Ethics, Persuasion and Modern Media

Ethics, Persuasion and Modern Media

The ethics of persuasion has been a debate since the formal teaching of rhetoric and speech. In 1930 the debate rounded the table again due to the social customs of “high-pressure salesmanship, questionable advertising, commercialized evangelism, and emotional jury appeals.” (Schrier, 1930) The problem of appropriate persuasion inspired a response.  The following description of the relationship between ethics and persuasion was written: “. . . Speech is a tool, and . . . it may therefore be both used and abused; it may be employed in worthy causes or toward evil ends.”  When it comes to the considerations of ethics in persuasion, it is true that communication can be used for good or for evil. Throughout many forms of rhetoric there are examples of persuasion that originate from respect, love and care and persuasion that is a result of manipulation, force and control. Persuasion in and of itself is neutral. (Seiter & Gass, 2004) However, the motives behind persuasion draw an ethical argument that continues into our technological age.  The factors of transparency in media and public relations are one aspect of the ethics of persuasion in current events. This includes political media, news stories and the efforts of major companies that are motivated by political aspirations, bias, and profit. We will look at these factors in light of the ethical concerns in persuasion.

Two theories of ethics that can help the discussion of ethics and persuasion move forward are The Utilitarian Approach as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and The Rights Approach of Immanuel Kant. The Utilitarian Approach requires that actions produce the greatest amount of good and least amount of harm. It requires an understanding of who will be affected by the decisions being made and a recognition of which harms may happen to whom.  Decisions are then based on what course of action produces the greatest benefit to the most people. (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996) The Rights Approach developed by Immanuel Kant focuses on individual rights and the ability of people to choose for themselves in all decisions that affect their life and well being. It states that, “People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.” (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996) Another aspect of The Rights Approach that affects media disseminated information is that it states people have a, “right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect . . . choices.” (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996) We will look at these two theories in light of two modern media considerations.

Today, with the majority of information disseminated through the media, one component of ethics is that it is hard to tell where information and persuasive messages are originating. This lack of transparency makes up a clear problem in the ethics of persuasion as the person creating the information does not have to identify themselves or their authority for scrutiny. For example, if a blog clearly sides with one politician on a controversial issue, and it is later discovered that the blog was funded and by the same politician or his political party, though it claimed to be impartial, the lack of transparency raises ethical considerations about the information that was given and the people that believed they were receiving unbiased information in order to make their own decisions. This type of communication is called “covert persuasion” and is defined as, “advocacy disguised as information or as independent opinion.” (Boynton, 2007, p. 221) It is contrary to both The Utilitarian Approach of decision making in ethics and The Rights Approach of decision making in ethics. In order to support the greatest number of people, the information needs to be put into context and the reader or receiver should have enough information to determine the bias and authority of the person stating the information. In the above situation the blog was created and edited for the one-single person or the political party that would benefit the most from people believing what it said, it did not serve the greatest good. It also did not allow for people to make decisions freely with unbiased or un-manipulated information. This happens with political media frequently as pundits hope to persuade people to believe in their governance through telling partial stories, leaving out important statistics, even name calling in order to develop a stronger “us versus them” rhetoric that either limits the amount of good that can be done or removes the right of choice from certain people or people in certain situations.

In the news media, a common topic that is approached from a persuasive tone is the current debate over food stamps. While listening to some television stations one could be easily convinced that the food stamp program in the United States is completely out of control, full of fraud and abuse, and that the majority of Americans currently on food stamps are taking advantage of a system that should be cut drastically in order to stop a “pattern of dependence”.  The persuasive tactics at work here include name-calling, withholding information and emotional pleas. However, a look at the facts and figures shows that the program has a low percentage of fraud and abuse and that the number of people using the program is in direct correlation with what should be expected at this juncture in our nation’s economic development and response to recent turmoil. (Shepard, 2011) When looking at these claims through ethical considerations, The Utilitarian Approach would insist that the right thing to do would be to help the greatest number of people, like the 47 million that are currently on food-stamps, instead of cutting those programs. The Rights Approach would at least insist that information was given in order for the public and individuals to make the best decision possible about the situation. From some biased news perspectives neither of these ethical approaches seem to be at work.

As we have seen through the above examples and the application of ethical considerations to media today, it is an important decision for editors, bloggers and other media personnel to choose what is ethical in their reporting and the information and style they use to communicate with their audiences. Transparency is appropriate in nearly all places and should be readily available or sought out by the consumer so decisions can be made about the validity of the information. By applying just two of the most popular ethical theories – The Utilitarian Approach and The Rights Approach – many of today’s commentaries, political attacks and public relations efforts would change in scope. The ethical theories to support the greatest good and respect people’s right and ability to choose should influence today’s media professionals.

References

Boynton, L. (2007). A Case of Covert Persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 221-225.

Jones Westby, G. E. (2014, March 26). Cut in SNAP benefits hurts the hungry, economy. Vernon County Broadcaster.

Schrier, W. (1930). The Ethics of Persuasion; A Defense of Rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 476-486.

Seiter, J. S., & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Shepard, D. S. (2011). Hunger in America; Suffering We All Pay For. Center for American Progress.

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, S., & Meyer, M. (1996, Winter). Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making. Retrieved from Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html