Persuasion and ethics

Can  persuasive  communication  be  defended  on  ethical  grounds  and  how  is  it different from propaganda?   Introduction   Persuasion is a process of communication designed to influence the judgements and actions  of  others.  Most  PR  academics  agree  it  is  the  goal  of  the  vast  majority  of public  relations  programmes  and  hence  forms  its  dominant  practice.  The  art  of communication is central to the function of PR: “Stripped to its fundamentals, public relations means communicating with others” (Tymson and Sherman, 1996, cited in Reddi, 2002, p19). Moloney  (2000) expands on this view: “…PR people use processes of persuasion, compromise, bargaining and negotiation in search of compliance and problem  solving”  (p.55).  While  persuasive  communication  often  co‐habits  with propaganda and its implied connotations, a pivotal element of ethical persuasion is truthfulness; where truthfulness requires intention and action that does not mislead, misinform  or  deceive.  Messina  (2007)  defined  ethical  persuasion  as:  “An  attempt through  communication  to  influence  knowledge,  attitude  or  behaviour  of  an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgments” (p.33). From the CIPR’s definition of ‘understanding’ in its glossary, it is clear there are historic links between PR  practice  and  propaganda:  “Understanding  is  a  two‐way  process  and  to  be effective, an organisation needs to listen to the opinions of those with whom it deals and not solely provide information. Issuing a barrage of propaganda is not enough in todays open society.” Miller’s (1989) definition of public relations further highlights the  overlap  between  PR  and  propaganda  as  a  process  that  attempts  to  manage symbolic  control  over  the  environment,  observing  that:  “Effective  persuasion  and effective  public  relations  are  virtually  synonymous”  (p.  368).    However, contemporary  PR  practice  has  sought  to  distance  itself  from  propaganda  as  it  has become increasingly discredited as unethical. This is a view echoed by Weaver et. al. (2006)  who  observed  that  as  PR  practitioners  seek  to  distance  themselves  from propaganda tactics, especially because they have been discredited as manipulative, new  models  of  ethical  persuasion  have  been  developed.  Free  will  to  engage  in 

debate  and  discourse  is  fundamentally  what  separates  persuasive  communication and the negative connotations of propaganda.  This essay analyses the relationship of  persuasive  communication  as  an  essential  element  of  public  relations  practice. The discussion highlights the challenges facing practitioners to operate ethically on behalf  of  their  organization,  while  simultaneously  acting  in  the  public  interest  to minimise dissonance. The essay argues for the need to understand the distinctions between  persuasive  communication  and  propaganda  in  order  to  implement persuasive tactics in an ethical manner.  

Propaganda as Persuasion   Jowett  and  O’Donnell  (1999)  focused  their  definition  on  the  unneutrality  of propaganda as a communication process: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt  to  shape  perceptions,  manipulate  cognitions,  and  direct  behaviour  to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” (p. 6). The idea  that  public  opinion  could  be  managed  and  PR  was  an  instrument  of  social control  started  in  America  shortly  after  the  first  world  war;  shifting  from  largely  a public  information  to  a  purely  press  agentry  model  of  communication.  European business  leaders  and  governments  of  the  1920s  believed  the  publics’  emotions provided  levers  of  influence  that  mere  facts  could  never  match  (Ewen,  1996).  As  a strategic  form  of  communication,  propaganda  is  a  technique  that  attempts  to intentionally  influence  or  manipulate  a  group  of  publics  through  language  and imagery whilst maintaining an advantageous position. Propaganda as a sub‐category of persuasion has a shared heritage with public relations and has contributed both to the  development  of  communications  practice  as  well  as  the  reputation  and  public perception  of  PR  today.  Nazi  Reichsmarshall  and  propagandist,  Herman  Goering  in an interview stated: “…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it  is  always  a  simple  matter  to  drag  the  people  along…that  is  easy.”  (Rampton  and Stauer,  2003,  p.137).  This  unsettling  view  is  one  that  has  become  the  dominant understanding  of  how  propaganda  works,  why  it  attracts  mistrust  and  why  PR practitioners  seek  to  distance  themselves  from  the  activity.  The  public  relations industry  continues  to  face  the  challenge  of  low  public  opinion  due  to  its  close associations with propaganda and spin.    However since the end of the Second World War, propaganda has moved away from being the preserve of the political classes. As a persuasive tool it is used in promoting consumer  products  including  cars  and  beer.  It  does  so  through  advertising,  by bypassing  rational  thought,  manipulating  individuals  on  a  more  emotional  and symbolic level. For example, during the Desert Storm conflict in 1991, the American population  experienced  heightened  fears  about  their  general  safety  and  security. Taking  advantage  of  this  insecurity  the  Hummer  sport‐utility  vehicle  was  launched 

with their anxiety in mind. Civilians wanted more more robust, secure and aggressive cars  (Rampton  and  Stauer,  2003).  This  is  a  classic  example  of  where  persuasive techniques  were  employed  in  the  traditions  of  propaganda,  in  other  words  the American  public  were  persuaded  that  buying  this  car  would  allay  their  fears  and increase  personal  safety  levels.  These  claims  were  later  proved  completely unfounded  as  the  vehicles  actually  caused  many  traffic  related  fatalities.  The Hummer had in fact been originally designed for military use.  Rampton  and  Stauer  (2003)  contend  that  there  is  a  distinct  difference  between propaganda  and  persuasive  communication.  Arguing  that  a  propagandist’s  view  of communication is a set of techniques for indoctrinating a ‘target audience’, whereas the democratic concept of communications is an ongoing process of dialogue among diverse  voices  (p.134).  This  suggests  the  propagandist  does  not  regard  the audiences’ well‐being as a primary concern, assuming that audiences are extremely passive and possess very little intelligence to participate in discourse. At the heart of every  propagandist  is  self‐interest.  Their  aim  is  to  promote  the  concerns  of  the organisation  at  the  expense  of  the recipient. Jowett and O’Donnell  (1999)  expands on this view: “People in the audience may think the propagandist has their interest at  heart,  but  in  fact,  the  propagandist’s  motives  are  selfish  ones”  (p.9).  Indeed Jowett  and  O’Donnell’s  definition  has  some  similarities  with  the  CIPR  official definition of public relations which stresses the need for a ‘planned and sustained’ effort to achieve organisational objectives while ‘influencing opinion and behaviour’ as  opposed  to  Jowett  and  O’Donells  ‘deliberate  and  systemic’  attempts  to  ‘manipulate cognition, and direct behaviour’. Whilst it might seem desirable to place the two concepts, persuasion and propaganda at polar opposites, there is in fact an overlap; a concept endorsed by Heath (2005): “Because there may sometimes be a fine  line  between  persuasion  and  propaganda,  public  relations  practitioners  must understand the differences and implement persuasive tactics in an ethical manner” (p.615). The 2005 Think Road Safety Campaign by the UK Department of Transport used  fear  as  an  emotional  leverage  and  as  a  means  to  persuade.  The  inherent difference between black and white propaganda models is the acknowledgement of the source and its accuracy. Although the Think Campaign manipulates the media to 

gain publicity for its cause, it is acting ethically since it does so for the greater public good;  even  while  employing  a  one‐way  public  information  communication  model.  This  strong  emotional  response  to  visual  stimuli  has  also  been  used  effectively  by charity  fundraisers  to  illicit  immediate  responses  from  potential  donors.  Most recently it has been used by the 2010 Digital Death Campaign for Keep a Child Alive which showed hard hitting images of dead celebrities to raise funds to fight HIV/AIDS in  Africa  and  India  –  eliciting  a  response  from  Twitter  and  Facebook,  for  fans  to donate  up  to  $5000  to  buy  their  lives  back.  Although  this  campaign  makes  use  of propaganda techniques, it cannot be assessed as unethical, especially since there is a discernable  social  benefit.  A  view  echoed  by  Jowett  and  O’Donnell:  “When  the information is used to accomplish a purpose of sharing, explaining or instructing, this is considered to be informative communication.” (pp.25‐26). This power to influence society  means  that  the  profession  of  public  relations  holds  an  enormous responsibility  to  be  ethical.  A  view  endorsed  by  Harlow  (1976)  who  observed  that the  public  relations  professional:  “…define  and  emphasises  the  responsibility  of management  to  serve  the  public  interest…and  uses  research  and  ethical communication techniques as its principal tools” (cited in Tench and Yeomans, 2006, p.4).  

Ethical Persuasion and Public Interest   The  UK  Department  of  Health  has  enacted  this  concept  with  various  persuasive communication  campaigns  aiming  to  affect  and  change  society’s  attitudes  and behaviour. Most notably in recent years they have included anti‐smoking, drinking, and  obesity  and  cancer  screening  campaigns.  Health  Secretary,  Andrew  Lansley (2010)  in  discussing  the  Healthy  Lifestyle  role  ‘for  all  society’  stated  the  campaign aims  were:  “to  improve  the  health  of  the  nation  and  to  improve  the  health  of  the poorest  fastest."  This  involved  numerous  complex  messages  to  a  diverse  range  of publics, aiming to persuade and affect changes in behaviour. Modern PR academics have  provided  the  structures  and  tools  necessary  to  communicate  persuasive messages  with  ethical  consideration.  The  Westley  and  Maclean  model  of communication (1977) facilitates ethical persuasion by a process of advocacy, using various channels including feedback, to affect behaviour. A process by which Lansley says  is  achievable  by  ‘nudging’  rather  than  ‘nannying’.  Persuasion  was  achieved  by the encoding and dissemination of scientific facts with feedback an intrinsic element of the campaigns design and the evaluation of attitudes are considered and included in the planning stage and throughout the programme’s lifespan (Grunig, 2001). This agenda  and  its  objective  can  be  defended  on  ethical  grounds  since  the  required behavioural change is for the benefit of the campaigns’ publics. PR academics have argued  that  persuasion  is  considered  unethical  only  when  an  organisation deliberately  lies,  distorts  the  facts  or  attempts  to  deceive  its  publics  to  mask  its intentions.  However  many  critics  have  argued  that  persuasion  can  never  be considered on a sound ethical basis because the true end is not public welfare but rather  organisational  profit  (Curtin  and  Boynton,  2000).  However,  while  many  PR academics  would  agree  that  the  role  of  the  public  interest  is  central  to  ethical  PR practice and by inference ethical persuasion, very little guidance by way of literature exists to inform PR practitioners how to determine what is in the public interest. It is clear  that  by  acting  on  behalf  of  an  organisation,  it  is  likely  that  a  PR  practitioner would  be  acting  in  the  private  interest  of  their  client  rather  than  in  the  public interest. Hence without a viable definition of the public interest, it becomes difficult if not impossible to expect PR practitioners’ compliance. How common or universal 

must an interest be before it is in the public interest? (Messina, 2007). For example, medical  opinion  on  the  benefits  of  consuming  pre  and  pro‐biotic  products  (which boost levels of certain bacteria in the gut) is widely split. While some doctors claim they  bring  great  health  benefits  to  consumers’  immune  systems,  others  believe there is no clear evidence to back this up. However, the UK is awash with these food products, which claim through advertising, to make consumers’ health better. 

Boundary Spanning and Rhetorical Persuasion   The  role  of  boundary  spanner  is  central  to  a  PR  practitioner’s  activity  and  explains how the practitioner interacts with the organisation’s environment. This concept of the  ethical  guardian  acting  for  the  good  of  the  organisation  and  its  publics  has formed  much  of  the  valued  function  of  modern  PR  today,  with  the  practitioner acting as a boundary spanner, gathering information from the internal and external environments,  assessing  the  impact  of  organisational  actions  upon  its  publics,  and recommending  the  ethical  course  of  action  based  on  supporting  organisational objectives,  whilst  minimising  dissonance.  This  role  enacts  the  two‐way  symmetric model of systems theory, since a vital component is feedback where compromise on both  the  organisations’  and  publics’  view  is  achieved.  An  approach  supported  by Fawkes  (2007)  who  reiterates  Grunig  and  Hunt’s  (1984)  view:  “In  the  two‐way symmetric model practitioners serve as mediators between organisations and their publics. Their goal is mutual understanding” (p. 316). As a boundary spanner, the PR practitioner’s role is considered only truly ethical when it is symmetrical. However, it is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  practice  public  relations  in  that  way  with  the everyday realities of running a PR department.   Rhetoric  and  persuasion  are  historically  linked.  Rooted  in  the  culture  of  ancient Greece,  it  has  influenced  the  way  all  forms  of  human  discourse  were  analysed, appraised and critiqued. Aristotle (a champion of rhetoric) formulated a theory that today is still regarded as an invaluable tool for assisting the art of persuasion and the function of PR. To demonstrate this, he outlined four means of persuasion:    • Ethos  ‐  achieved  by  establishing  credibility,  the  speaker  must  posses  character, integrity and be knowledgeable in their subject.   • Pathos ‐ appeals to an audience’s emotions in order to persuade.   • Logos  ‐  logic  as  a  means  to  persuade;  logical  arguments  are  built  from  statements of evidence that lead to a sound conclusion.  • Kairos ‐ fitness or timeliness, appropriateness of the message tone.    

Aristotle defined rhetoric as: “…the ability to observe in any given case, the available means of persuasion – what needs to be said and how it should be said to achieve the desired outcome” (Aristotle, cited in Toth, 2000, p.124). Scholars such as Smith, Ferguson and Heath (2001) have drawn attention to the benefits of rhetoric laying within its ability to participate in mutual discourse: “the heritage of rhetoric assumes that  decisions  are  better  if  people  who  are  interested  in  them  can  communicate openly and assertively about them...it is the means through which organisations and activist publics use symbols to achieve agreement, persuade, or induce cooperation” (p.298).  However,  for  this  mutual  dialogue  and  exchange  to  take  place  all participants must possess the right and the means to be both informed and heard. Interaction  among  participants  must  be  free  of  manipulations,  domination,  or control and participants must be afforded equal opportunity to be heard. 

A Case for Professionalisation   A key element of persuasion is that information must be based on truth, a value also embraced  by  the  CIPR  in  its  formalized  professional  codes  of  conduct.  Contained within  it  are  references  to  integrity,  honesty,  competence,  confidentiality, transparency, conflicts of interest and conforming to accepted business practice and ethics. These codes of conduct provide a framework that directs PR professionals to their  duty  to  observe  common  standards  of  behaviour  and  conduct  (Cook,  1988, Pearson,  1989).  Sharpe  (1990)  suggests  that  the  ethical  goal  for  public  relations practitioners  consists  of  five  professional  responsibilities  (Black,  1994,  Blumenthal, 1972):    • Honest communication to obtain organisational credibility.  • Being open and consistent to gain public confidence.  • Fairness in action to ensure fair treatment is received in return.   • Maintaining  continuous  communication  so  that  mutual  understanding  and  respect is achieved.  • Accurate  research  of  the  social  environment  with  a  willingness  to  change  when actions no longer serves the public interest.   Codifying public relations activity provides a point of reference or yardstick by which practitioners can operate professionally while reinforcing ethical expectations. In the 2001  UK  Population  Census,  48,000  respondents  identified  themselves  as  being employed  in  public  relations  and  yet  the  CIPR  only  has  a  modest  9,500  members. Moreover, in a survey conducted for this paper within a global PR company; out of 220  staff,  only  one  was  an  accredited  member  of  an  official  industry  association (Whiteside, 2010). Taking a critical perspective L’Etang (2008) expands on this view, arguing  that  the  practice  of  public  relations  is  ‘ethically  challenged’  because  it  is unregulated,  seeks  to  influence  attitudes,  opinions  and  decision‐making.  Without wider accreditation and ability to control entry into the PR industry it is difficult to ensure ethical accountability.  

Conclusion   PR is indeed a form of persuasive communication. However the difference between persuasive communication and propaganda is the intent of the person who creates the  message.  Both  communicative  processes  seek  symbolic  control  over environments.  However  the  hostility  that  exists  between  the  two  communications processes lies with its manipulative aim (Molonely, 2000). A view echoed by Jowett and  O’Donnell  (1999)  in  suggesting  propaganda  is  distinguished  by  its  purpose;  to benefit the propagandist. The inference is that an ethical communicator who avoids propaganda  must  avoid  communication,  the  sole  or  main  intent  of  which  is  to manipulate the behaviour of others to benefit the communicator’s cause. This essay has  demonstrated  that  persuasion  can  be  but  is  by  no  means  necessarily propaganda. Nor is it necessarily ethical or unethical since this should be assessed in relation  to  the  context  in  which  it  is  being  practiced.  The  main  determinant  of persuasive  communication  as  ethical  PR  practice  is  in  meeting  the  public  interest. However, the concept of the public interest has been found to be elusive as there is no  universal  definition  of  what  that  entails;  thus  it  is  incapable  of  guiding  the everyday reality of persuasion in PR practice.   Word Count: 2750  

Bibliography and References  Curtin,  P.  and  Boynton,  L.  (2001)  Heath,  R.  Ethics  in  Public  Relations.  Cited  in Handbook of Public Relations. London. Sage.   Ewen, S. (1996) PR!: A Social History of Spin. 1st ed. New York. Perseus Books Group.  Fawkes,  J.  (2007)  Public  Relations  Models  and  Persuasion  Ethics:  a  new  approach. Cited in Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 11 No. 4. Emerald Group.  Harlow, R. F. (1976) Building a Definition of Public Relations. Cited in Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (2006) Exploring Public Relations. 1st ed. Harlow. Pearson Education.  Heath, R. (2005) Encyclopedia of Public Relations. London. Sage Publications.  Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.  Jowett,  G.  and  O’Donnell,  V.  (1999)  Propaganda  and  Persuasion.  3rd  ed.  London. Sage.  Lansley,  A.  (2010)  Ed.  Triggle,  N.  in  Healthy  lifestyle  role  ‘for  all  society’.  [Online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health‐11866031. [Accessed 11 Dec 2010].  Messina,  A.  (2007)  Public  relations  the  public  interest  and  persuasion:  an  ethical approach. Cited in Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 11 No. 1. Emerald Group.  Miller, G. (1989) Public Relations and Persuasion. Cited in L’Etang, J and Pieczka, M. (2006)  Public  Relations:  critical  debates  and  contemporary  practice.  New  Jersey. Lawrence Earlbaum.  

Moloney,  K.(2006)  Rethinking  Public  Relations:  The  Spin  and  the  Substance.  2nd  ed. London. Routledge.  Rampton,  S.  and  Stauber,  J.  (2003)  Weapons  of  Mass  Deception:  The  Uses  of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq. London. Constable & Robinson Ltd.  Smith,  M.  and  Ferguson,  D.  (2001)  Heath,  R.  Ethics  in  Public  Relations.  Cited  in Handbook of Public Relations. London. Sage.   Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (2006) Exploring Public Relations. 1st ed. Harlow. Pearson Education.  Tymson,  C  and  Sherman,  B.  (1996)  In  Reddi,  C.  Ed.  Public  Relations  and Communication. 1st ed. 2002. India, CVN PR Foundation Press.  Whiteside, A. (2010) Personal Communications. PRCo, London. 14th December 2010. A Whiteside is a Manager of Digital PR for PRCo.  

Persuasion and ethics

by Andre Davis

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 2

Statistics

Persuasion and ethics Document Transcript