Deliberation Overview
This deliberation was begun on Thursday, April 2, 2009
This history was compiled on Sunday, November 22, 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 a 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:
Tell your boss about your concerns regarding how his suggestion my be percieved by reporters, how it may impact future news coverage and coverage of this launch. As your boss what, specifically, his concerns are -- why are people at a conferene so important to him if news coverage and exposure doesn't differ? Suggest improving the news appraoch of the website to addrss any concerns, such as using video of the new product for launches, phone/online chats between reporters and boss during a launch, etc.
This action fulfills my chosen standard because:
This action is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Other alternatives explored using the Consequences Framework:
Tell your boss about your concerns regarding how his suggestion my be percieved by reporters, how it may impact future news coverage and coverage of this launch. As your boss what, specifically, his concerns are -- why are people at a conferene so important to him if news coverage and exposure doesn't differ? Suggest improving the news appraoch of the website to addrss any concerns, such as using video of the new product for launches, phone/online chats between reporters and boss during a launch, etc.
Consequences: It serves the reporters by respecting their news needs, time and the changing atmosphere of their profession. AS a consequence, the reporters apprecaite your efforts and continue to cover your launches, and feel respected. Your bosses concerns are met. Your product is still launched with positive news coverage and consistent coverage amounts (since narative doesn't say coverage is falling, only attendance of reporters). It's truthful and respectful, while promoting a product honestly and fairly.
Explanation:
Notes:
Agree with Honor Code: yes
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 consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of specific duties explored using this framework:
?Using open communication to foster informed decision-making in a democratic society
Definition:
Action: it's your dutied to tell your boss about any reservations you may have regarding the sitaution, such as how this many not encourage improved media coverage. reporters may resent an attempt to force them to come to a news conference.
Impact: could place you in a difficult situation with boss, depending upon bosses response to feedback.
Any specific rules or principles you are required to abide by in your particular organization or workplace
Definition:
Action: It's unclear whether or not there is an absolute rule to follow bosses orders without discussion. The situation doesn't call for dishonest information about the product, to there isn't an honesty factor there
Impact:
?Promoting healthy and fair competition (fostering a robust business climate)
Definition:
Action: this isn't unfair competition, in fact it may give competing companies an edge. However, only if they have a similiar product to launch in t he same timeframe.
Impact:
Fidelity
Definition: Duty to keep your promises and prior commitments.
Action: it's not clear if there are promises or prior committments to either the boss or media. And the question about whether or not to keep commitments in this situation begs to be debated --do you keep your commitment to the company to help them get media the best way you know how, or to the boss to follow his direction?
Impact:
?Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information
Definition:
Action: This doesn't protect/advance the immediate freeflow of information. It doesn't withhold information, but it does delay it.
Impact:
Justice
Definition: Duty to give each person equal consideration.
Action: Hum. You'd have to weight consideration for boss/company/product against consideration for reporters.
Impact:
?Abiding by domestic and international law
Definition:
Action: doesn't apply
Impact:
?Avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest
Definition:
Action: doesnt' seem to apply
Impact:
?Giving appropriate protection to confidential and private information
Definition:
Action: doesn't apply
Impact:
Reparation
Definition: Duty to compensate or make amends for past harms to others.
Action: doesn't seem to apply here.
Impact:
Gratitude
Definition: Duty to repay favors and unearned services granted to you by others.
Action: doesn't seem to apply here.
Impact:
Self-improvement
Definition: Duty to improve our knowledge and virtue.
Action: Probably doesn't apply - it's difficult to say where virtue lies -- with commitment to product or boss?
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 consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of character traits explored using this framework:
Myself
resolution of conflict with a win-win:
honesty with boss: the persepctive page is very confusing to me, so i'm not sure I understand the directions as they apply here.
respect for company needs:
honesty and respect for reporters needs:
respect for company needs:
Others
boss motivated by wanting to succeed:
unclear what motivates boss to place priority of people in seats over coverage:
competition with other companies may possibly motivate boss:
reporters motivated by changing working environment: fewer reporters, less time, more demand for productivity, new technolgoy available to take advantage of: