Transparency and Ethics

I wrote a piece in this week's New Communications Blogzine about ethics.  In it, I proposed the following:

...that truth and transparency are, in fact, two very different things, and that transparency needs to be pulled apart from truth and examined on its own merits....

Wikipedia has a good working definition of transparency. Here’s the kicker: “In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available.”

Let’s repeat: “Transparency is the opposite of privacy.” Of course, you can’t say that about truth, which drives home the difference between truth and transparency. Truth doesn’t require that “all information…is open and freely available.” It only requires that the information that is presented is honest and accurate. And that gap between the information that is presented and making all information available is the one that PR practitioners have fallen into, tarred with the label of “unethical.”

The conflation of truth and transparency is therefore a problem. While I welcome the increased awareness of ethical practices as a good thing, until we start focusing on the important changes that the increasing demand for transparency is bringing to PR practice, I fear that little will change in terms of the currently dismal reputation of PR.

I am planning on writing more about transparency, truth and the reputation of PR for Global PR Blog Week 2.0.  I would very much like to hear from you about the information/transparency gap I describe above.  Do you agree? Disagree?  I think we really need to delve into what this means and think about guidelines for being transparent.  I look forward to your comments.

Comments

[ErinM]

The PR program at Auburn University puts emphasis on teaching the ethics of our profession through classes. We learn about the standards set by PRSA's Code of Ethics. The guideline is a great way for those who are affiliated with PRSA, but not all PR professionals are a member of this group. If we could be assured of a uniform code of ethics, there would be no need to worry about transparency, but that just isn't the case.

Truth vs Transparency: People want to know what's going on. An organization can use free dialogue with the audience to enhance reputation, and build relationships. I agree on the need for honest dealings from the top down. Business are more like gamblers, they don't want to show their cards all at once. They would prefer to mete out truth one snippet at a time. By forcing organizations to be transparent, we could affect their ability to stay competitive, and even negatively affect their reputation.

The environment we work in calls for news to be sensational for it to 'sell.' People need to be entertained by scandal and action to pay any attention (small overstatement). This mindset is a shaky foundation to require complete transparency as small aspects can be misunderstood, or opposing groups scandalize an irrelevant issue.

I think this is an interesting/engrossing topic that can be debated at length. I don't think a blanket requirement or regulation would help our profession, but learning how to use the concept while setting goals and objectives would help build our reputation and effectiveness.