Public Relations: Ethics and Truth Mutually Exclusive?

PR seems to have an inherent association with unethical practice with many believing that ‘the term public relations ethics is an oxymoron: either an unreal possibility, or smoke and mirrors to hide deception’ (Bowen, 2007). But in reality is this association so wrong? How can Public Relations practitioners represent their clients in the best possible light while always remaining wholly ethical?

Firstly it might be prudent to define what is meant by ethical practice, according to the Public Relations Society of America their core principal when it comes to ethical practice is 'protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information' as it is 'essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society' (PRSA, 2010). But this is not shared by all, and certainly it could be considered as difficult to practice Public Relations under that remit, with the creative management of communication being a key tool in representing clients...

Let us take for example the government in 2001 on September 11^th 2001. In this instance Jo Moore, a labour aide, sent this memo (after the attacks on the world trade towers but before they had actually collapsed) to her press office;

‘It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?’

Moore actions sparked an out-roar which clearly condemned her actions as unethical, but the only reason that the information was brought to light was because the original memo was leaked to the press and subsequently the public (Sparrow, 2001). Clearly she was trying to obstruct the ‘free flow of accurate and truthful information' as there can be no doubt of the intent of her words, but the question then has to be asked whether he mistake was the act of ‘burying’ the information or getting caught!?

It is fact that the announcement in regards to pension rights for councillors remained in the main unnoticed, and so in a sense it was successful. Had she been perhaps more tactful, by simply requesting the information to be released, how could anyone prove that she had done so in direct response to the catastrophic events unfolding at the time?

Of course either way the intention makes the act unethical, but when it comes to success and acting responsibly it isn’t the ethics that you uphold that matter, it is the way in which your ethics are represented and perceived that does. After all you don’t have to be ethical to act ethical, do you?