Why Have Codes of Ethics?
Posted by: Tom Keefe, in General, IABC, blogging, communicationsAllan Jenkins has raised an important issue on his blog.
Why should groups feel that they have the “right” to impose codes of ethics on others, as has Tim O’Reilly? As a member of the International Association of Business Communicators, I agree to honor the IABC Code of Ethics. The preface of the IABC Code of Ethics spells out the association’s perceived reason/value for the code.
I’m copying the preface below, and would like your response to it in terms of whether it is any more or less valuable to communicators, including bloggers, than the O’Reilly “code.”
Preface
Because hundreds of thousands of business communicators worldwide engage in activities that affect the lives of millions of people, and because this power carries with it significant social responsibilities, the International Association of Business Communicators developed the Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators.
The Code is based on three different yet interrelated principles of professional communication that apply throughout the world.
These principles assume that just societies are governed by a profound respect for human rights and the rule of law; that ethics, the criteria for determining what is right and wrong, can be agreed upon by members of an organization; and, that understanding matters of taste requires sensitivity to cultural norms.
These principles are essential:
- Professional communication is legal.
- Professional communication is ethical.
- Professional communication is in good taste.
Recognizing these principles, members of IABC will:
- engage in communication that is not only legal but also ethical and sensitive to cultural values and beliefs;
- engage in truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding; and,
- adhere to the following articles of the IABC Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators.
Because conditions in the world are constantly changing, members of IABC will work to improve their individual competence and to increase the body of knowledge in the field with research and education.
As an IABC member, I feel professionally bound to honor the IABC code of ethics, but I don’t demand that everyone else subscribe to it. Frankly, Allan’s point that his “badge” is his blog can be expanded to say that every communicator’s work is his or her badge. But does that mean that we should actively resist any attempt to apply standards (ethics) to measure our work against that of others?
Because I believe that all people inherently are flawed, I don’t believe that we can be left to set our own individual standards and base our “success” on whether or not anyone pays attention to our work.
The result of no standards is that the bar lowers to the least common denominator, and real debate that can lead to enlightenment and advancement gets stuck in the muck.
Comments?
Entries (RSS)
April 10th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The first thing I need is a definition of “professional communications” that makes sense. Everything else hinges on those two words. Who (in the world) gets to define them?
For that matter, one time I asked on John Wagner’s blog (where he will tell you that I’m a loyal reader) what separated a “professional communicator” from a mere “communicator.” And I wanted a definition that third parties (such as HR personnel and “the market”) would understand. I didn’t want an answer coming from a practitioner who thought he or she was really good at communications. You know, professional. John declined to answer me. (Chicken.)
“Because I believe that all people inherently are flawed” Whew…that’s pretty sweeping. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I can tell you that a code of ethics that doesn’t have any teeth (i.e., possibility of a disciplinary procedures and punitive damages, including publication of the infraction/sentence) is going to have a limited influence. If any. Whether it be on a blog, or whether it be the code of ethics of a trade association. Especially with all of those inherently flawed people running/blogging around. But I take you out of that mix, friend. I’ve never known you to exhibit anything but the utmost integrity, whatever the dealing or circumstance.
I now have a “stuck in the muck” refrain running through my head. Thanks for that!
April 10th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
[...] refuses to see the need for bloggers to be bound by a single code of ethics. Read his post, read my reply, and then leave your comments here to create some discussion about this timely [...]
April 10th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Having a code of ethics is meant to help the innocent and curb those that use their powers for evil instead of good. Most professions have them, and I don’t believe it’s for the honorable people that practices their profession in good faith and honesty.
Cops (Police) that patrol the streets. Now most of them are good upstanding professionals, however, there are a few of them that decide to use their power (badge) for evil instead of good. An oath of ethics is sworn unto them when they graduate from their respective academies to help protect and serve.
Doctors have an ethics board to ensure that they are treating patience fairly. They also have an oath sworn onto them reminding them that they are in practice to help cure the ill and not help them end their lives (which is another blog stream of thought for another time). Hence the problem with Dr. K.
The list could go on and on with people that have true “power” and the innocent are at the mercy of these people.
So I guess the question to ask you Tom, are you using your power for good? Or evil?
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
The O’Reilly Saga continues in his comments section. O’Reilly says he knows the person who attacked against Kathy Sierra. He gets the victim and the perpetrator together on CNN – then somebody pumps up the NY Times publicity machinery for both the victim and the perpetrator. It doesn’t take a genius to see who may be gaining from this little fracas.
Then O’Reilly starts blaming a random responder as being an attacker. And when bloggers respond, most of the track backs lead to O’Reilly’s Radar Website – and (duh – as an Internet expert!) he is unaware that there are persistent error messages generated in his responders’ posts, so that it becomes a hit and miss game whether the post actually gets published or not.
Perhaps Tim’s involvement relates to this little gem.
Sierra’s current gig, along with her partner Bert Bates, is developing and producing the bizarre new Head First series of books for O’Reilly
April 24th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Proud to be Anonymous,
I haven’t spelled out my thinking about anonymous comments, so I’m taking a minute now. I prefer that anyone who wants to share a comment here be willing to share their name. I will post anonymous comments so long as they do not contain anything libelous or accusatory without an apparent solid basis in fact (e.g., rumors). Your comment comes close, but doesn’t cross a line that disturbs me. If Tim O’Reilly, Kathy Sierra or Bert Bates disagree, and they find this blog, I’ll be glad to post their comments too.
Tom