Deliberation Overview
This deliberation was begun on Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This history was compiled on Friday, April 10, 2009
Describe the Situation
I am part of an agency team working on a publicity campaign to promote a city initiative to taxpayers. The city wishes to slowly transition to renewable energy and has hired the agency where I work to do the campaign. A new model of municipal property tax financing has received support from other cities, from some local residents and, of course, from local solar advocates. My agency team has created the idea of promoting the initiative as “democracy in environmental decisionmaking.” A respected, local newspaper reporter, Tom Grunig, who covers environmental issues, is a proponent of the initiative and is willing to be a silent spokesperson for the campaign by writing positive articles about the initiative for his paper. However, he wants to be paid for this “extra work.” Our top agency executive is willing to funnel money to Grunig via the PR firm; I am not comfortable with this. How should I respond?
Consequences Framework
Chosen Standard for evaluating consequences:
Serving the Public Interest
This standard is most appropriate because:
That's what all the codes say a PR professional is supposed to do.
Chosen course of action:
Inform other reporters who might write authentic support pieces for the initiative without being paid.
This action fulfills my chosen standard because:
This one is loyal to both the client and the public -- by telling the truth about the initiative and making sure there are no conflicts of interesting tempting reporters to make the initiative sound better than it is. It advocates for the client truthfully but gives genuine information to inform public debate. I'm sure it's the one that fulfills the PRSA code of ethics best.
This action is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will NOT be able to do this action.
I really don't think Grunig will get caught and who knows, he might not even stretch the truth in his reporting. This is a great initiative and I want it to succeed. Grunig has more pull than anyone else I could recruit so maybe my firm is right that we should funnel him some cash. After all, he's earned his pull through great reporting over the years. And in the end, I'm just not willing to challenge all the big shots in my town. That can't be good for my career.
Other alternatives explored using the Consequences Framework:
Inform other reporters who might write authentic support pieces for the initiative without being paid.
Consequences: This would be a good example of genuine democracy in environmental-decision making and will make sure the public learns about this great initiative. But I'm not sure I can find enough reporters, and no one has as much influence as Grunig. Grunig might jump on the bandwagon without demanding payment if other stories are coming out. On the other hand, he might write negative stories out of spite. I'll feel better about myself whether I succeed or not, but if I don't succeed I'll get a lot of hassle from my firm and the public won't learn about this great initiative.
I'm pretty sure this is the one the PRSA code requires me to do, so at least they will be on my side. But they don't have any enforcement capability, so I'm not sure how much good that does.
Explanation: This one is loyal to both the client and the public -- by telling the truth about the initiative and making sure there are no conflicts of interesting tempting reporters to make the initiative sound better than it is. It advocates for the client truthfully but gives genuine information to inform public debate. I'm sure it's the one that fulfills the PRSA code of ethics best.
Notes: If this works out, it's best -- we would be able to report on grassroots support much more honestly and there's no worry of anybody finding out about Grunig's conflict of interest. But this might not work out. If we can't get Grunig on board, it will be bad for the client.
Agree with Honor Code: yes
Consequences:
Explanation:
Notes:
Agree with Honor Code:
Go along with my agency's plan to funnel money to Grunig.
Consequences: Because this may be what happens anyway, going along with the plan means less hassle for me though I'll still feel uncomfortable. In the long term, if Grunig's true involvement is exposed, my firm -- and anyone associated with it -- will look bad, and the whole city will be very cynical about "democracy in environmental decision-making." On the other hand, Grunig has a lot of influence, and I really do believe in this initiative. He could really help us raise support and the organization deserves the support. There is a lot of grass-roots support that Grunig can report honestly about. And people will listen to him.
I think this violates the PRSA code of ethics. But if my agency executives -- who are also PR Professionals -- think it's OK, then who am I to judge? And PRSA doesn't have any legal enforcement.
Notes: This might be better for the client than finding other reporters. Everyone else seems fine with the plan, so as long as I keep quiet no one will ever know. The only downside is that it just seems wrong to me.
Write an expose about Grunig being on the take with PR firms like mine.
Consequences: This would be personally very satisfying. Grunig makes me so mad, and I can't believe my agency wants to go along with this! Grunig's actions are a clear violation of journalistic principles. However, I'm not sure it will really change anything. I'm not sure where I could publish my expose. And perhaps the public is so cynical they won't even care. It's also hard to tell how this will go for the renewable energy initiative. Maybe people will still learn about the initiative and be more supportive because we refused to be bought. But maybe they will just assume the initiative is corrupt like everything else. Plus, it will be hard to prove that Grunig's on the take...both he and my agency's executives will deny it and because I have to write the expose to get him off the case, there won't even be a money trail yet. Plus, I'm pretty sure this violates loyalty to my firm and advocacy of my client's interests, even though in a way I'm being loyal to the public and advocating their right to full disclosure.
Notes: In the end this just seems vindictive
Duties Framework
I have judged that the most dutiful conduct in my situation is:
OK, it's pretty clear that I have a duty NOT to endorse the plan to hire Grunig. As a journalist, Grunig has a conflict of interest if he acts as a paid member of the PR team. My agency's plan is just plain wrong.
This action is most dutiful because:
I'm wondering if I have a duty to blow the whistle or write some kind of expose if my agency won't disclose their relationship with Grunig? Or is it enough to just keep working hard at drumming up authentic support for the initiative in other ways. Do I have to lose my job over this?
Anyone would be obligated to perform this action because:
We have a duty to disclose financial interests and reveal the sponsors for causes and interest represented. Grunig isn't exactly a "sponsor," but he definitely has a financial interest.
This alternative is NOT consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
Actually I think they do capture the insights. It's not that the codes are bad. It's just that doing the honest thing in this case is really hard for me and it's not obvious that going along with the plan is really that bad.
I will NOT be able to do this action.
I believe I should do something more than just let people in my agency know that I feel icky about what we're doing. But I don't know what else I can do, and I don't want to lose my job or look like a whiner. And I don't want to threaten the city's renewable energy initiative. So I'll just keep quiet and hope for the best.
Ranking of specific duties explored using this framework:
Justice
Definition: Duty to give each person equal consideration.
Action: I think this one counts against my agency's plan. No one is considering other reporters. That doesn't quite seem fair. Maybe someone new can make a big splash on the environmental beat. And, gosh, if this is really the great initiative we all think it is, shouldn't it be easy to get lots of folks to write about it?
Impact: If we do the right thing here -- refuse to hire Grunig -- then everyone will be treated fairly. Other reporters have a chance to tout this initiative -- or criticize it if they have legitimate worries. The public is more likely to learn all the pros and cons.
conflicts with Fidelity
Nonmaleficence
Definition: Duty to do no harm and to prevent harm.
Action: OK, I know the conflict of interest with Grunig being paid has potentially harmful consequences if people find out. But maybe that just means I need to be very quiet and go along.
Impact: Again, this just depends on whether the initiative succeeds or not. Well, actually I guess there's some lingering harm even if the initiative succeeds, and no one finds out about Grunig being paid. After all, it makes me more cynical, and it's pretty clear to me that Grunig and my agency are pretty cynical, too.
conflicts with Beneficence
Fidelity
Definition: Duty to keep your promises and prior commitments.
Action: Because it's pretty clear that my agency's plan violates PR ethics, I guess going along with it would violate fidelity to the PR code we're all supposed to uphold. But they seem perfectly happy with this plan? So maybe fidelity requires me to keep my promise to work hard for my firm, that is -- do whatever they think is best?
Impact: When I think about it, what bugs me about my agency's plan to pay Grunig is that it shows a lack of respect for the public. They are being manipulated by a reporter whom they trust. They have a right to honest reporting. My agency could give them this so I'm pretty sure I don't owe any fidelity to my agency if they are making bad decisions. The duty of fidelity is much stronger to the public in this case.
conflicts with Justice
Beneficence
Definition: Duty to do good acts and promote people's happiness.
Action: Well, I know that watching a conflict of interest occur is not a good act. But I'm not sure what will promote the most happiness here. I want the initiative to succeed.
Impact: If the initiative succeeds, then the impact is positive for everyone. If it doesn't, then the impact is negative for everyone.
conflicts with Nonmaleficence
Gratitude
Definition: Duty to repay favors and unearned services granted to you by others.
Action: Maybe the city owes Tom Grunig for his excellent reporting over the years. I don't have any evidence he has ever been dishonest in his reporting. So maybe I should not worry about a potential conflict of interest. Maybe we're just paying him as a way of saying thanks for doing a great job?
Impact: This clearly benefits Grunig, but the impact on everyone else is negative. Isn't virtue supposed to be its own reward?
conflicts with Justice
Self-improvement
Definition: Duty to improve our knowledge and virtue.
Action: Well, I sure hope all my worrying about this case has improved me somehow. But I don't feel any better.
Impact:
Reparation
Definition: Duty to compensate or make amends for past harms to others.
Action: N/A -- no one has been harmed, yet....
Impact:
Virtue Framework
An action that will exhibit the most virtuous traits is:
I should probably at least raise my concerns with my boss and the rest of my team. But if they all think it's OK, I guess I should just let it go.
This is the action that an ideally virtuous person would do because:
I believe even the virtuous traits push me in two directions here. Because I really, truly believe the initiative is good for the public, and I also know that Grunig is the leading environmental reporter in our city, it seems like we should do everything we can to get him on board. (That seems to exhibit advocacy, environmental concern, and even loyalty to the public good.) But I have this nagging concern about dishonesty. A good advocate presents the truth in the best possible light, but that doesn't mean stretching it. And I know Grunig will have a conflict of interest with his own professiona if we pay him. So I hope my team backs me up when I say we shouldn't pay him, but I don't know what I'll do if they don't agree.
This alternative is NOT consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
Actually I think they do capture the insights. It's not that the codes are bad. It's just that doing the honest thing in this case is really hard for me and it's not obvious that going along with the plan is really that bad.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of character traits explored using this framework:
Myself
environmental concern: Without this, everyone is in jeopardy. And in this case, it's my concern that energizes me to do PR for this initiative.
expertise: The PRSA code emphasizes that for PR professionals this means building mutual understanding and credibility. That's why I'm worried about paying Grunig -- the credibility of his writing and the whole initiative is threatened since his interest in getting more money might conflict with his journalistic duty to tell the truth.
advocacy: This is how we get things done in our industry. I want to make sure information about the initiative is public knowledge, and I agree that Grunig is a great person to do this for us.
loyalty: I wonder how the clients would feel about paying Grunig? Loyalty to them might require our firm to at least ask if they are comfortable. Maybe that will solve my problem. But I don't want my boss to think I'm going around the executive decision in this case.
honesty: This is the thing that worries me most in this case. Maybe Grunig won't lie, but doesn't his demand for payment make it look like he's just saying what we pay him to say, instead of reporting accurately?
independence*: I don't have a lot of power in my firm, and even though I want to be accountable for my own judgments, I don't want to lose my job. Maybe I'll just look naive if I voice my concerns.
courage*: I'd really be sticking my neck out to complain on this one. It's definitely easier to keep quiet even though I sort of "know" I shouldn't just go along.
Others
environmental concern: Everyone needs this trait since if we destroy our environment none of us will be able to lead good and happy lives.
expertise: Grunig definitely has this on environmental issues, which is why he'd be great to have on board.
advocacy: This is an important trait for political activitists and PR people. But aren't newspaper reporters supposed to be objective? I think Grunig should just report honestly on the benefits of this initiative. Will he do that if we pay him -- or will he stretch the positives and diminish the negatives? My boss seems to be overly zealous by being willng to pay Grunig.
loyalty: My boss's loyalty is to our client...but I don't think real loyalty comes at the expense of the public interest and the PRSA code says it shouldn't. Grunig's demand for payment makes me think he's not really loyal to the cause.
self interest: This isn't exactly a vice. It's OK to look out for yourself, but not at the expense of others or in ways that compromise community projects.
greed: This is like self-interest. Maybe it just is another name for self-interest when it's clearly a vice. If Grunig really cares about the cause, he shouldn't demand payment.
Ideally Virtuous Traits
Experience: I know this isn't really a character trait, but I believe that if I just had more experience dealing with this kind of thing I could figure out what to do. Right now I just feel pushed and pulled in all different directions.