Harrison 1 Laura Harrison COMMS 300 Section 2 Ethics Paper 1 October 2013 Ethics in Public Relations As a public relations

practitioner, I have been hired to be the campaign manager for a mayoral candidate, Thomas Smith. Thomas Smith is running for mayor in a very close-knit, conservative community. In the upcoming election, his opponent, John Apple, presses his family values and plans for increased safety for the community. Days before the election a friend, who works for the police department, has told me in confidentiality that John Apple has had two DUIs on his record, the most recent being three months ago. Should I release the information and let Thomas Smith know, and use the information to get him ahead in the polls? Issue: The issue is that the election is eight days away, and releasing this information would not only bring John Apple down in the polls, but also expose him family to embarrassment and put my friends job on the line, since she told me this in confidence. However releasing this information would put my candidate far ahead in the polls and inform the public about what is really going on with their candidates. Relevant Facts: There are immediate facts that relate to the ethical decision that needs to be made. First, as stated in the problem, the most recent DUI was three months ago and the first one was issued a year and a half ago. No one was harmed in the DUIs and different police officers were working at both times. The police kept his DUIs private and the information was not leaked to the one newspaper in town or three local radio stations. The only people who know about the DUIs are John Apple himself, most likely his wife and the police department, which is

Harrison 2 the only one in the town. The election is eight days away and both candidates are about even in the polls. I also know that my friend may be fired from the police department if knowledge gets out that she told me. John Apple has publically spoken at schools and community functions against drunk driving. Claimants: To make a better decision, I need to step into the shoes of my claimants and determine what their perspective would be. I must step behind the veil of ignorance. The people who I would be obligated to in this issue are Thomas Smith, John Apple, my friend who gave me the info, voters in the community, other members of my campaign team and the police department. Thomas Smith would want to win this election and would probably feel obligated to tell the voters in the community the truth. It would not seem ethical to him that John Apple has spoken against drunk driving, yet he has DUIs. John Apple would want this information to stay in private, because of fear of losing the election and fear of ruining his and his familys reputation. He probably doesnt feel the greatest about keeping the DUIs private, but may feel that changing his ways would justify the past. My friend who gave me the information would not want the information to be leaked. Since she violated her own work ethics, she would not want to be put on the chopping block. Voters in the community, although they have no idea about the DUIs, expect the candidates to be transparent and open during the election period. They would probably feel cheated if the information was leaked. Other members of my campaign want all their hard work to pay off, and may do anything to see that happen. Theyd be able to justify telling the public about the DUIs since theyre not emotionally tied with the person who leaked the information. The police department wouldnt want the information to leak because it would hurt their reputation in one of two ways. First, people could be angry at the department for not

Harrison 3 telling them information and second, their security and reputation could be shot because of the leaked information. Alternatives: At least three alternatives need to be made so I can outweigh choices and decide what the best ethical decision would be. I think my choices are to: a.) Keep going with the campaign and ignore the information b.) Quit as campaign manager to ignore the whole situation c.) Release the information to the public d.) Let Thomas Smith know and let him decide. Favored Options: Thomas Smith would definitely be ok with choices c and d, most likely c because he wouldnt have to make the decision himself. John Apple would be ok with both a and b, because both alternatives keep his DUIs in the dark. My friend would also probably prefer a and b because both protect her from potentially loosing her job. Voters in the community would probably want option c because it informs them about whats really going on. The other members of my team would not want option b, because theyd have no manager, but theyd prefer option c because it would put us ahead in the polls. The police department would favor a because it wouldnt put them in trouble. Best and worst-case scenarios: The best case for going with the campaign and not releasing the information would be that no one get hurts, not John Apple or my friend. The worst case could be that my candidate could loose and eventually find out I had the information and fire me. Quitting as campaign manager would free me from having to deal with the situation, but it is kind of cowardly way to deal with things. Worst-case scenario would be that I couldnt find another job and would regret quitting in the first place. Releasing the information to the public best-case scenario would be that theyd be receiving full information about their candidate

Harrison 4 that would help them in voting. Worst-case would be the embarrassment brought on John Apples family and campaign team. Best-case for letting Thomas Smith decide would be that hed counsel with John Apple about the situation and together theyd decide what to do. Worstcase would be that hed blackmail John Apple and use the information unethically to win. Harm: Honestly, all four situations could bring out some kind of harm. Those people that could be hurt in the first scenario would be Thomas Smith, only if he looses, and the public for not having full information on the candidate. The second would be my campaign team and Thomas Smith, because Id be letting them down. In the third situation, John Apples family and campaign party would be hurt. All their hard work could go down the drain. Giving the information to Thomas Smith could potentially harm John Apple and would hurt the voters because they wouldnt have full transparency with the candidates. It would also harm my friend and cause her to loose her job. Ideals vs. Options: The main ideal goes towards the voters, and if its their right to know confidential information about the candidates. They want freedom from harm (in the case of a mayor having DUI records). However, if I do release the information, I am placing the voters ideal above the societal ideal of honoring the candidates privacy. At this point in my case, I think I would want to honor the voters rights because they deserve to know this important fact about a candidate, especially if hes publically spoken out against drunk driving. Rules: The ethical guideline from PRSAs code of ethics comes to mind in this situation. One core value, advocacy, is something I really need to consider. Am I an advocate of the candidate or of the community? Technically Im hired by the government, so should I do whats in the best interest of those who are governed, i.e. the voters? Loyalty also comes in mind. Should I be loyal to my friend, the mayor or the voters? I need to be faithful to those I represent,

Harrison 5 while still honoring my obligation to serve the public interest. The PRSA code of ethics seems to be on the side of the voters in this situation. Guidelines: Evaluating the harm principle is tricky in this situation. The good brought about by releasing the information would really benefit the voters, but it is hard to decide if that good would outweigh the harm brought to John Apples family and my friend. No one is really defenseless in this situation. John Apple chose to hide his DUIs from the public and my friend chose to give me confidential information. If theyre attacked they wont really be defenseless, just caught off guard. They should both respond to their actions. The utilitarian approach would favor the option to release the information because it brings the information to the greatest number of people, the voters. Privileging the majority of voters wouldnt bring injustice to John Apple and my friend, because they brought the harm upon themselves by lying and sneaking around. Course of Action: I would release the information to the public, but there would be limitations. First, I would give fair warning to my friend about what I was doing. I wouldnt want to release the information and have her caught off guard. This would giver her adequate time to prepare her response to the police department. As far as John Apple goes, I dont know if I would let him know before hand. He was responsible for his own DUIs and should be able to respond to his mistakes. Defense: The people who dont want this information to leak (my friend and John Apple) should have some say in how its released. They should also have fair warning to it being released. With those conditions, I feel that it is ok to release the DUI information. The voters deserve to know this about a political candidate. This will bring the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Although they may disagree with me releasing it, I think this

Harrison 6 information is worthy of being released. If I was a voter (which I am) and I later found out that my candidate had a recent DUI, I would feel a bit cheated. I admit that this may cause my friend harm, harm that may even get her fired from her job, but she is responsible for telling me. I feel that releasing this information later would only bring on a bigger scandal for John Apple.