1

Janelle Young
December 3, 2008
Jour 312
Interview on Ethics

Public Relations Ethics: How True is Only Part of the Truth?

Having high ethical standards is vital to public relations professionals because working

with the media forces them to make decisions on ethical issues on a regular basis. These

decisions are very important because the mass media can have an enormous impact on the image

of any organization or individual. Most PR professionals work within ethical codes to withhold

high credibility and a good reputation. So what happens when an ethical issue comes into

question that falls in the grey area rather than the black or white? The issue is not addressed in

the ethical code, and many PR professionals make different choices on how to act on it. The

issue that I am questioning is the whole truth. This has become an issue of concern over many

years with people defending both yes and no. When is it okay for a public relations professional

to leave out facts? Is it ever okay? How honest is only part of the truth?

There is no one perfect answer to this question. Many public relations professionals along

with professionals of all types have different opinions on this matter. In the court of law however

it is not a matter of opinion. Before a testimony, a witness must swear to “tell the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth.” This means that in the court of law, not only is the accurate

information demanded, but “the whole truth” as well. This phrase means that not only must the

information be accurate, but it also means that nothing may be omitted. And finally “nothing but

the truth” refers to opinions and assumptions, for they are not acceptable. So, should public

relations professionals hold a different standard of the truth than the law does, or should it

comply with these standards?

 2

It is true that what is legal in not always ethical, and what is ethical is not always legal,

but when it comes to truth, the law seems to define the truth pretty thoroughly. To determine if

truth really means the whole truth, I interviewed a few people who work in the Journalism field.

To start, they all say that it depends on the situation.

The first lady I interviewed is a public relations professional advisor on ethics. Her name

is Judy Voss and she is the Director of Professional Development for the Public Relations

Society of America. When asked if she would ever present information that was only part of the

truth she replied “it totally depends on the situation.” Voss feels that if you have the information

it is normally best to give out all of it. She told me that in her line of work, many people come to

her for advice about how to deal with certain crises situations when it may be the easiest to just

misinform or not inform the public. She told me about some of the crises that people asked for

her help with, and what she recommended.

Voss says that many public relations professionals have the urge to withhold information,

especially in a time of crisis or panic, but she firmly says that this is not ethically the right thing

to do. She says that since crises happen so fast, it is difficult to prepare for the media, but it is

possible. Voss advises to stay calm and collected and to give out all the information you can. She

says that what you say to the public should be only facts and you should always refrain from

stating opinions and assumptions. She thinks that the more facts you give, the higher credibility

your organization or business will withhold. If the public knows that you are doing everything

you can to inform them of what is happening, they will feel more comfortable about the situation

because they will be able to trust that you will update them about the crisis as soon as possible.

She recommends leaving out your opinion, because it can easily be scrutinized. If you state facts

that you know are true, your credibility will never come into question, and this is very important.
 3

Your opinion can easily be wrong if you do not know enough information, or it may end up

being opposed by many people. To Voss, stating your assumptions is a horrible plan. Sometimes

telling the public that “everything is going to be okay” can be self destructive. What if

everything ends up not being okay? You are in deep trouble and the public may not view you as

trustworthy in the future.

Voss told me about a public relations professional who came to her for advice about

expected layoffs. The public relations consultant worked for a company who was planning to lay

off hundreds of employees. She told this client the same thing she told me. Be honest, admit that

there is a financial crisis going on right now and that your company has to adjust for its debt.

Explain to the employees why you don’t want to lay any of them off, but you are being forced to

because you don’t have the money to support all of their salaries at this point in time. Be very

sympathetic because people will not take this news lightly, but do your best to explain that if you

don’t lay off some of them, there is a good chance your company could go bankrupt forcing

thousands of people out of jobs. Do not give assumptions like “everything is going to be okay”

or “we will get through this and be able to hire you back soon.” These are false promises that you

have no way of knowing. Tell them everything you know about how you are choosing which

employees to lay off, and when these layoffs will take effect. You can do this without telling

them who else is being laid off. Give them as much information as you can to help them through

this difficult time. This is one example of how it helps to be honest in a situation where you

know the facts; these employees are going to be out of jobs and they have the right to know

exactly why.

Voss did say events often occur when people want to know information, but you simply

do not know enough information to satisfy them. Voss advises still to say what you know and to
 4

remind the public that as soon as you know anything else on the matter you will notify them. If

you say this however, it must be true. You must be doing everything in your power to find the

answers to the questions that the public is asking. If you say you don’t know enough of the facts

to speak about it, and those facts are out there and available, you must do the research! She says

the ethical thing to do would be to admit you haven’t done the research and then get back to

them when you have. This may create some unrest, but at least the public knows you are being

honest about the matter, and you are working on answering their questions. Keep in mind that

finding out those answers is what they are probably most concerned with.

Voss says that if you do know something the public wants to know and you leave out

details because you simply didn’t want to reveal them, this is ethically wrong. The truth is as

much of the truth as you know, not only the part that you feel like telling. To her, leaving out

facts you don’t want to reveal is just as unethical as lying. Leaving out facts that you have not

done the research for is different, this is carelessness, but omitting certain details is in one way or

another a form of lying. Voss feels that if the information you left out didn’t cause any confusion

or misunderstandings, it should still be mentioned as soon as you realize that you failed to

include it. She thinks that in the long run, the omitted facts will catch up to you and will end up

causing confusion and could very easily jeopardize your credibility in the future.

Another public relations expert that I interviewed is Bob Frause. He is PRSA's Chair of the

Board of Ethics and Personal Standards. His job is to make decisions on what is and is not ethical so

members of PRSA can follow his standards. He also helps PRSA determine what methods are best for

public relation professionals to follow when in an ethical predicament. He started off with telling me that

the public will forgive accidents that a corporation makes, but it will not forgive inadequate responses to

them. To Frause, leaving out information that you know, to make the situation easier on you or your

corporation is an inadequate response. It is unforgivable and unethical. He did say that not telling the
 5

whole truth is sometimes acceptable, but he agrees with Judy Voss that this is only when you do not know

all of the information. He said that timing is everything during a crisis, so the information should be

hitting the public’s ears after your ears and never before. If you withhold information, they have a very

good chance of finding out somehow whether it is by word of mouth or through an investigative reporter.

He warns there are too many mouths and ears out there to keep anything a secret these days so don’t do it,

if they hear it before you tell them, they will not forgive you. He does however, encourage PR

professionals to do it because it is ethically right not because you know they will find out anyway. He

thinks that if you don’t have your own good morals, you will eventually slip through the cracks of the

ethical code and lose your credibility.

To make sure this doesn’t happen, Frause says you can prepare for crisis situations in advance.

Planning ahead can be what saves you in the time of a crisis. He says he along with other staff members

of PRSA recommend a crisis communication plan that outlines the exact steps that should be taken during

the first few hours of a crisis. He says that many of the steps involve telling an incomplete truth, but only

because in the first few hours you never know the complete truth. You must be honest and open to the

public through all the steps. Frause told me how the steps explain the who, what, when, where, and how

the company should address the crisis. He says that PRSA provides a plan for corporations that supplies

them with helpful materials ahead of time. These materials include initial official statements, fact sheets,

and press releases that only need to be filled out with the facts of the crisis. He said that in them, the

corporation should always put all of the facts they know, and when they learn anything new, they should

update these documents to accommodate them.

When I asked Frause what standards he uses to help him make decisions about whether or

not to report the whole truth he recited to me a quote from the PRSA Code of Ethics. He read,

“Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the

public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.” He then asked me,

“Do you think in this statement, when they say ‘accurate and truthful’ that they are talking about only the
 6

side of the story that you want to tell? I could tell his question was rhetorical and slightly sarcastic and it

helped me understand how partial truths are not true or informative at all. “Informed decision making” is

only possible when you are informed of the whole truth.