1. Intention: the Editor of City Press agreed to undertake a campaign with certain objectives. However, an editor must never be a public relations practitioner, ie, manage the perceptions of various target publics of their clients, while at the same time claim to be in a position to maintain objectivity about what is in the public good to their readers.
2. Influence: an Editor of a publication holds a significant degree of influence and a dual role in public relations calls into question the extent to which the individual is prepared to exert their personal power over the organisation on the basis of political, social, business or monetary influence or pure self interest.
3. Disclosure: the Editor of City Press had a duty to disclose his dual role to his peers, superiors and advertising staff. However, even this would have compromised his position. For this reason, The New York Times keeps its advertising and editorial staff completely separate.
According to Grunig, the most important question for public relations consultants in relation to ethics, is the issue of divided loyalty that is inherent in PR - balancing our own interests, with those of our clients, with those of its publics, as well as the interests of society.
For this reason, it is a moral imperative for PR practioners to abide by the Code of Ethics of PRISA, which is hard enough as it is for its members. Let media remain media please. Were the Editor of City Press a member of PRISA, he would be severely sanctioned by PRISA in terms of the Global Alliance Protocol Code of Ethics to which all its members subscribe, if found to be in contravention.
