In the late 1940s the Institute of Public Relations was established by a group of practitioners. The aim of the IPR was to ‘provide a professional structure for the practice of PR’ and to ‘enhance the ability and status of their members of professional practice’. This was done through the introduction of a specific set of codes of conduct.
Public Relations education has developed immensely over the years. Due to this development, the professional bodies such as the IPR, have published guidelines for the practice of PR. These guidelines state that “PR should be taught by individuals with sound experience and understanding in both academic and practical aspects in the field' (IPR, 1990).
due to the fact that PR is perceived as a manipulative and persuasive technique, the question to ask is whether or not a PR practitioner can carry out their ethical responsibilities in a professional manor. In addition, one of many purposes of establishing codes of conduct within associations, such as the CIPR and PRSA, is that they can be used to enhance the professionalism of public relations.
2 comments:
The issue with ethics in PR can be quite tricky. Is it ethical for an NGO to manipulate incidents as long as it is pursuing an admirable objective? Plenty of NGOs do! Is ethics an issue we raise only with organisations whose aims we don't support and ignore with those we do? Define ethical behaviour ....
I spent quite a few weeks of my time at Westminster last year on the subject of ethics and PR. Now that I've spent almost a year working for a consultancy, I've come to realise that while PR ethics laid down by the CIPR, etc, are useful guidelines, you'd very rarely come across a real life situation where a PR is faced with a choice of whether or not to toe the ethical line. Unlike scientific fields (like medicine) what PR does often has no impact on the quality of life or lifestyles. All we do is pitch an opinion or image or idea to the media. If the media likes the message they use it, if they don't they won't use it. Pretty straightforward isn't it? So why is there so much debate, much of it from academics and theoriticians?
Post a Comment