That is a big help, undoubtedly, in reinforcing the fact that PRSA does uphold ethical standards by virtue of the code. A clear expectation if not requirement that members do. I’m an IABC member and IABC has something similar, with the requirement that members uphold the code of practice.

All well and good.

Yet such things would surely pack greater punch if PRSA’s (and IABC’s) name were added to the list of supporters of the anti-astroturfing campaign at the New PR Wiki.

How about it?

– Mike Cherenson, APR
Member, PRSA Board
Chair, Advocacy Advisory Board
Liaison, Board of Ethics and Professional Standards

======================================================
http://www.prsa.org/_News/leaders/beps081104.asp

Professional Standards Advisory PS-3 (August 2004)

_____

TO: Members of the Public Relations Society of America

FROM: PRSA Board of Directors - PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards

RE: Professional Standards Advisory PS-3 (August 2004) - “Front” Groups

All PRSA members pledge adherence to the Society’s Member Code of Ethics. As issues arise relating to the practice of public relations, the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) is charged with providing guidance on such issues within the framework of the Code provisions. The PRSA Board of Directors then provides these guidelines through professional standards advisories. The PRSA Member Code of Ethics may be found online at http://www.prsa.org .

ISSUE: Representation of front groups with undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants.

BACKGROUND: As this year’s political campaigns intensify, a variety of organizations - known as “front” groups - will surface on behalf of issues and candidates blindly sponsored by industries, organizations and individuals. PRSA members are reminded of the PRSA Code provision, “Disclosure of Information,” that is based on the premise that open communication is essential for informed decision-making in a democratic society. The provision states that a member shall:

Be honest and accurate in all communication.
Act promptly to correct erroneous communication for which the member is responsible.
Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
Disclose financial interest such as stock ownership of the client organization.
Avoid deceptive practices.

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE PRSA CODE: At least three Code provisions and three professional values relate to this issue. They are:

Code provisions

Free Flow of Information. 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.

Conflicts of Interest. Avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers and the publics.

Enhancing the Profession. Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.

Professional Values

Honesty. We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
Fairness. We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media and the general public.
Advocacy. We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.

EXAMPLES: (Hypothetical examples provided to help in the front group recognition process.)

Citizens for Tougher Tobacco Laws* (committed to passing legislation in every state that pre-empts all local smoking legislation resulting in lighter state standards)
National Association for Good, Honest, Conservative Politicians* (committed to the defeat of liberal elected officials)
Coalition for Better Food* (sponsored by farm interests dedicated to softening legislation on feed lot pollution)
Automotive Safety Advocates* (coalition of auto parts manufacturers lobbying to lessen regulation on auto repairs at the state level nationwide)
Sustainable Earth* (coalition of business organizations and interests committed to fighting tougher environmental legislation)
PEACE People Everywhere Against Coercive Education* (religious organizations committed to getting prayer into schools)

*Hypothetical organization

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE: PRSA members should recognize that assisting front groups that represent undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided.

In fact, I think IABC’s code of ethics in particular would be a good blueprint for some kind of international standard.

One thing every association could do is more proactively promote their codes. Remind members of such standards.

Surely the professional associations could play an active role in promoting debate about topics such as astroturfing, and educate practitioners so they understand why practices such as astroturfing are indefensible.

I’ve been surprised by how many communicators have said that they were unaware that astroturfing existed, or have expressed confusion about exactly what it is and why it’s a negative practice.

Judging by these reactions I’m sure that the professional actions could play a valuable role in educating our profession about the pitfalls of poor ethical practice - and how to avoid it.

However, it would be admirable for the associations to take a stronger stance on ethics - no matter how difficult that may be in practice.

Which is one reason, David, why I’m a bit cynical re CIPR. How much of a player will they be, and when? Same for PRSA, in fact.

An expression of support for the campaign would be quite easy for any association to do, I would have thought.

Second, if/when the associations come out against it they will face a conundrum on what level of position they are going to take. Will their position be a simple one of support for the overall concept or will they take a harder stand indicating that its practice runs counter to profession ethics?

And then, if they take the second, profession leadership stand, will they be prepared to back it up by prosecuting firms/individuals for ethics violations? Of course, this isn’t good for membership numbers when you start *potentially* casting stones at your own members.

I therefore don’t see any association stepping fully up to the plate on this. They might go as far as making a statement that Astroturfing is not professional and shouldn’t be done, but they won’t go any further.

Unlike the medical and law professions who can - and have - barred practicioners for violations that hurt the credibility of the profession (even when the violations are illegal) when have you known any communications/PR association that has taken a similar stand?

I’m increasingly frustrated by PRSA’s falling behind the times. Although they inundate their members will teleseminars and programs about blogging and podcasting, they have yet to implement a blog or podcast. Instead, they have a lame survey asking “What info would be useful on this site?” The choices: Sources, PR Blogs, Research/Surveys or Spokespersons. The poll: It’s on the media page. They have yet to recognize that their members (their most important asset) might benefit from communications that aren’t considered by many to be spam.

I guess there will be some work done on the legal side of this activity. It is very hard not to avoid Passing Off when Astroturfing. Passing Off extends well beyond IP and was first used to prevent what we call Astroturfing in political campaigns in the 18th century. It is illegal in the UK.