people.
So it's kind of an issue
that's gone back and forth
in the industry of can we make
an across the board certification?
Can we not?
And that's one way to set yourself apart.
Is when you do get your APR.
Or you do do something like this.
You can come to employers and
say, I've made a commitment
that this is the kind of
PR practitioner I will be.
Just so you know.
So let's look at the PR
Essay Code of Conduct.
'Cause I think it's a really good example
of how public relations
ethics should be carried out.
Your chapter was interesting on ethics.
I felt like it was a little fluffy,
personally when I read it.
Kind of like, be ethical.
Be a good person.
Here's some applied ideas.
But let's talk about what it looks like.
So free flow of information.
This is one of the PR Essay ideas.
And free flow of information
is a core principle
protecting and advancing the free flow
of accurate and truthful information.
So you're gonna see what
the intent of this is.
Guidelines if you were a member.
And an example of it abused.
So the intent is to maintain the integrity
of relationships with the media,
government officials, and the public.
To aim at informed decision making.
When you're saying that the
free flow of information,
information should go back and forth,
the idea of free flow,
between media out to the public,
so for example, if a reporter
gets wind of a story,
it is not ethical to go to them
and ask them to kill it.
Just don't tell the public about this.
They don't need to know.
That's a free flow of information issue.
The public has the right to know.
Maybe you want to contribute some facts
that weren't present.
Maybe you wanna give your company voice.
But trying to stop that
flow of information
doesn't work out ethically.
So an example of an improper use
is a member representing
a ski manufacturing
gives a pair of expensive racing skis
to a sports magazine columnist
to influence the columnist
to write favorable
articles about the product.
Now, PR people generally
like giving away gifts.
We do that a lot.
But if we're giving away a gift
with the intent of changing how someone
conveys information to others,
we are no longer letting the information
flow freely right?
We're trying to influence it
in a way of buying that
person off essentially.
So you can't buy reporters.
You can't offer to, hey we're gonna pay
all the advertising if
you'll write us an article
that makes it look objective
but says great things
that you don't really think.
That's not allowing the
free flow of information.
Our goal is to get all
the information out there
in a way that they can
accurately report it.
Because journalists
are committed to truth.
They're committed to
understanding the issue.
And that's what we are too, right?
We're committed to truth.
We're committed to letting the
public have the information.
Sometimes we're
representing the side of it.
We do what's framing.
But, and we'll talk about that later.
But when you start interfering
with the free flow of information
that's an ethical dilemma.
So don't buy reporters.
Don't try to influence them.
Give them the information.
And work with them to
the best of your ability.
Any questions on free flow of information?
Yeah.
>> [Female Audience Member] So to me,
this sounds like any
information in that company
or organization, the
public is allowed to know.
But, like.
>> That's a good distinction.
>> [Female Audience Member] If
it's like something personal
how do you just not let them know that.
Like, it's none of their.
>> That's a good [laughing]
it's none of your business.
That's a great question,
because as PR professionals,
we don't release all the information.
That's not really valuable to our client.
And that sometimes breaks trust as well.
But, what this is about is not changing
the information that's
already going out there.
So if a reporter is covering you,
and they had details, and
you've given them details,
let them decide how
they're writing the story.
Don't try to give them a lot of gifts
to make them write it well.
Let them do it on their own.
Or this bottom one.
A member entertaining
a government official
beyond the legal limits
and or in violation
of government reporting requirements.
So in an effort to help the government,
because governments,
depending on what sector
you get in, they put out a lot of reports
that can influence how
your company functions.
So if you are interacting
with key publics,
which we do all the time,
in the effort to try to get them
to change information
that should be out there.
Change honest information.
Change a report.
Act favorably.
In a way that's essentially
buying them off.
It's like bribery.
That is the stopping of
free flow of information.
We obviously want to do
things in a good light.
We obviously wanna give great information.
And there is some things we don't share.
But when you go to the point of bribing,
of buying people off,
of trying to get them
to change their story
based on you influencing
them outside of truth and facts,
that becomes an issue.
That's a great observation.
Other questions?
Anyone wrestling with this.
>> [Female Audience Member]
So what's the difference if
I had like a, a clothing line,
and I had like Tommy wear
one of the clothing items
in an effort to like advertise the brand.
Would it be wrong if
then he was saying like
this is my favorite
brand when it's not true?
Is that what's wrong?
Or.
>> That would be.
He should write what he actually thinks.
They, but, that's an interesting issue
'cause now we have a lot of bloggers.
Who you buy them and they
become brand ambassadors.
And you're paying them to say that.
So the public needs to know
if they're being paid to say that,
if there's some sort of
economic relationship there.
It would also be wrong if
he was writing his own thing
and you knew that in two weeks he's about
to make a really big statement
about a clothing line.
And he's gonna name his favorite.
And you decide to give him
every piece of clothing
you've ever made, just for free,
just because you're a great person.
That's bribery.
That's you giving him
everything and saying,
you know what, we could
also make you something
from scratch if you want.
As long as it's before
the two week deadline.
That becomes where you are influencing him
in such a way that you're
trying to buy it off.
So you could pay him to say it
as long as that is a
disclosed relationship.
Or he could write is own thing
based on you, you sending an outfit
or something, 'cause that's very common
in the fashion industry.
But not in such a way that it would
beat competitors in that sense.
CES,
does anyone kind of follow
that industry at all?
Okay.
They were, CNET is a really highly valued
electronic consumer reporter thing.
My husband reads it all the time.
And he just sent me an article last week
talking about how there was a competition
and CNET got to cast a
vote for it during CES
about like the greatest
product or the upcoming product
or most valuable product or something,
and this is where all
the electronic shows go
to release their most valuable information
and to see what's happening.
CNET had a parent company who tried
to influence who they would vote for.
Which would influence who would win.
Which would influence the
free flow of information,
the actual disclosing of products.
Because the parent company said,
we don't want this product to win,
even though CNET thought it should win,
so don't cast your vote there.
That's an example of lack of free flow.
It's not actually any longer
about the actual truth,
about the facts.
It's about people in
power making decisions
or buying people off in an effort
to stop the flow of information.
Does that help kind of clear it up?
Okay.
Competition.
We actually really value competition.
We think it's healthy.
And that it's fair.
And that it brings out the best in us.
So PR people like competition.
So the intent is to promote
respect and fair competition
among public relations professionals.
And this serves the public and it serves
our clients the best.
An example of an improper use
is a member employed by
a client organization
shares helpful information
with a counseling firm
that is competing with others
for the organization's business.
So, for example, I'm going
to come to someone and say,
I wanna understand if you're
the best PR agency for me.
And someone inside my company,
a PR person that works for me,
tells you all about it so
you can make a better pitch.
That's not actually competition.
That's insiders information.
That's giving a firm something
that they wouldn't have otherwise.
And it's putting them
ahead of the other people
who are competing.
You wanna give everybody a fair chance.
You wanna let everybody have a good pitch.
Because we think the best ideas
come out in competition.
Not because you have an insider source
who's gonna give you the
details about the company.
But because we're actually
the best of the best.
Because your agency would be
able to do the best campaign.
Would come up with the best ideas.
Would have the best connections.
So if you do something
to hinder competition,
that's an ethical challenge.
If you are trying to block people out
so they can't participate,
if you are, even in a sense backstabbing
within the own industry,
when you're trying to
climb the corporate ladder
it can get sticky.
But we like competition.
You should thrive in that.
You should allow other
people to make you better.
Not see them as who can
I stab in the back first.
Because I wanna be the only one.
That's not when you're the best.
You're the best when there
is competition around you.
Questions about our value of competition?
Yeah.
>> [Female Audience Member]
When you gave the example
of saying that like the PR firm
would already know about everything
about the company or vis versa?
>> The PR firm would
get insider information
about the company from
an employee inside there.
So if, like if Biola was
looking to hire a PR firm,
and I have a friend who runs
a firm down in Orange County,
and I went down and gave them
all this extra information,
that's not exactly fair
because other PR firms
wouldn't have gotten that information
when they all go to compete.
And it just doesn't make for the best
competitive environment and actually
reveal who the best PR people is.
It's just who had that connection.
Good question.
Other questions?
Okay.
Disclosure of information.
Now this goes closely with
the free flow of information.
But the disclosure of information
is slightly different.
So the core principle
is open communication
fosters informed decision
making in a democratic society.
And the intent is to build
trust with the public
by revealing all information needed
for responsible decision making.
We are not committed to
giving all of the information,
all of the time.
That's not wise.
We can't do it legally.
In a lot of situations.
And it's not strategic.
But we are dedicated to, excuse me,
giving the information that's
needed for informed decisions.
So if you are representing something like
a new school district that's gonna go
into a community and you have information
about how that will help children
in more sporting programs,
how that may influence
the local high school,
how that will help with higher SAT scores,
you give all the information.
Including if you find
out whether that means
there could be an increased
cost for taxes within that area
and the public wanna know it.
You need to give them
all of the information.
It's only fair.
You can't hold back parts of it.
So for example, improper use.
A member implements grass roots campaigns,
or letter writing
campaigns to legislatures
on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.
So let's say I really care
about an organization.
I care about Compassion
International, right?
And I decide I wanna make a difference.
I own my own PR firm.
And the best way to get a change
is really through the people.
Through grass roots.
Through people rising up and saying,
we care about this.
So I employ all of you
to start writing letters.
And saying that you really care about it.
So it looks like it's grass roots.
But it's not grass roots.
I'm hiding the fact that
I hired you to do that.
I'm not disclosing the information
that makes it an accurately
informed decision.
Because legislatures would look and say,
wow, 30 people just wrote.
When in fact it's one
person hiring 30 people.
There's a big difference.
Another example is a practitioner
for a corporation
knowingly fails to release
financial information giving
a misleading impression
of the performance of the company.
So another sector you may wanna get into
is financial relations.
And if it's a public company,
you disclose information about stocks,
about the health of the company,
about products,
and if you fail to give information
that shows something's going wrong,
that's not disclosing
information you should have.
You should give all that information.
You're legally bound to.
But also, also ethically.
Because it changes how
people make decisions.
That's a key piece of information
that they need in the
decision making process.
Last but not least, a
member deceives the public
by employing people to pose a volunteers
to speak public hearings and participate
in a grass roots campaign.
That's another example.
If I hire someone to act
like it's their opinion,
and to go out and picket, to promote,
to walk for parades, whatever,
and it gives the impression
that it's all of you
doing it on your own will
because that's what you think,
and I do not disclose that I hired you,
that's an ethical violation.
It's a violation of what people think.
It's a violation of the
information they'd have.
Does that kind of make sense?
You have to disclose those connections.
And that's an interesting statement
when you pointed to the
idea of if he had been hired
or if he wanted to say it's his favorite
because you gave financial
incentive essentially.
As long as you disclose it, that's fine.
It's when you don't disclose it
that it becomes an ethical problem here.
Questions on this?
Is this making sense?
Okay, so we have free flow of information
where you don't change how
the information is going out.
Then we have competition which is good.
And we have disclosure of information.
Meaning that when you have
those important pieces,
things that actually change or you're tied
and you have a connection
such as hiring somebody to do something,
you have to disclose that information.
Safeguarding confidences.
This is actually one of my favorite things
because I just really enjoy it.
It could be the pastor's kid in me
that grew up with lots of secrets anyway.
But, the idea is that
public relations people
have a trusted place
in society and culture.
The public should trust you.
And your business should trust you.
Your organization.
Your management.
They should see you as a
person they can talk to
and it stops with you.
Obviously if it's illegal
it doesn't stop with you.
But, to that extent they
can come and talk to you.
They can talk about ideas.
They can talk out concerns.
They can share some very
volatile information
and you can help them
figure out the best way
to take that public.
The intent is to protect
the privacy rights
of clients, organizations,
and the individuals
by safeguarding information.
So no matter where you are,
if you are employed by,
let's say you're getting,
you're employed by Disney,
for example, and you find
out sensitive information,
if you leave Disney and you go
work for Knott's Berry Farm,
you can't share that information.
You had that under a
protected relationship.
They trusted you.
And that is part of our ethical agreement.
That's part of what you take
on when you're a PR person.
You don't just go trade
your client's secrets.
You can use industry knowledge,
you can use best practices,
you can use connections,
but you can't sell out your client.
They trusted you.
You can almost think
of like a psychologist
and their relationship.
Their clients trust them.
It stays with that psychologist.
When your client comes to you
and tells you proprietary information,
private information,
sensitive information,
it stays with you.
It doesn't go on.
And I love that.
I love that you get to be a
trusted person for people.
And that is a necessary component.
If you really wanna have
a voice in management,
if you really wanna be the person
that helps the company's values extend out
and someone who helps reach the
organizations and the people
people need to trust you and they need
to know that you're a
safe person to go talk to.
And that you don't freak out
when they come to tell you
that this horrible thing
is happening and they
don't know what to do,
you need to be calm
enough and informed enough
to know what next steps to take.
And to walk them through that.
That's our job.
Our job is to deal with the sticky
in an ethical way.
In a truthful and honest way.
Questions about safeguarding confidences?
Cool.
Conflict of interest.
So, a core principle for avoiding real,
potential, or perceived
conflicts of interest
that builds with trust of clients,
employers, and the publics.
The intent is to earn
trust and mutual respect.
Obviously we've talked about that.
And to build trust.
So an example of an improper use
of this conflict of interest,
the member fails to
disclose that he or she
has strong financial interest
in a client's chief competitor.
So for example, if I'm
going, Biola comes to me,
and they say, you know what,
we'd really like you to
take on a campaign for us.
We wanna recruit more students.
But I'm on the board at APU.
And I am a financial contributor to APU.
And I don't bother telling Biola that.
That's a conflict of interest, right?
'Cause they're competitors.
And I'm actually feeding into one
while trying to represent another.
That doesn't make sense.
Do you guys see that?
The same could be true
if you're representing
someone in a political race.
That's an easy way to understand it.
If I'm related to someone
in a political race,
I probably can't represent
their competitor.
Or if you are looking at even non-profits
and their causes, it would be very hard
for you to represent World Vision
and Compassion at the same time.
They're both child
sponsorship organizations.
How do you do that fairly?
And how do you do that ethically?
That's a, that's a conflict right there
because you can't have
a conflict of interest.
Because again, if you go back to that list
of values, remember we
talked about loyalty.
So who are you loyal to?
That's a question that comes up
during the conflict of interest.
Any questions on this one?
Yes.
>> [Female Audience Member]
Do we have to know like,
all these examples?
>> No, this is to help conceptualize it.
You do want to know the name,
obviously be able to name them.
Conflict of interest.
Free flow of information.
Competition.
All of those.
But I'm not gonna ask these exact ones.
I want you to understand how they are.
Because I will give you situations,
and you'll identify it.
And we're gonna practice
that today in class.
You guys will get to kind of
work with these, for sure.
But I want you to understand the concept
and what it's intended to do.
Other questions?
Okay.
All right, last I think is
enhancing the profession.
We are dedicated as PR professionals
to helping the public,
to helping clients,
and to enhancing our
profession as PR people.
You have a lot riding on you if you
become a PR professional.
There's a lot of eyes on you.
I was just talking with a student today
how it's really interesting, in PR,
100 people can function ethically.
Can do great campaigns.
And all it takes is for one person.
That makes headlines.
Everyone is talking about it.
And everyone looks back and goes, wow, PR.
That's a bad profession.
So it only takes one person to mess up.
That's why we're dedicated
to enhancing the profession.
So we have things like
expanding out knowledge.
Remember, expertise was
one of our commitments.
So when you go and you get more training
so you are better at
being a PR professional,
you're enhancing the profession.
When you go out and you speak to people
about what public
relations is so the public
is informed about our profession,
you're enhancing our profession.
When you come up with ways
that PR is a better place
because of it, that's enhancing it.
So an example is a PR
Essay member declares
publicly that a product the client sells
is safe without disclosing
evidence to the contrary.
If I knew something was bad,
and I go to the public
and say this is great.
Let all your kids use it.
No, there's no side effects.
I'm not gonna enhance the profession.
I'm doing the profession harm
because as a PR professional
people look at me and say,
wow, that's what PR people do.
Can't trust you.
Does that make sense?
If you do something that lies
or that hurts the public
or that destroys trust,
you're also breaking this value
of enhancing the profession.
Questions on it?
All right, so to recap, we have
the decision making process.
First of all, you say, here's the thing.
This is the first slide we had.
Here's the situation.
Here's the ethical dilemma.
You identify where it is.
And then you look at
everything that led up to that.
Why are we having this problem?
Is it something that came
down from management?
Is it something internal?
Is it external?
Is it coming from the public?
Is it coming from the government?
Is it one employee?
Is it the whole organization?
We have the key values.
The idea of advocacy.
The idea of loyalty.
Those are our key values. Those six.
You identify which value it is.
Who's going to be affected.
And you select an ethical principle.
Is it the free flow of information?
Is that the principle you're keeping to?
That it needs to happen.
Is it disclosure of information?
Is it conflict?
Is it enhancing the profession?
What is your ethical principle
that's going to justify the decision
you choose to make in that situation.
And then you justify it.
Because often, if your
boss comes to you and says,
why, why did you decide to do this?
You have to have a reason.
You can't just say, well, I
think it's ethically wrong.
That's very ambiguous.
Why is it ethically wrong?
How is it ethically wrong?
How does this play out?
You're gonna be able to tell him,
well here's the situation as I saw it.
Did we understand that?
Cool.
Okay, and here's all the
factors that led to it.
Which mean we're talking about this value.
And if I look at the audiences,
that means I need to use this principle
because as a public relations professional
here's how we function.
And that's why I came to this decision.
Do you see how all these
pieces go together?
Any questions on any of this?
I know it's a lot to take in.
We're about to practice it.
So if you have a question,
it's a great time.
No questions?
Okay.
So let's do this test.
I'm not gonna, there's no grade.
This is just a PR Essay ethics test
that they put out, I
think it was last year,
while they were having their ethics month.
And you can keep score for yourself.
You're having a briefing meeting
with a new client, and
wanna be sure to capture
all their comments.
So you bring a tape
recorder to the meeting.
You don't want it to be a distraction
so you place it inside
your folder on the table
and record the meeting without
mentioning it to the client.
Are you breaching ethics?
>> [Audience Members] Yes.
>> Why?
>> Audience Member: Because
you're not telling them
that you're recording the conversation.
>> So it'd be a lack of
disclosure of information.
Good.
Yes.
You're breaching ethics.
It's fine to record conversations.
People do it all the time.
The person has to know
their being recorded.
And, the four different PR
Essay code of ethics provisions,
free flow of information.
You want them to understand.
'Cause they may say something differently
if they knew they were being recorded.
Disclosure of information.
The fact that you are recording them.
Safeguarding confidences.
You would kind of feel
like your trust was broken
if you found out someone
just recorded you.
And conflict of interest.
Because what are you committed to?
Are you committed to that conversation?
Why are you recording it?
You have to explain it to them.
All of those would be in jeopardy.
Let's try another one.
The focus of the PR Essay Board of Ethics
and Professional Standards
is to enforce member codes
of ethics for PR Essay members.
Is that why we have ethics?
You kind of hit on this very question
when you asked who follows this.
So think through this.
I've had people go both ways.
That's not why we have ethics.
We didn't create ethics to
enforce it on our members.
We have ethics because that's
what public relations is.
We need ethics to function
properly in society.
So it's not a policy for us.
We're not policing it.
It's a statement of,
we believe these are the highest standards
for the profession and the
people who are agreeing
to abide by it all sign this.
All agree to it.
But, they weren't created to force people.
They were created to illustrate
what good public relations is.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
Who are the primary beneficiaries
of professional ethics
in public relations?
Now this one I didn't agree with
but they said just pick one.
Who's the primary benefit?
If you're ethical as PR professional,
does it primarily benefit clients,
society, or PR professionals.
Okay.
Good.
It says, I thought clients too.
It said public relations professionals.
It ultimately benefits us primarily.
Because we fulfill our role in society,
we're truthful, we build trust.
And one of our roles is
to best serve our client.
So when we're best served,
they're best served.
I couldn't just pick one.
I would say clients definitely benefit.
But we're just doing their quiz.
So you recently took a
graduate class on leadership
and the professor said
something interesting.
And it made you think,
so, you decided to write
a white paper, which is essentially,
like a short essay you could think of,
about it and post it on your website.
Can you do that without
citing the professor?
Can you take their ideas
from their lecture,
write up a paper, and
post it on your website?
It's plagiarism if you
take someone else's ideas
and represent it as your own.
So, we were talking about ethically
you need to disclose information.
If you get your idea from
someone else, disclose it.
And we do that throughout
the whole industry.
That's why copyrighting
doesn't need to be such
a big issue if you realize
every time you take
something from someone
else, you credit them.
You give them access to that.
And that also leads to competition right?
It doesn't suddenly appear
that you hold all the cards
because you're saying these other people
came up with the idea.
You had lunch with a business colleague
one afternoon and detailed a dream you had
of some day starting
a consulting business.
The person basically rips you off.
Takes you idea.
And makes a book.
Is that copyright infringement?
No, you can't copyright
an idea unfortunately.
So if you have a great idea
and you think your friend's
gonna steal it from you
don't share it.
Because it's not copyrighted.
Only copyrighted is when
somethings tangible.
So you can go and talk to people.
Now my recommendation would be
if you have a friend who has a great idea,
don't steal it from them because that
breaks trust anyway.
>> Audience Member:
What is you wrote it out
when you're talking to them, like,
I don't know, over an email or something
about something that you were gonna do
and then they stole it.
Would that be?
>> You might have a case.
It'd be hard to prove.
It depends what it is and how
long in advance they had it.
And whether you took it to fruition first
or they did and whether you sent it to
a copyright office or not.
That's a good question.
Yeah.
>> Audience Member: So
it's gotta be copyrighted?
>> It doesn't always
have to be copyrighted.
But it has to be in concrete form.
So if I said I had a great idea.
And even if wrote it.
But someone else made it happen first.
I don't think they could,
I could sue them for that.
Someone else had their had up.
No. Good.
>> Audience Member: I was
gonna ask about plagiarizing,
but then I kept reading.
>> Oh, perfect. Yeah.
Okay, during a media interview,
your CEO misstates a key fact about
your firm's product's capability.
Making it sound like it's
much better than it is.
And it wasn't intentional.
He didn't get up there planning to lie.
It just was a misstatement.
What should you do?
Nothing, it's too late 'cause
he did a media interview?
It's out there.
Send a letter to the editor
asking for a printed correction?
Send a notice to your
customers, making them aware?
Or b and c?
[audience members mumbling]
Yeah, you have to do both.
Because even if it's
stated and word gets out,
you can't guarantee you're
correcting that wrong
information just by sending
something back to the publication.
So you need it to get
to all your customers.
Because we talked about the
free flow of information, right?
So if they get information and it's wrong,
and they make a decision based
on that wrong information,
it's on you to fix that
flow of information.
'Cause it was the wrong flow.
It wasn't free flowing.
He said the wrong thing and
gave the wrong information,
which led to wrong decisions, right?
You need to fix that.
A code of ethics, strictly defined,
can be written by any group wishing
to distinguish its members in some way.
Can anyone come up with a code of ethics?
Yeah. We all can.
And that's one reason
why PR organizations do.
We could create a code
of ethics for this class.
I typically use PR Essays because it's,
I agree with it, how it's defined.
Okay, you are a sole practitioner
and have five clients.
And, you want to have
internships that are unpaid
but students get credit.
Is that unethical?
No.
There's a lot of unpaid internships.
I found it humorous that
it was, this was in here
because it's for working PR professionals
but we're doing it in
an education setting.
And almost all of you will probably
have an unpaid internship.
People just don't realize the value.
All right.
We are going to get back into it.
We just talked about how you
solve an ethical decision.
How you go through a process.
What values you have.
But I think a deeper
question that you really
need to grapple with before
getting into public relations
is what ethics are to begin with.
We talked about how they play out in PR.
But until you understand
ethics at their core,
what difference does it make?
So someone made some
guidelines that you should do.
So I had fun just kind of going around
online looking at different people,
and what they thought of ethics.
So the field of ethics or moral philosophy
involves systemizing, defending,
and recommending concepts
of right and wrong behavior.
Okay.
Webster always a good one.
The discipline dealing
with what is good and bad
and the moral duty and obligation.
You can kind of see how
what we were talking about
plays into that.
But I think ethics actually
depend a lot on your morality.
A lot on your world view.
And that is really why
your Christian faith
plays into your ethical
view of public relations.
So doing something that is good
requires you to understand
what is good, right?
There has to be a definition.
If I tell you, well do what's good,
what does that mean?
Utilitarian people think good is whatever
is best for the greatest number.
So if you play that out in your mind,
you can see how, if you
take a utilitarian view
of ethics or of the world,
you could practice public relations
in a different way than you would
if you defined good in a different manner.
So if good is whatever is best
for the greatest number of people,
is it okay to trample over the individual?
Is it okay to ignore minority groups
who are being oppressed
and perhaps use them
in an effort to an ends
because it's better
for the whole society?
You could take a
relativistic view of ethics.
And that's what is good for you
is your personal thing.
And what is good for me
is my personal thing.
And it's because it's relative.
We have different views of the world.
Different belief systems.
And that's okay.
That view of ethics to me is terrifying.
I don't want someone to have their own
personal conception of ethics
and treat me under that.
I wanna have an objective sense.
And that's this last one.
What is right and good is defined outside
of each individual and
by universal measurement.
When I say universal measurement,
I'm think that there's something outside
of humanity that came up with a standard
that we all live by.
CS Lewis uses this argument to say
there's pointing towards
God because we all
innately know some things.
You know that murder is wrong.
You know certain right
and wrong attributes
de, no matter what culture you're in.
No matter what age group you're in.
No matter where you've grown up.
You have these innate things.
And that points to a moral law giver.
CS Lewis would argue.
And that moral law giver
defined what is good,
what is right, and he
is outside of humanity
because someone must be
outside to set a standard
that applies to everyone.
Therefore we point to God.
I tend to go to the objective standard.
I think there is a moral law giver.
I think there are things
that universally apply.
And that is how I understand ethics.
I am going to make my decisions
based on my world view with the assumption
that there is a god who
created this universe,
and it functions under certain principles,
and each and every one of you is here
by God's design, not by happen chance.
And because you're here by God's design,
because you're created in His image,
you're worthy of respect.
You're worthy of being
truthfully engaged with.
You're worthy of being
treated with dignity
and not used to get to an ends.
Does that make sense?
That's my world view.
So Christians, MPR,
actually have a strong tie
and it usually comes up
in this ethical decision.
This ethical conversation.
Because your ethics are
defined by your world view.
And, they stem from your world view.
Questions come to mind such as,
do you believe there is a god?
Your answers will radically shift
how you approach life.
Do you believe that
people have innate value?
Do you believe that there is
objective right and wrong?
Or is everything subjective?
Your answers to these questions,
the out-flowing of your world view,
helps shape your approach to ethics,
which results in your approach
to the public relations profession.
So what is the essence of this world?
What is man?
Is there a God?
What is the nature of reality?
All of these things are areas
that you're already engaging.
Most of you have a world view.
You're probably shaping your world view
while you're here at Biola.
Going through your Bible
classes you're gonna
refine that, and going through hopefully
all of your courses you refine that.
And your pursuit of God
throughout your lifetime
refines your world view.
But there are some set principles
that have come out of
a Christian world view.
Do you guys kind of resonate with this?
Are you seeing this connection?
Some people seem to have a harder time
making this connection.
Because they see it as
their world view over here.
And ethics are a set of
rules that you abide by.
But I'm telling you ethics
are not a set of rules.
They directly stem from
how you live your life.
If you believe people are
created in the image of God
it's not a matter of does
this rule apply to me
treating you with respect
or not in this situation?
It just is.
That's who people are.
If you believe in a god
who is a giver of truth,
who calls you to pursue truth,
and to take truth into all the world,
you're not gonna go out spinning lies
and telling people deceitful things.
It stems from your world view.
And your conviction, your passion,
your readiness to stand
on those ethical issues
will make or break based
on your world view.
Because if at the end of
the day if it's just a rule,
if that's the only
reason you're doing that
ethical line of reasoning,
and your job is on the line,
you're probably going
to give up your ethics
before your job.
But, if your ethics are
based on your assumptions
about the nature of this world,
the nature of reality, and
the nature of mankind and God,
you can't really give that.
That's not something you can change.
It's what is true.
Do you see the difference?
It's either functioning
by, this is the rules.
Or this is the way the world is.
You can't deny it. The sky is blue.
I have to live like this.
I function within this ethical framework
because this is the way the world is.
Do you have any questions about this?
Okay.
So some things to consider.
The nature of this world.
We obviously engage in a
physical world all the time.
And that's where we're gonna
be practicing public relations.
We put on campaigns.
We interact with clients.
We create press releases.
And we engage with the media.
But the reality is we're
not just physical beings.
We also have a spiritual component.
So what does that mean when
you're saying your profession
is about influencing values, opinions,
beliefs, and behaviors?
You're talking about
eternal consequences then
because we're dealing
with spiritual beings.
Not just physical.
So humanity is created
in the image of God,
deserving of value simply by design.
If you get into PR, you deal
with people all the time.
You deal with difficult people.
You deal with great people.
You deal with some people you hope
you never have to deal with again.
You deal with people that you love.
But at the end of the
day, they're all people.
And your assumption of how
people deserve to be treated,
no matter how much they can pay you,
no matter how they're treating you,
just by the essence of them being made
in the image of God,
influences your ethical response to them.
Influences how you treat them.
Can you be loyal to them
even if you dislike them?
Yeah, they're people.
Can you tell them the truth?
Yeah, even if you don't like them.
There is a God.
That's something to consider.
There is a God.
I would argue for that.
You guys all know I come from
an apologetics background.
I would love to have a whole class
talking about all the different ways
you can show that there is a god.
And we could go through them.
But this is intro to PR.
So we'll save that.
But, going on the assumption
that there is a god,
that changes how you
interact in this world.
If there is a god, then you
treat people differently.
You live differently.
You make different decisions.
Because if there is a god, then
your life span is different.
It's not just in between when
you're born, and when you die.
There something more.
It's not just every man for themselves.
There's a grand plan.
It's not just you're here
because you happened into existence.
It's that you were brought
here with a purpose.
Your entire approach to humanity,
to life, to the profession changes.
And the nature of reality
is that we are currently
experiencing that is really
happening for all of us.
It's not subjective.
I'm not sitting here having
my own view of the world,
your own view of the world,
they're not all truths
that are true for you,
not true for me.
It's something we're all together in.
We really interact.
There are real consequences.
There are real people
who are really hurting.
And it's really something you can change.
That's the nature of an objective world.
There is, it's outside of yourself.
You don't get to control reality.
You are in reality.
And truth is what
corresponds with reality.
If something is real,
it's what is corresponding
to the actual physical world we live in.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
So one of my favorite verses,
in this context, I love a lot of verses,
is Philippines 4:8,
whatever's true, noble, right,
pure, lovely, admirable,
if anything is excellent
or praiseworthy, think on these things.
That is my approach to
a lot of things in life.
But, if I had a different world view
I probably wouldn't need this.
It probably wouldn't guide me.
I might say, whatever
makes me the most money,
whatever is the easiest,
whatever is the quickest way to the top
of the ladder, and yeah,
I'd like to help culture,
but at the end of the day,
it's okay as long as I get my job done.
That might be my ethical
stance if I'm being candid.
Outside of my world view.
If there wasn't a god and I didn't believe
people were created in his image,
and I didn't believe
there's eternal consequences
and all I have is until the day I die,
then I would approach life differently.
But because of my world view,
I use this to guide my profession.
This is another verse.
The lord your God is one.
Let the lord of your
God with all your heart.
With all your soul. With all your mind.
with all your strength.
And love your neighbor.
If you have a world view that says
everything to the core of who you are
should be a pursuit of God,
then how you pursue your profession
is also a pursuit of God.
And how you go about that profession
should be loving your neighbor.
And if you love your
neighbor like yourself,
okay, let's be honest, how many of us
really walk around lying to ourselves,
trying to deceive ourselves,
trying to get us to buy
products that aren't good,
trying to do things, we don't do that.
We want the best for ourselves, right?
Then you should want the
best for the publics too,
that you're serving.
And the best for your client.
Hopefully all of you have
a good friend in your life
who will tell you the truth
even when it's hard to hear.
Who will call you out on things.
That's kind of the relationship you have
with an employer at
times, with your company.
You will tell them the truth
in difficult situations.
You will keep them on track.
Because you love them.
Because you are called to love
your neighbor as yourself.
All right, this is the end
of the lecture portion.
We talked through what lecture,
what ethics are.
We talked through what the applications
are in the industry.
The six step process.
The values.
The principles.
And then we talked through how ethics
actually stem from your world view.
If your world view is different,
your ethics will be different.
[upbeat music]
>> Announcer: Biola
University offers a variety
of Biblically centered degree programs,
ranging from business to ministry
to the arts and sciences.
Visit Biola.edu to find out how Biola
could make a difference in your life.
