scholarly journals Media Ethics

Communication ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford Christians
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Professional Ethics ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Media Ethics ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Descriptive Ethics ◽  
Good And Evil

As with professional ethics as a whole, media ethics is divided into three parts: metaethics, normative ethics, and descriptive ethics. Metaethics addresses the validity of theories, the nature of good and evil in media programming, the question of universals, problems of relativism, and the rationale for morality in a secular age. Normative ethics fuses practice with principles. It concerns the best ways for professionals to lead their lives and the standards to be promoted. Normative ethics concentrates on the justice or injustice of societies and institutions. Descriptive ethics uses social science methodologies to report on how ethical decision making actually works in journalism, advertising, public relations, and entertainment. Normative ethics has received the most attention in media ethics, but for media ethics to flourish, research and teaching need to be strong on all three levels.

Smart, friendly, biased liars? Exploring motivated reasoning and ethical decision-making in public relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 412-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Thummes ◽  
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Motivated Reasoning ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Counter Measures

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present research on motivated bias and self-deception in ethical decision-making in public relations. Self-deception might explain how professionals evade mental stress in conflicting situations and manage to be persuasive even when they have to act contrary to their own morals or to public interests. Since self-deception impedes moral reasoning, the research purpose is to gain insights on its origins so that effective counter-measures can be developed. Design/methodology/approach First, the state of research on moral dilemmas in public relations and on self-deception in psychology is outlined. Second, four professionals are interviewed to explore typical conflicts of interest and to develop a realistic scenario that gives rise to a moral dilemma. Third, a small sample of professionals (n=9) is confronted with the developed scenario in a qualitative online questionnaire to analyze their reasoning. Findings Results indicate that self-deception in response to moral dilemmas exists in public relations practice. Typical conflicts of interest, boundary conditions for motivated bias and counter-measures are identified. Experienced professionals in leading positions seem to have the confidence to reject mandates they perceive as immoral. Counter-measures against self-deception should therefore address young professionals and practitioners with low advisory influence. Originality/value While public relations research mostly presumes professionals as rational actors, this study sheds light on irrational practices. In contrast to common practice of expert interviews, an indirect and implicit methodological approach is applied to capture unconscious processes of motivated reasoning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document