The Ethics Dilemma according to Ronnie Lovler
Who’s right? Who’s wrong?
Seems these days everybody’s talking about ethics, but not as many people are “doing it.”
Every communications field has a code of ethics – Society of Professional Journalists, Public Relations Society of America, National Association of Broadcasters, etc. That sounds well and good, but there are two hitches.
First hitch is that none of these ethical codes are binding and depend on the good will of the organization’s members to adhere to the codes. The second hitch is that membership is any of the professional communications organizations is voluntary – so you can still practice the profession without being a member of the group.
Ethics can be defined as a system of moral principles or rules of conduct that help govern behaviors of individuals and groups. It is also a branch of philosophy dealing with values related to human conduct. And it is something that has been debated for millenniums – and will continue to be debated for centuries to come.
As Chapter 5 in L & M recognizes, ethics are not easy. Ethics are subjective and just because something is an issue for me does not mean it is an issue for you. For example, I am purchasing a “new” pre-used car. I went to look at one car and the seller failed to divulge that the car had been determined to be a lemon. I looked at another car and the seller failed to inform me that the bottom of the car was rusted out and the exhaust system was jerry-rigged. I believe they acted unethically by not providing me all the information I needed to make my decision. They would argue that a used car is a used car and you can’t expect perfection.
There are a lot of (ethical) factors that can be taken into account when communicating risk – or when opting NOT to communicate a risk. Our readings pointed out that the level of public involvement in risk issues has changed so much in the last decades that it is almost unethical not to involve the public and certainly is unethical not to inform the public about a risk.
Here’s something that has troubled me in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – what I perceive as the insurance companies’ failures to make good to their customers whose homes were damaged and/or destroyed by the storm. The insurance companies claim that the homes were impacted by flood damage – which is NOT covered by policies – rather than wind damage, which would have protected the homeowners’ properties. How ethically did the insurance companies behavior before Katrina and post the storm? How did they communicate risk? How well did they communicate their own responsibility? I was pleased by a recent court ruling in Biloxi, Miss. which awarded a couple $3 million in their suit against State Farm insurance for refusing to pay their Katrina claim. Most of the award was in punitive damages. The insurance industry is railing at the decision, which it considers devastating (for the industry) and perhaps unethical. How much distress might have been avoided for all parties with good, clear, two-way AND ethical risk communications?
Another issue that could be perceived as risk communication in a different light is the flow of information from the White House to the U.S. public around the war in Iraq.
Could the Bush Administration be functioning within the confines of a 1950s mindset by believing that simply informing the public about what was going on is acceptable? Have they not caught up with the times and the ideas of consensus building? Certainly ethics – social, organizational (federal government) and personal are involved here, particularly considering that this issue is costing so many lives and so many dollars.
One other thing I would like to comment on for purposes of this blog is the question of persuasion. I don’t think persuasive tactics are unethical – as long as it is clear that they are being employed. When there is a clear and present danger, obviously persuasive techniques will be used – for example to evacuate people from the path of a hurricane or a river that is about to overflow its banks. Certainly the kind of information presented now about AIDs and steps to take to keep from infecting others or contracting it are good, clear-cut examples of risk information and communication at its finest.
Seems these days everybody’s talking about ethics, but not as many people are “doing it.”
Every communications field has a code of ethics – Society of Professional Journalists, Public Relations Society of America, National Association of Broadcasters, etc. That sounds well and good, but there are two hitches.
First hitch is that none of these ethical codes are binding and depend on the good will of the organization’s members to adhere to the codes. The second hitch is that membership is any of the professional communications organizations is voluntary – so you can still practice the profession without being a member of the group.
Ethics can be defined as a system of moral principles or rules of conduct that help govern behaviors of individuals and groups. It is also a branch of philosophy dealing with values related to human conduct. And it is something that has been debated for millenniums – and will continue to be debated for centuries to come.
As Chapter 5 in L & M recognizes, ethics are not easy. Ethics are subjective and just because something is an issue for me does not mean it is an issue for you. For example, I am purchasing a “new” pre-used car. I went to look at one car and the seller failed to divulge that the car had been determined to be a lemon. I looked at another car and the seller failed to inform me that the bottom of the car was rusted out and the exhaust system was jerry-rigged. I believe they acted unethically by not providing me all the information I needed to make my decision. They would argue that a used car is a used car and you can’t expect perfection.
There are a lot of (ethical) factors that can be taken into account when communicating risk – or when opting NOT to communicate a risk. Our readings pointed out that the level of public involvement in risk issues has changed so much in the last decades that it is almost unethical not to involve the public and certainly is unethical not to inform the public about a risk.
Here’s something that has troubled me in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – what I perceive as the insurance companies’ failures to make good to their customers whose homes were damaged and/or destroyed by the storm. The insurance companies claim that the homes were impacted by flood damage – which is NOT covered by policies – rather than wind damage, which would have protected the homeowners’ properties. How ethically did the insurance companies behavior before Katrina and post the storm? How did they communicate risk? How well did they communicate their own responsibility? I was pleased by a recent court ruling in Biloxi, Miss. which awarded a couple $3 million in their suit against State Farm insurance for refusing to pay their Katrina claim. Most of the award was in punitive damages. The insurance industry is railing at the decision, which it considers devastating (for the industry) and perhaps unethical. How much distress might have been avoided for all parties with good, clear, two-way AND ethical risk communications?
Another issue that could be perceived as risk communication in a different light is the flow of information from the White House to the U.S. public around the war in Iraq.
Could the Bush Administration be functioning within the confines of a 1950s mindset by believing that simply informing the public about what was going on is acceptable? Have they not caught up with the times and the ideas of consensus building? Certainly ethics – social, organizational (federal government) and personal are involved here, particularly considering that this issue is costing so many lives and so many dollars.
One other thing I would like to comment on for purposes of this blog is the question of persuasion. I don’t think persuasive tactics are unethical – as long as it is clear that they are being employed. When there is a clear and present danger, obviously persuasive techniques will be used – for example to evacuate people from the path of a hurricane or a river that is about to overflow its banks. Certainly the kind of information presented now about AIDs and steps to take to keep from infecting others or contracting it are good, clear-cut examples of risk information and communication at its finest.
posted by Ronnie at
1/21/2007 10:00:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home